The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom

[Ronnie]

7 hours ago, darksnowman said:

Thanks for the insight, Doug.

Since there've been plenty of "incredibly full, deeply immersive" Nintendo games until now that weren't $70, I'm gonna take it that you want me to believe there's added value here based on how many hectares TotK is stretched out over, especially now it spans from the depths up to the heavens. If that's really how you price these things, and you aren't just trying to wring every last dollar you can out of the fanbase, then I'm looking forward to a Zelda in the $5-10 range.

Insider Q&A-Nintendo’s Bowser

I think TotK will be the same RRP as BOTW was in Europe. The $10 price increase is only in the US I believe.

Wasn't Ocarina of Time $80 at release? That'd be about $140 these days with inflation . 

Edited March 14, 2023 by Ronnie

[Ashley]

1 hour ago, Ronnie said:

Wasn't Ocarina of Time $80 at release? That'd be about $140 these days with inflation 

$60 apparently. Which would be $110 today so not too far off. 

If they want to charge $70 fine but saying it's because it provides an "immersive experience" is an odd choice because it suggests other games aren't. Just say it's a big ass game that took a long time and a lot of people (maybe not those exact words).

[Ronnie]

9 minutes ago, Ashley said:

$60 apparently. Which would be $110 today so not too far off. 

If they want to charge $70 fine but saying it's because it provides an "immersive experience" is an odd choice because it suggests other games aren't. Just say it's a big ass game that took a long time and a lot of people (maybe not those exact words).

TOTK is a fair bit bigger in file-size than BOTW, so it needs to be manufactured on 32GB cards, as opposed to the 16GB ones of BOTW. More cost involved there. 

I suspect Bowser saying the game has 'a lot of content' is basically the above, but in corporate-speak.

[Ashley]

Oh yeah I don't doubt there's a lot, it was more the way it's phrased could be interpreted as a diss on other switch games. Just an odd choice of words but 🤷‍♂️

[bob]

It's bizarre that the price of video games is one of the few things that apparently aren't allowed to increase with inflation, and if they do, the publishers have to come up with a load of convoluted excuses as to why they've gone up.

I mean, I don't like paying more for things, and would prefer it if everything stayed the same price forever (or even went down!), but I understand that inflation is a thing, so why can't they just say that?

[Ike]

1 hour ago, bob said:

It's bizarre that the price of video games is one of the few things that apparently aren't allowed to increase with inflation, and if they do, the publishers have to come up with a load of convoluted excuses as to why they've gone up.

I mean, I don't like paying more for things, and would prefer it if everything stayed the same price forever (or even went down!), but I understand that inflation is a thing, so why can't they just say that?

Thing is people want 4k, 120fps open world games with realistic physics and all sorts of bells and whistles, those things aren't free for the developers, but they don't want to pay extra for them.

People are all supportive when it comes to developers being treated well, but not paying more for a game so they can get paid a bit more, it's weird.

[Ashley]

I would assume a lot of people look at it as "the devs work hard and deserve more money, I also work hard and things are getting more expensive so I don't feel like I can/should pay more, these large companies earn millions so they should just take the cut". There's obviously flaws to that argument (it can only go so far for one) but I imagine a lot of people think something along those lines. 

[Happenstance]

I just think we've hit a price where people are finding it hard to justify anymore. I absolutely get games are expensive to create and Devs deserve to be paid correctly but I also can't bring myself to pay £70 for a new game. I can't remember the last game I bought at launch. It was already an expensive hobby but now it's just become too expensive for me.

[Ike]

If it's a matter of affordability then yeah that's understandable.

[bob]

4 hours ago, Ike said:

Thing is people want 4k, 120fps open world games with realistic physics and all sorts of bells and whistles, those things aren't free for the developers, but they don't want to pay extra for them.

People are all supportive when it comes to developers being treated well, but not paying more for a game so they can get paid a bit more, it's weird.

The cost of implementing those things come down in time too. It's not like we're expecting 4k graphics made on a NES devkit. I understand that games tend to be more complicated than they used to be, but the tools that they make them with are better.

[Glen-i]

The key difference here is that the typical strategy of waiting until it plummets in price doesn't really work with Nintendo.

