General Switch Discussion

[Ronnie]

47 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

I think they're more or less gunning for all they can get on account of the Wii U being a massive flop, meaning they still feel there's plenty of people it will be new to to warrant selling it at full price. Not that I personally value these ports at full price, mind.

Seems to be working. Switch software numbers are insane.

[Glen-i]

4 hours ago, Fierce_LiNk said:

Will games other than NES games be added?

Yes, SNES games with online features have been confirmed back in January.

Now as to when they're coming...

[markderoos]

I think Nintendo needs to sell their ports for full price because they didn’t make enough money on these games when they released on Wii U. They lost a lot of money and this is a way to make up for that loss. I only double dipped with Mario Kart because I want to have that game on my Switch.

I also saw someone make a statement about Nintendo being the only company selling ports for full price. That’s blatantly not true though; when PS4/X1 launched a lot of their launch line ups consisted of PS3/X360 ports for full price.

Remakes/ports/collections of games that are a lot older (say 2 generations old) sometimes go full price and sometimes a lot cheaper. I don’t see a business standard that’s typical for any of the manufacturers. They all sometimes sell for less than the original game and sometimes the current market price for a new game.

[Hero-of-Time]

3 minutes ago, markderoos said:

I think Nintendo needs to sell their ports for full price because they didn’t make enough money on these games when they released on Wii U. They lost a lot of money and this is a way to make up for that loss. I only double dipped with Mario Kart because I want to have that game on my Switch.

I also saw someone make a statement about Nintendo being the only company selling ports for full price. That’s blatantly not true though; when PS4/X1 launched a lot of their launch line ups consisted of PS3/X360 ports for full price.

So because of Nintendo's own failure it's down the consumer to pay the price for it?

If the second paragraph is in relation to the list of games I posted, I didn't say that at all. I gave very recent examples of companies, both 1st and 3rd party, willing to respect their user base by selling older games at a lower price point. Also, the games I mentioned were games that weren't simply ported but given a massive amount of upgrades, polish and in some cases had more than 1 game with them. Some of them are pretty much remakes at this point.

[markderoos]

5 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

So because of Nintendo's own failure it's down the consumer to pay the price for it?

If the second paragraph is in relation to the list of games I posted, I didn't say that at all. I gave very recent examples of companies, both 1st and 3rd party, willing to respect their user base by selling older games at a lower price point. Also, the games I mentioned were games that weren't simply ported but given a massive amount of upgrades, polish and in some cases had more than 1 game with them. Some of them are pretty much remakes at this point.

No, in an ideal world the consumer shouldn’t pay for a company’s fault. I was coming from a business point of view.

And no again, your list was basicaly something I agree with, someone else stated (was it @Sheikah maybe?) that only Nintendo sell ports of last generation titles for full price. That’s obviously no true.

Personaly I’m no fan of all the Wii U ports as I owned all of them and am dying for some original first party games, but I can understand it from a business point of view.

[Ronnie]

Buying a game twice is 100% up to the consumer, so they're not "paying the price" for the game not selling on Wii U, they're choosing to invest in the game on a different platform. Why should a current gen game have its value slashed just to "reward" people who've bought it already? (As if playing the game itself the first time wasn't reward enough)

I bought, played and loved Tropical Freeze and Hyrule Warriors on Wii U, but have zero inclination or desire to buy it a second time, so I won't.

[Ashley]

But you're not guaranteed to be buying the game twice. The switch has already outsold the Wii U so statistically there's a significant chance someone purchasing a definitive version has not purchased the original is paying full price for an old game with funky mode added on. 

Yes they choose to, but Nintendo is out of line with convention and to bring it back to where this started, they have no right to be talking about being greedy as a business (in a mobile space maybe, but not as a company). It's not to say they don't have the right to do what they want, but they're not beyond criticism.

[Sheikah]

So because of Nintendo's own failure it's down the consumer to pay the price for it? If the second paragraph is in relation to the list of games I posted, I didn't say that at all. I gave very recent examples of companies, both 1st and 3rd party, willing to respect their user base by selling older games at a lower price point. Also, the games I mentioned were games that weren't simply ported but given a massive amount of upgrades, polish and in some cases had more than 1 game with them. Some of them are pretty much remakes at this point.  

