Not defending Dementia Donny and either way I’m not shelling out $80 for a game ever, just wondering if this is really a result of the tariffs. I understand the console price being high due to them but I don’t see how it would affect the price of games that are essentially going to be 100% digital
This is the problem with tariffs, it’s an opportunity for greedy corporations to increase prices MORE than the tariffs or on products not covered by the tariffs and no one will be the wiser.
Well I’ve had essentially every console Nintendo has ever produced, but at least for now I’m not excited about the switch 2 for this very reason, I’m fairly put off about it.
I’m either going to buy a steamdeck or wait for the cost to go down (Nintendo is usually firm with their pricing though) on the Switch 2 before I’ll ever buy it or any games.
Especially while the US languishes under trump for the next nearly four years. I’m not going to have a lot of extra space for added expenses and price gouging.
Buy a steam deck
Ocarina of Time cost $116.91 at launch, accounting for inflation.
Edit: the original Legend of Zelda cost $144.89 at launch, also after inflation.
Yes, but only accounting for inflation really doesn’t tell the whole story compared to modern games. Games are primarily sold digitally now, meanwhile when OOT released all copies were physical cartridges - and that meant significantly higher cost of manufacturing and shipping. Also, games simply didn’t sell nearly as many copies back then as they do now. Being totally real, games don’t need to be more than $60 to turn a very very good profit.
Games are also a billion dollars to produce and market nowadays. Back on SNES they were like 500k.
Games don’t cost 90$ today for other platforms tho… even Nintendo that are a few years old still cost basically the same as at launch
They do. There are games on the PS5 store (digital ones) for more than 90 dollars. There are a few games I’ve seen upwards of 100 quid, which is about 130 dollars.
True, sure. I’m just saying the overall price of games has gone down significantly over time. An upward correction makes some sense. I’m not cheering it on, just trying to help frame the circumstances.
Competition for entertainment is higher than ever. You even have extremely good free games
An upward increase makes sense only because corporations will try to squeeze every possible cent from consumer. That’s the only justification that they need
deleted by creator
Considering they are delaying pre orders due to the tariffs I do not think tariffs are the reason the price is so high. I think Nintendo is trying to set a new standard for game prices. If these games still sell at $80 then I wouldn’t be surprised to see GTA 6 release for $100. The whole gaming market will likely follow.
The whole AAAAAAAA gaming market… I still see the Indy devs not caving to this bullshit. I only support indy devs now. The AAAAAAAAA pricks are useless, overpriced failures imo
Unpopular opinion:
They could probably charge $100 and people would still buy them, despite knowing the games aren’t worth that much. Consumers don’t really care; they just want their dopamine fixes. Nintendo could wrap a literal turd up and label it the next Zelda game, and people would bum rush stores with fistfuls of money to buy it; just because.
Which is why they’re upping the prices.
I don’t think it’s as much of an unpopular opinion as it is just a thing that happens. If the Sims community has taught me anything, diehard fans of a franchise will keep shelling out hundreds of dollars for new content even if it’s overpriced dogshit
And unfortunately until the community puts their collective foot down, these game developers (Nintendo, EA, etc) will continue churning out dog shit.
Just gouging us. Even on the 3DS before they shut the shop down, digital download games were the same price as buying them on a cart.
The new Switch 2 cartridges supposedly won’t have the games on them… just the license to download and play them.
The sheet was describing the new box art spec for games like this one, not saying that that their new games would do that. It will probably be the same situation as with the Switch 1 where only a tiny fraction of games are like that.
Yeah, doesn’t seem to be all… but probably more will be like that than Switch 1 if chips become too expensive especially with tariffs.
At least, they’ll be marked:
If that’s the case why would they bother giving game cards a higher speed interface?
I guess it’s not all games, but only some will be license only.
Pretty much the same as Switch 1 then
Not all games will be like that. Some will have the game on them. Street Fighter, Elden Ring, and Bravely Default are examples of a few that will be key cards. Oddly, I heard that Cyperpunk will be entirely on the cartridge.
Interesting. I know that one is 70GB minimum on Steam.
Wow, if the games are not on the cart then I’m not buying Nintendo.
Same here. Unless it’s a game that I absolutely can’t get anywhere else, I’m probably just gonna use the Deck for those “key cart” “games”.
They test out the water how much will the consumer spend.
If you don’t like the price wait for a sale or coupons.
Nintendo doesn’t really do sales
With the way they’re handling physical copies now I won’t be buying them at all, I prefer to own the games I pay for
It’s always corporate greed.
They can afford to sell games for $60 and still turn a profit.
But there’s an excuse to charge $70 because inflation.
And there’s and excuse to charge $90 because tariffs.
80? More like 90 if it’s the physical version.
No this isn’t because of tariffs. If anything tariffs will make it even worse (which will be painful.for americana to watch). This is just good ol’ Nintendo greed.
There’s zero justification for a Mario Kart game costing 80/90 dollars/euros. It’s simply not a game with the kind of investment behind it to justify such a price home. IMO only GTA6 has a somewhat reasonable argument to get away with that. Yes they will make a ton of money but they also spent quite a lot making it.