I'm in the mindset that this blatantly opportunistic, because, come on, this game in particular doesn't need help to make a profit.

[Ronnie]

39 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

I'm in the mindset that this blatantly opportunistic, because, come on, this game in particular doesn't need help to make a profit.

Return on six years of investment I guess?

The game needs a higher capacity game card than every other first party Switch game, so there's a technical reason for it.

I'm not fussed because it's the same price in the UK as BOTW was, but I do agree that gaming (outside of Nintendo) has never been cheaper than it is today, so 

Edited March 14, 2023 by Ronnie

[darksnowman]

On 13/03/2023 at 6:33 PM, EEVILMURRAY said:

Maybe you get a beej out of it?

There's amiibo x Labo VR potential in that.

8 hours ago, Ike said:

Thing is people want 4k, 120fps open world games with realistic physics and all sorts of bells and whistles

Nintendo is at its best when they aren't doing what people want.  

Are bells and whistles new Shiekah slate abilities?

53 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

The game needs a higher capacity game card than every other first party Switch game, so there's a technical reason for it.

When prices dropped during the GameCube era I didn't expect them to edge back up. Maybe those discs had their benefits after all!

[Sheikah]

It's bizarre that the price of video games is one of the few things that apparently aren't allowed to increase with inflation, and if they do, the publishers have to come up with a load of convoluted excuses as to why they've gone up.

I mean, I don't like paying more for things, and would prefer it if everything stayed the same price forever (or even went down!), but I understand that inflation is a thing, so why can't they just say that?

Video games have generally become much more profitable though over the years which is why they can afford to stay the same price. A constantly growing audience, microtransactions and DLC mean there's generally much more money coming in. To the point that some games are even F2P as they've figured out that brings more money in in the long run.

So when it seems like they're coming up with convoluted excuses for price rises...that's usually because they are convoluted excuses.

[Ronnie]

5 hours ago, Sheikah said:

Video games have generally become much more profitable though over the years which is why they can afford to stay the same price. A constantly growing audience, microtransactions and DLC mean there's generally much more money coming in.

That's an incredibly vague assertion. Any sources to back this claim up?

1000 people worked on Assassin's Creed Origins. It sold 10 million.

Around 50 people worked on Mario Kart 64. It also sold 10 million.

 

[Josh64]

9 hours ago, Ronnie said:

That's an incredibly vague assertion. Any sources to back this claim up?

1000 people worked on Assassin's Creed Origins. It sold 10 million.

Around 50 people worked on Mario Kart 64. It also sold 10 million.

 

I've always been really interested in videogame profit but never found anything on it. I love reading up on the box office subreddit about how much money films have made compared to how much they cost to produce and market. 

 

To the point of games now making more money, I think it's beyond a doubt that videogames are more popular now and thus technically make more money, but you make a great example there. I guess it depends per game, but the ceiling for sales is much higher now. 64 games were likely much cheaper to produce but even the highest selling ones couldn't reach the current highs that are possible. Mario Kart 8 may have initially cost more to make than 64 on Wii U, but Deluxe was surely not too costly, and has now sold 40+ million, so I'd guess in that case it's made a lot more money than Mario Kart 64. 

DLC is also a valid argument, and Mario Kart also no doubt makes loads in that regard, especially considering the relatively cheap production again, given the existing assets from the base game and the assets stripped from Tour. 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Josh64

[Julius]

I'm 100% with @Josh64 on this one, I also find the box office fascinating and I think it's a huge shame that something similar isn't reported in large part for games (even Nintendo "only" provide units sold), as it completely skews the perspective of what's considered a success and what isn't for a game by the audience, which is naturally going to be different for each and every game. 

15 hours ago, Sheikah said:

Video games have generally become much more profitable though over the years which is why they can afford to stay the same price. A constantly growing audience, microtransactions and DLC mean there's generally much more money coming in.

I mean, increased revenue streams don't necessarily mean more profit if the costs involved in producing (and these days also maintaining) the game have also increased alongside that.

I'm sure many developers would just as well argue the opposite (that MTXs and DLC are a necessity in making their game a success), especially considering that a good chunk of the successful F2P games that live and die on the MTX hill are coming from huge publishers to begin with, and who have shareholders to report to. 