 

This is basically it. Yeah, Nintendo can charge full whack again, and make more money from the people who never had a Wii U. It's more or less a question of integrity - they can charge a discounted rate if they want, given its a port, or not. We all know that people who bought it the first time that shouldn't be paying full price again at least.    

 

I also saw someone make a statement about Nintendo being the only company selling ports for full price. That’s blatantly not true though; when PS4/X1 launched a lot of their launch line ups consisted of PS3/X360 ports for full price.

I assume you mean games like Black Flag, which were released on consoles like PS4 just months after PS3. Not the 3 to 4 years or so that Mario Kart was released on Switch. Let's keep the comparisons relevant here - Nintendo are releasing considerably older past generation games, single games, at full retail price, something I am not aware is being done on any scale by another company.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Ronnie]

Not sure where the suggestion that Miyamoto is criticising greed in the mobile industry. He said their one-time-payment model hasn't worked too well but that they're going to try and persist with it.

48 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

We all know that people who bought it the first time that shouldn't be paying full price again at least

There you go again speaking on behalf of everyone. No we don't all think people who bought it one one console shouldn't be paying the same price on another. That's the whole point of this discussion.

54 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

Not the 3 to 4 years or so that Mario Kart was released on Switch. Let's keep the comparisons relevant here - Nintendo are releasing considerably older past generation games, single games, at full retail price, something I am not aware is being done on any scale by another company. 

Three years. Two years 11 months actually. It's practically ancient. With tons of DLC added and a brand new battle mode. How dare they charge full price.

Sony don't release Shadow of the Colossus (a game that's actually old) at a reduced price out of the kindness of the heart. They do it because PS4 owners would laugh at having to pay full price for a remaster.

[Sheikah]

There you go again speaking on behalf of everyone. No we don't all think people who bought it one one console shouldn't be paying the same price on another. That's the whole point of this discussion.

Ok then, you feel you should be paying full price for a game you already played? Despite the fact you admitted earlier you would pay less on the other consoles if you could? What makes Nintendo games so deserving of a second full price splash? I can think of ports and remakes just as good that haven't launched full price. We are accustomed to paying less for titles from a previous generation, that's just the way it always goes. The company makes a little extra cash for a game they re-release with minimal effort. I genuinely didn't think this would be a point of contention on account of it being such common sense.

Three years. Two years 11 months actually. It's practically ancient. With tons of DLC added and a brand new battle mode. How dare they charge full price.Sony don't release Shadow of the Colossus (a game that's actually old) at a reduced price out of the kindness of the heart. They do it because PS4 owners would laugh at having to pay full price for a remaster.

I find it strange that you brought up the Shadow of the Colossus remake to make a point here, and I think it underlies how little thought you are putting into making your points. The amount of work they put into that game was, pardon the pun, colossal. To quote Eurogamer:

We've been debating this amongst the team since the review code arrived, but we think it's fair to say that Shadow of the Colossus does stand as one of the finest remakes of all time. Is it the best? That's a difficult call to make, but the reasons for bestowing Bluepoint's work with this accolade are many: firstly, the visual update is sublime. It's a remake of a game that first appeared in October 2006, but regardless, the studio has delivered one of the most visually beautiful games of the generation. The fact that it offers a 60fps mode on top of that is just the icing on the cake.

The fact that a remake of this quality was released at a budget price while Nintendo ports (not remakes) are not is telling. Frankly, I find it a little disturbing how absolutely in Nintendo's pocket you are. We can see why Nintendo are charging full price (because profit) but that doesn't mean we have to agree with it.

[Ronnie]

If Nintendo slashed their prices to bargain basement ones six months after release I absolutely would take advantage, as H-O-T points out everyone loves a bargain. 

2 hours ago, Sheikah said:

you feel you should be paying full price for a game you already played

It has nothing to do with me. The software itself is still quality, why shouldn't it be full price. We're not talking about a 10 year old port, we're talking about a current gen game being released on a different platform. Now if Nintendo had a system where they could tell which accounts had already purchased the game on Wii U and offered those select people a discount then that would be great. Sadly not the case though. 