Aren’t the physical versions just a key you plug in that let’s you download the game? Seems to me like that’s just easing people into going full digital.
And subsequently kill off the second hand market, perfect for a company that famously never discounts their games.
My understanding is that only some games are a “key in a cartridge” and they are able to be resold second hand.
Someone corrected me the other day on here that it’s not all games that are doing that but only some will be a game key and others will be the full game. I’m assuming that all first party titles will be the game key since this is largely about piracy and not allowing people to easily dump the game from the cartridge like people did for the Switch.
From what I read, some are like that, but not all. That would be a fucking travesti.
Let’s put it this way, the market price for the Switch 2 is roughly the same converted price in the UK. Now, to my knowledge, the UK hasn’t also introduced these tariffs quietly so I can’t, in good conscience, blame ol’ Delusional Donald for this one.
Not to be THAT GUY, but games haven’t kept up with inflation or increasing development costs. Someone in these convos usually point out that, adjusted for inflation, that 80’s Donkey Kong game actually costs more in today’s money than $60-80. So I guess that’s me today lol
Do I agree that their worth that much? Ehhhh
But have we gotten massive improvements, longer games, more physics, graphics, etc? Yeah.
Games like GTA take half a decade or more to be made. If you want that kind of game development to continue, consessions need to be made somewhere. Now, maybe there’s a better place to do it, but asking more for these games isn’t completely unreasonable.
Edit: That Guy is back with some facts for y’all. In the 80’s Nintendo charged $30-50 USD for a game. So let’s take the middle of both(1985 and $40) and plug it into an inflation calculator. I did a few(two government websites and a random other one) and I got $116.93, $118.09, and $120.44 for today’s dollar value.
That’s how much Donkey Kong(the OG) would cost TODAY. Not Cyberpunk, not GTA, not Stardew Valley, but OG 16 bit Donkey Kong.
You really think prices shouldn’t increase? Please explain then in a way that isn’t just “but I want it cheap!”. If that’s your only argument, just pirate ffs. No one’s stopping you.
Also, INDIE GAMES. THEY EXIST. THEYRE AWESOME. THEYRE CHEAP.
Honestly this discussion just feels like entitlement from a lot of people.
Edit again: Still waiting for someone to articulate why modern games should cost less than a 16-bit relic from the 80s when adjusting for inflation. Seeing a lot of downvotes poping in, but not much writing. Some actual facts would be nice instead of “but I can’t afford it!”. Should I do console prices next? Wanna see how much an NES should cost in today’s money?
Edit again: oh look, here’s console prices adjusted for inflation… An original NES launched for $199 in 1985. In today’s dollars… $581.57. Hmm… You could buy a Steam Deck for that price today… It’s almost like things have gotten really good for us compared to then. Woooooow. And that’s not even mentioning that consoles used to be sold at a loss. Nintendo stopped selling consoles at a loss around the time of the Wii. So modern consoles actually cost what they take to make. Previous consoles were subsidized by the games and should have been more expensive. Y’all are also probably too young to remember when having a game console was a HUGE DEAL. It meant you were well off. Now everyone has 2 or 3.
Yes but back then most people only bought maybe 2-3 games the entire generation and traded with their friends. There was also a lot of local coop games.
Now people would like to play dozens of games and it’s difficult to share, often you even need to buy two copies of a game to even play with your family in the same house.
Exactly, games back then were EXPENSIVE. Currently we live in luxury where you have hundreds of options. How does that not justify it costing more?
If indie devs can make a game and sell it for less than Nintendo games sold for in the 90s then maybe it isn’t actually more expensive to develop and distribute games that are somewhat comparable to games from the 80s. A lot of games sell for $40 or less and are making profits.
Nintendo games are more expensive partially because they are limited to Nintendo hardware. Like Apple, this requires more costs for software because their target audience is smaller than something through a digital platform like steam, and distribution is a pretty significant cost and physical distribution has a lot of risk and waste compared to digital if something doesn’t sell as many as expected.
Ummm Nintendo has a digital platform, so not sure what you’re on about that one.
And in regards to indie studios: then buy their games and stop complaining, duh. Like, if you know there’s all these amazing and cheap alternatives, why are you bitching about what Nintendo charges? No one’s forcing you. Go play something else. It’s really that easy.
Nintendo, love em or hate them, is like Disney. They want to curate a very specific image. Look up the invention of the Nintendo Seal of Approval and why that was such a big thing. Nintendo wants to be very specific thing and frankly doesn’t give a shit if you like it. If you dont, then you’re not their target audience. It’s really that simple. Their not catering to everyone, they’re catering to a specific group. If they want to charge a certain amount but you know it’ll be quality cus it’s Nintendo, then what’s the harm?
You know what else hasn’t kept up with inflation? Wages.
So before you go espousing raising prices, let’s first make it so people can afford the higher costs.
Lmao that’s a completely seperate issue between you and your employer. Has nothing to do with the value of the dollar.
Has inflation kept up with wages? No. Have prices gone up anyways? Hell yes. Only thing you can find under $1 anymore is Arizona Tea, and even that isn’t a guarantee.