15 hours ago, Sheikah said:

To the point that some games are even F2P as they've figured out that brings more money in in the long run.

Right, but we've also seen many, many more games flop with a F2P model than we've seen succeed, and of the minority of F2P games that have seen success, there are very few that I would say are doing so without some sort of pre-existing built-in install base (most successful F2P games I feel have thrived off the back of the name of the AAA developer or franchise it is spun off from).

Heck, even Fortnite needed a favour from PUBG in that it was paid-for early access when it launched with Save the World and, because of the type of game it was initially set up to be and because of who it was developed by, transitioned stupidly fast after seeing the success of PUBG into also having a Battle Royale mode which went F2P and came with a slew of MTXs. 

As for the topic at hand, yeah I think it's just Nintendo potentially getting ready to diversify their prices ahead of the launch of the Switch's successor. Now whether or not this means we see games come in at the other end, like shorter titles selling for $30, remains to be seen, but I think Tears of the Kingdom is the obvious game to start to set the bar with when it comes to a price hike up to $70, because I think that's unlikely to dissuade too many from picking it up based on the commercial and critical success of Breath of the Wild. Won't be shocked at all if Prime 4 ends up in a similar situation, or the next Mario, but I don't expect it to be the norm...

...yet. 

[Dcubed]

17 hours ago, Sheikah said:

Video games have generally become much more profitable though over the years which is why they can afford to stay the same price. A constantly growing audience, microtransactions and DLC mean there's generally much more money coming in. To the point that some games are even F2P as they've figured out that brings more money in in the long run.

So when it seems like they're coming up with convoluted excuses for price rises...that's usually because they are convoluted excuses.

Worth noting that total software sales numbers are actually on a downward trend and have been since the end of the PSWii60 generation.

The truth is that the “traditional” (i.e non- Nintendo) console industry is contracting, and has been contracting for more than a decade now.  That’s the real reason why you’ve seen the rise of MTX as software sales get compressed into a smaller and smaller number of big tentpole games and companies aim to offset falling retail software revenue with increasing digital margins and squeezing more and more money out of an ever dwindling audience.

Pretty much everyone on the console side outside of Nintendo has failed to really bring in new audiences to console gaming.  And as the current audience continues to die off, so too will the traditional side of the industry.

This is why you’re seeing companies now starting to pivot towards subscription services and hardware agnosticity.  Even the likes of Sony now release their first party titles on PC, as they realise that the traditional console industry is living off of borrowed time.

As for what this has to do with TOTK? This is just NOA moving their pricing in line with what NCL and NOE already did with BOTW, because they’re now in a position where they can justify the price hike (They would never have been able to get away with it back in 2017, when it was literally do or die for the company coming off the Wii U and throwing everything at the Hail Mary that was the NX/ Switch).

[Sheikah]

 

Quote

1000 people worked on Assassin's Creed Origins. It sold 10 million.

Around 50 people worked on Mario Kart 64. It also sold 10 million.

Well that's not really a good comparison. Those are two entirely different games with different purposes and setups. AC for instance relies heavily on virtual tourism and realism, which you could argue justifies having bigger teams (at the cost of profit). But then AC Odyssey also has more ways of making profit than MK64 did - it has multiple limited edition versions, microtransactions, things like XP boosters, multiple DLC packs (which admittedly the most recent MK game has too, but I think AC charges more for them). AC games also make a juicy wad from being put on subscription services too like PlayStation Plus Extra. Certainly, you could argue that both sold the same number of copies but likely the revenue was nowhere close.

A better comparison would be within series - i.e. compare Mario Kart 64 to Mario Kart Switch, or FIFA 96 to FIFA 23. Which I'm sure you can guess are way, way more profitable now, with bigger audiences and more revenue streams. I believe FUT alone in FIFA brings in something silly each year, like over a billion USD. No way in hell were they making that money with FIFA 96. So yeah, for the majority of games, I'd argue they're much more profitable, if nothing more because there's usually bigger audiences now and more ways they make money now - not just from the sale of the game. There will be exceptions to this though (like with some first party games with no microtransactions, which more or less serve as tools to sell consoles).