I'm fully aware how much work Bluepoint put into the Shadow remake (visually at least!). My point is if Sony thought they could get away with charging full price for it, they would have. 

Look I'm not saying I wouldn't welcome a 10 quid cheaper re-release of MK8. What I am against though is the crazy slashing of prices on PS4 and Xbox One games that do so much damage to the industry. One where publishers and studios are already struggling to make ends meet. Yes the lower price brings an extra influx of sales but the byproduct is lowering the value of games in the consumer's mind. Something Miyamoto directly talked about in the quote I posted. That's why Nintendo keep their games at the same cost for a long time and even if it puts me a bit more out of pocket I'm absolutely fine with. Games are more expensive than ever to make yet cost the same (if not less) as they have for decades.

[Ashley]

1 hour ago, Ronnie said:

If Nintendo slashed their prices to bargain basement ones six months after release I absolutely would take advantage, as H-O-T points out everyone loves a bargain. 

It has nothing to do with me. The software itself is still quality, why shouldn't it be full price. We're not talking about a 10 year old port, we're talking about a current gen game being released on a different platform. Now if Nintendo had a system where they could tell which accounts had already purchased the game on Wii U and offered those select people a discount then that would be great. Sadly not the case though. 

I'm fully aware how much work Bluepoint put into the Shadow remake (visually at least!). My point is if Sony thought they could get away with charging full price for it, they would have. 

Look I'm not saying I wouldn't welcome a 10 quid cheaper re-release of MK8. What I am against though is the crazy slashing of prices on PS4 and Xbox One games that do so much damage to the industry. One where publishers and studios are already struggling to make ends meet. Yes the lower price brings an extra influx of sales but the byproduct is lowering the value of games in the consumer's mind. Something Miyamoto directly talked about in the quote I posted. That's why Nintendo keep their games at the same cost for a long time and even if it puts me a bit more out of pocket I'm absolutely fine with. Games are more expensive than ever to make yet cost the same (if not less) as they have for decades.

If you're talking about the Switch remakes... No. They are literally from a previous generation console.

You also seem very privy to other companies business decisions. 

You're also conflating two issues, one being Nintendo re-releasing games at full price and another being new games being reduced quickly. 

[Clownferret]

I bought Mario Kart Switch purely because I got the Wii U version for free.  It's the only game I've brought twice (well maybe a few £3  indies) Mario Kart does have massive replay value though. But generally I wouldn't double dip and do feel there should be a discount to loyal Nintendo consumers that do. But I don't see why they would or should sell it cheaper to anybody else. For a start they have all the costs of launching a game again, new packaging, new medium, new marketing etc.

To look at it another way. I have hundreds of cd's and dvd's and large percentage of this I already owned on vinyl and vhs. So I had to buy all of these twice and never thought I should get these cheaper. It's exactly the same with games. 

[killthenet]

12 minutes ago, Clownferret said:

To look at it another way. I have hundreds of cd's and dvd's and large percentage of this I already owned on vinyl and vhs. So I had to buy all of these twice and never thought I should get these cheaper. It's exactly the same with games. 

That's exactly what I was thinking, when a film or album is re-issued or released on a new format it isn't sold any cheaper initially just because it's several years old. With games there is even more reason for them to be sold at a higher price point because of the extra work that has to go into production and porting it to new hardware.

Ideally console manufacturers would keep the same kind of architecture going forward so that all games are compatible with any future hardware iterations and I do believe we're moving towards this kind of model so hopefully in future consumers will be able to have access to their entire digital libraries from past consoles in the same way they can access their music from any device but video games is a unique marketplace, there is a lot more work to do behind the scenes to get an old game working on new hardware than there is to get a DVD working on a 4K blu ray player for instance. Legacy content in computing is simply more difficult to pull off correctly.

Hopefully Nintendo will continue to iterate on the Switch architecture in future so that all our purchases - digital or physical - will work on any subsequent hardware but I don't think it will be until streaming games is a viable option that we'll reach the point where access to our libraries is as painless and portable as our music collections currently are.

[Sheikah]

 

 

 

If Nintendo slashed their prices to bargain basement ones six months after release I absolutely would take advantage, as H-O-T points out everyone loves a bargain. 

It has nothing to do with me. The software itself is still quality, why shouldn't it be full price. We're not talking about a 10 year old port, we're talking about a current gen game being released on a different platform. Now if Nintendo had a system where they could tell which accounts had already purchased the game on Wii U and offered those select people a discount then that would be great. Sadly not the case though. 

I'm fully aware how much work Bluepoint put into the Shadow remake (visually at least!). My point is if Sony thought they could get away with charging full price for it, they would have. 

Look I'm not saying I wouldn't welcome a 10 quid cheaper re-release of MK8. What I am against though is the crazy slashing of prices on PS4 and Xbox One games that do so much damage to the industry. One where publishers and studios are already struggling to make ends meet. Yes the lower price brings an extra influx of sales but the byproduct is lowering the value of games in the consumer's mind. Something Miyamoto directly talked about in the quote I posted. That's why Nintendo keep their games at the same cost for a long time and even if it puts me a bit more out of pocket I'm absolutely fine with. Games are more expensive than ever to make yet cost the same (if not less) as they have for decades.

 

MK8 is not a current gen port, you keep saying that. The Wii U is a last generation console. You can tell this by it being the generation that came before this one.

 

I am also not following your logic - if quality should determine price, then good SNES games should be thirty quid on eShop. Saying that they're over 10 years old as a way to justify bargain prices doesn't make sense. To give an example of prices usually going down even after one generation - remember when Wii games got released on Wii U eShop? They were cheaper than when they launched on Wii. This is the point I'm making - they're only charging more this time because the Wii U was such a flop.

 

And "damage to the industry"? We see price reductions over time across the board, even on things like films too. We even see it on games like Witcher 3, which have not resorted to thing like microtransactions. How many people do you think continue to go out and buy a game like Xenoblade after it's like a year old? If anything dropping prices is healthy because otherwise hardly anyone else continues to buy it. Dropping prices gives a cash injection from sales that you normally don't see. I fail to see how it's anything but healthy for the developers who made the game. You're just not going to get further sales unless your game is extremely mainstream and popular.

 

[Hero-of-Time]

33 minutes ago, killthenet said:

That's exactly what I was thinking, when a film or album is re-issued or released on a new format it isn't sold any cheaper initially just because it's several years old. With games there is even more reason for them to be sold at a higher price point because of the extra work that has to go into production and porting it to new hardware.

I see your point but, at the same time, why is it that the games I mentioned yesterday ( all of which have significant upgrades ) are able to sell at a budget price and still turn a profit, yet something like Mario Kart or Captain Toad remain the same price but clearly have had less work needing doing to them to bring them over to the Switch? I know I keep harping on about it but Kingdom Hearts is such a cracking example because the developers really worked their butts off to upgrade the games, gave people extra content, put 4 very large games on a disc and still only felt the need to charge £30. 

I have to say, i've really enjoyed this topic. It's brought out some interesting points from everyone. 

[Sheikah]

With games there is even more reason for them to be sold at a higher price point because of the extra work that has to go into production and porting it to new hardware.

But porting is clearly costing them just a fraction of the original cost of developing a game from scratch. This is basically why ports and remasters are usually always cheaper, while still making the developer a profit.

[Goron_3]

I don't see the issue with price drops. If anything, it's a sign that the competition is so high for software sales on other platforms.

If you're happy to wait for a price, go for it. Likewise if you don't want to watch a film at the cinema due to it costing the same as month's Netflix fee, you're welcome to wait for that film to come out on Netflix six months down the line.

 

[markderoos]

24 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

Captain Toad

You make a good point, but Captain Toad doesn't release full price. It's €39,99 instead of €59,99 #nitpicking

In the end it's all down to mass market analytics; the consumers decide the worth of your product by buying it, or not. Nintendo (first party) software typically doesn't drop in price until games get the Nintendo Select treatment (usually after set number of sales). Games that bomb do get dropped in price a lot though (Mario Tennis Ultra Smash, Star Fox Zero and Codename S.T.E.A.M. are good examples). 