5 hours ago, Julius said:

Right, but we've also seen many, many more games flop with a F2P model than we've seen succeed, and of the minority of F2P games that have seen success, there are very few that I would say are doing so without some sort of pre-existing built-in install base (most successful F2P games I feel have thrived off the back of the name of the AAA developer or franchise it is spun off from).

That's a different issue though (that being that most F2P are, by design, shit). Me mentioning F2P was more proof of concept - F2P exists because it can be very lucrative. All the additional revenue from microtransactions and the like can bring in so much cash that it can actually be better to not even charge for the game at all. Games these days can be extraordinarily profitable.

You often hear people say that microtransactions exist to keep the base game price static. But when FIFA is bringing in a billion a year on FUT it's clear they're making vast, vast profits that far exceed whatever they're arguing they need to recoup. Not every game is a FIFA, sure, but there's a heck of a lot of games making a lot of money from microtransactions and the like.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Sheikah

[Ronnie]

32 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

Well that's not really a good comparison. Those are two entirely different games with different purposes and setups. AC for instance relies heavily on virtual tourism and realism, which you could argue justifies having bigger teams (at the cost of profit). But then AC Odyssey also has more ways of making profit than MK64 did - it has multiple limited edition versions, microtransactions, things like XP boosters, multiple DLC packs (which admittedly the most recent MK game has too, but I think AC charges more for them). AC games also make a juicy wad from being put on subscription services too like PlayStation Plus Extra. Certainly, you could argue that both sold the same number of copies but likely the revenue was nowhere close.

Origins also plummeted in price a few months in. Mario Kart 64 sold most of its 10 million at full (£60) price.

I'll say it again, a dev team of 1000 vs a dev team of 50.

It's one of many examples that could be used to disprove your specious argument that games are much more profitable these days.

36 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

You often hear people say that microtransactions exist to keep the base game price static.

You often hear it because it's the truth. Not in all cases, but in the majority.

[Sheikah]

17 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

Origins also plummeted in price a few months in. Mario Kart 64 sold most of its 10 million at full (£60) price.

I'll say it again, a dev team of 1000 vs a dev team of 50.

It's one of many examples that could be used to disprove your specious argument that games are much more profitable these days.

You often hear it because it's the truth. Not in all cases, but in the majority.

You did however miss how I noted it was a bad comparison, and also seemed to miss comparing within series.

It's strange to me that you're comparing Mario Kart 64 with AC Origins instead of Mario Kart 64 with MK Switch. One of my arguments was that the audience has grown (which therefore means more people to sell to, either physically, digitally, or via subscription) - you can see this just by looking at Mario Kart 64 vs Switch sales. So why have you picked out a game that sold 10 million in the 90s vs a completely different kind of game that sold 10 million a few years ago? It's like you're not understanding the point I was making.

I could just as easily make a silly extrapolation using the example of Stardew Valley. A relatively recent game which sold 20 million copies and was mostly made by just one guy. This one examples therefore proves gaming is a million times more profitable than it ever used to be!! 

Quote

You often hear it because it's the truth. Not in all cases, but in the majority.

You mean from companies that then report record profits? Usually right before laying off a bunch of staff? Gotcha.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Sheikah

[Ronnie]

1 hour ago, Sheikah said:

You did however miss how I noted it was a bad comparison, and also seemed to miss comparing within series.

Why is it a bad comparison, because it doesn't fit your bizarrely obtuse, unsubstantiated and hilariously generalised assertion that "games are much more profitable these days"?

1 hour ago, Sheikah said:

It's like you're not understanding the point I was making.

I don't think anyone is, judging by the responses your posts have had. It's hard to understand a poorly thought out argument.

1 hour ago, Sheikah said:

t's strange to me that you're comparing Mario Kart 64 with AC Origins instead of Mario Kart 64 with MK Switch. One of my arguments was that the audience has grown (which therefore means more people to sell to, either physically, digitally, or via subscription) - you can see this just by looking at Mario Kart 64 vs Switch sales.

The discussion is about profitability. 

Two games sell the same number of copies. One with 1000 people working on it. One with 50. One that plummeted in price after release. One that kept its price. It's one comparison, but it's one that illustrates just how generalised and poorly thought out your "games are much more profitable these days" argument. It's more nuanced than that.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Ronnie

[Sheikah]

34 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

Why is it a bad comparison, because it doesn't fit your bizarrely obtuse, unsubstantiated and hilariously generalised assertion that "games are much more profitable these days"?