Sure, for an individual consumer this can be annoying because you feel and older game should be cheaper, but then again you don't have to buy it. A lot of other consumers don't seem to care though. That's also one of the reasons most first party Nintendo titles have such a high value on the second hand market.

-EDIT- Oh, and let's not forget the target demographic; a lot of Nintendo software is bought by families for kids. Those families don't need a game on release but most of the time buy them as a gift for let's say their child's birthday or holiday. That's a reason Nintendo doesn't need to lower some prices, their titles often keep sales momentum for a longer period of time.

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by markderoos

[Hero-of-Time]

1 minute ago, markderoos said:

You make a good point, but Captain Toad doesn't release full price. It's €39,99 instead of €59,99 #nitpicking

It released at the same price on the Wii U, so there was still no discount on the port.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Hero-of-Time

[Hero-of-Time]

In terms of price drops, GTA V is a fantastic example. That game has been in the chart for YEARS now. It held it's price well and often sees price drops. It's an evergreen title but the publisher is still willing to drop it's price from time to time.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Hero-of-Time

[markderoos]

4 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

It released at the same price on the Wii U, so there was still no discount on the port.

I bought it at €59,99 which was the RRP here. Was it a budget title in the UK? Didn't know that.

-EDIT- Just Googled it and you're right! I clearly got screwed over by a retailer then! :')

Edited August 24, 2018 by markderoos

[Hero-of-Time]

Just now, markderoos said:

I bought it at €59,99 which was the RRP here. Was it a budget title in the UK? Didn't know that.

Yup. Think I got it for £32 when it was released on the Wii U. It was $40 in the US.

[markderoos]

4 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

In terms of price drops, GTA V is a fantastic example. That game has been in the chart for YEARS now. It held it's price well and then often sees price drops. It's an evergreen title but the publisher is still willing to drop it's price from time to time.

Yes, but that's exactly my point; the target market for a game (or even console) is different and every piece of software or hardware makes for a different market strategy. I'm relatively sure both Rockstar and Nintendo in the first place are in this game for the money

[killthenet]

27 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

I see your point but, at the same time, why is it that the games I mentioned yesterday ( all of which have significant upgrades ) are able to sell at a budget price and still turn a profit, yet something like Mario Kart or Captain Toad remain the same price but clearly have had less work needing doing to them to bring them over to the Switch? I know I keep harping on about it but Kingdom Hearts is such a cracking example because the developers really worked their butts off to upgrade the games, gave people extra content, put 4 very large games on a disc and still only felt the need to charge £30. 

I have to say, i've really enjoyed this topic. It's brought out some interesting points from everyone. 

I think it just depends on the publisher, the game and the platform. Nintendo games very rarely lose their value so Nintendo obviously feel they can still reach their sales targets when charging full price for straight ports of games - the success of MK8 and Tropical Freeze shows that there is still a demand for them even at the higher price point. Similarly Blizzard are releasing Diablo III on Switch this year and charging £50 for it and Bethesda charged full price for Skyrim and Doom despite them being available for a pittance on other platforms. Rockstar charged less for LA Noire but I can't imagine them doing the same if they were to re-release Red Dead Redemption on modern platforms or ported GTAV to Switch - they know that there is a significant enough market for those titles to warrant a high sale price. 

With something like Kingdom Hearts Square Enix are using the previously released games as a sort of marketing campaign for the very expensive and long in development KH3 so I guess they are simply using sales to offset that cost and raise interest in the series rather than worry too much about them being financially successful in their own right. I'd be interested to see how much the Yakuza games cost Japanese consumers, in the West it behoves Sega to sell them cheaper to raise interest in a series that isn't exactly popular but in Japan it's a very poor franchise so they could probably get away with charging more.

As I said hopefully the straight port soon becomes a thing of the past as it's better for the consumer to have access to all their titles on subsequent platforms, Nintendo are very astute at finding strong revenue streams so I'm sure they would find other ways to profit from their back catalogue.