Why do you think? Because you are comparing apples and oranges. AC Origins is a game pitched as an authentic slice of Ancient Egypt, of course it requires a lot of people to develop it. You can't say "hey, this game had thousands of people making it, it proves that games aren't making as much profit!". It's an entirely different game with a different objective in mind. If it didn't have thousands of people making a realistic sandbox, it wouldn't reach those 10 million sales - but that's not the case with Mario Kart. Mario Kart is immensely popular (more so than AC), the fact it "only" sold 10 million on N64 is because the audience was smaller back then. Like I say, terrible comparison!

The proper comparison is to compare Mario Kart then to Mario Kart now. Which you seem to not want to do. Mario Kart now brings in way more money than it did back on the N64. Mario Kart Switch has sold 52 million copies. And add to that, it was a rehash of a Wii U game (so likely much lower development costs), and also had DLC for sale to bring in even more money! Yet...you're making a case games aren't more profitable now? This one comparison is far more accurate and supports everything I have been saying. The audience is bigger and there are more ways to generate revenue beyond game sales.

Quote

The discussion is about profitability. 

Two games sell the same number of copies. One with 1000 people working on it. One with 50. One that plummeted in price after release. One that kept its price. It's one comparison, but it's one that illustrates just how generalised and poorly thought out your "games are much more profitable these days" argument. It's more nuanced than that.

So then Starwdew Valley sold 20 million copies and mostly was just 1 guy making it. Does that put the lid on the argument then? Games are more profitable now? 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Sheikah

[EEVILMURRAY]

18 hours ago, Ronnie said:

That's an incredibly vague assertion. Any sources to back this claim up?

1000 people worked on Assassin's Creed Origins. It sold 10 million.

Around 50 people worked on Mario Kart 64. It also sold 10 million.

 

They only had that many so they could their quote of "race/belief/gender identity/favourite whale/tits or ass man/scrunch or fold" disclaimer at the beginning. 

 

I think of gaming prices a little like music... a single is roundabout the same price as it has been, coupla quid, albums going up to about a tenner, maybe £15, but the number of people involved has obviously gone up, as is the quality of the technology etc. What makes these able to do so is how unexclusive they are, a song to download will last a lifetime, but a concert ticket to see that artist will cost more because it's most exclusive

[Ronnie]

23 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

Why do you think? Because you are comparing apples and oranges. AC Origins is a game pitched as an authentic slice of Ancient Egypt, of course it requires a lot of people to develop it. You can't say "hey, this game had thousands of people making it, it proves that games aren't making as much profit!". It's an entirely different game with a different objective in mind. If it didn't have thousands of people making a realistic sandbox, it wouldn't reach those 10 million sales - but that's not the case with Mario Kart. Mario Kart is immensely popular (more so than AC), the fact it "only" sold 10 million on N64 is because the audience was smaller back then. Like I say, terrible comparison!

The proper comparison is to compare Mario Kart then to Mario Kart now. Which you seem to not want to do. Mario Kart now brings in way more money than it did back on the N64. Mario Kart Switch has sold 52 million copies. And add to that, it was a rehash of a Wii U game (so likely much lower development costs), and also had DLC for sale to bring in even more money! Yet...you're making a case games aren't more profitable now? This one comparison is far more accurate and supports everything I have been saying. The audience is bigger and there are more ways to generate revenue beyond game sales.

So then Starwdew Valley sold 20 million copies and mostly was just 1 guy making it. Does that put the lid on the argument then? Games are more profitable now? 

I'm comparing the profitability of two games that sold the same amount of copies and using it against your over-simplistic statement. Saying 'MK Switch sold more than MK 64 therefore gaming = more profitzz' these days is meaningless, and that's being polite. If that argument had any merit whatsoever, why not compare Lylat Wars to Starfox Zero?

You are, as usual, shifting the goal posts and hilariously missing the point. AAA gaming is (in general) far more expensive to produce these days than 20 or 30 years ago. That's my point. It's more nuanced than "more profit in gaming now".