But yes, complain that a luxury item has gone up in cost. You know, something not necessary. So no one needs to make sure “everyone can afford it”. The ones who can buy, will buy, and the numbers show overwhelmingly that they do.
All you’re literally arguing is that wages should increase. Agreed. It should increase to match the new prices that are inflating as well. Wouldn’t change the fact that games cost the same “spending value” as before with the new pricetag.
I mean tbf complaining that less people can afford it now because prices have increased but wages haven’t is fair. Everything needs to be looked at relative to all the other values. If you wanna go even more in depth I guess you would need to add popularity of games, reputation of a brand or game series, value of the currency, and other factors.
I generally agree with you that prices for video games haven’t kept up that well, although I would also point out that due to multiple factors anchoring the video game price at 1980 might not be the best if you want a fitting picture. Games were much more rare baack then, the market was smaller, small production volume meant physical costs per unit increase, there’s things like way higher shipping costs to think about because globalization is a more modern phenomenon and a lot more stuff. Imo using the 2000s as an anchor to extrapolate from would be more fitting, as the market was well established at that point and thus prices would appear more stable.
I’m not doing that because I am literally a little gremlin who can’t be arsed to put the time in rn but these are my two cents of criticism against your methodology.
Yes, but you can make the wages claim about EVEYTHING. House, cars, food haven’t gone down. Everything else went up. So why is this one luxury exempt?
And yes, because of globalization, a Steam Deck is cheaper than a NES was. That’s great! So why are you complaining when prices are objectively better than 1980? Like yeah, we made things better! And even with inflation, they’re cheaper!
So why are you complaining about a $20-30 increase when the math says you should have a $60 increase? That’s what I’m calling entitlement. We have it objectively better by every metric in video games, including cost, and people are throwing a fit over an increase that’s still below inflation.
Be that guy. Games are too cheap.
I think Nintendo made a mistake pricing Mario Kart that way, since they’re selling it for half that price in a bundle anyway. Had it been 70 like DK with a bump of 10 for physical it’d be a different conversation.
Games have been around the $50-$70 mark my entire life.
It’s a sad reality, but I expect prices of major mainstream games to go up, regardless of tariffs.
Distribution cost of games has gone down to almost zero since then.
Frankly, I don’t even really mind as long as they’re not riddled with micro transactions, and there’s a solid selection of indie and older games that cost less to choose from. Part of the problem is Nintendo never lowers their prices on old games.
The price was announced first… So it’s not related.
Adjusted for inflation though, and $80 is the normal price it’s been for 40 years.
I just don’t know why people are shocked Nintendo is doing this, they’ve always been one of the first companies to increase prices.
40 years ago they didn’t sell them by millions with each copy cost being a few cents. It’s price gouging simple as.
I mean, this just isn’t true, though. You’re not wrong in pointing out that the scope of sales has changed, but so has the scope of development, as well as consumer expectation. I suspect if you compare the number of man hours spent on a title today vs an NES game, it’s not even a comparable discussion. And then there’s the matter of post-release support.
To be clear, I don’t think a $30 price hike for physical copies is at all sensible, but the arguments being presented both for and against it are incredibly poorly thought out. Everyone presents a single facet of videogame development today compared to years ago and then acts like it’s a “gotcha” that proves their point. The entire ecosystem of game development and consumption has changed so drastically, that any discussion comparing the adjusted for inflation price of games then vs now is just pointless. Art and entertainment are art and entertainment, and it’s impossible to create a de-facto value statement for them, because consumer subjectivity, bias, and valuation is too wide to make objective statements about.
Imo, the real criticism of the matter is that +50% cost during a time of economic upheaval, when the buying power of the middle class is approaching the weakest it’s been in a long time, is going to be received poorly, and probably result in a loss of Western sales. It’s a massive leap, in a single generation, at the worst possible time, regardless of what inflation adjustments tell us.
Game development now is cheaper and more accessible than ever before, blockbuster games with budgets in hundreds of millions should flop and never recoup money invested in them. Graphically games made last year and games made ten years ago are comparable, and on nintendo switch both would look horrible so graphics is out, games from nintendo often are entertaining, but simple-ish and not all that engaging to play them for months at a time (there are exceptions but they are extremely rare). Third party games can be bought two-three-four times cheaper while being better games. So unless you are very financially stable and $100 for a game is like a cup of coffee to you arguing for increase of price goes counter to your interest as a player.
According to a post I found on that shitty alien site, An AAA game has to sell 10 million copies to break even around 6 months ago. That means at $70 dollars each. They can cost $700 million to make, market and distribute. The money has to typically be recouped within a certain time frame to keep the lights on and invest in the next 700 mil project. The successful games also have to carry the weight of the failures too, so you probably aren’t getting that bad a deal.
I’m not saying the price isn’t inflated, just that it can cost a lot more than you might think to make this stuff, and it’s all on a gamble that it will sell.
I remember buying mortal kombat ii on the megadrive/genesis with saved up pocket money for £45 ($58). That was in 1994, I think I maxed out at about 10 games. I’m seeing assassins creed shadows on the xbox at £56.99 ($74) today (ignoring online digital shops because they didn’t exist in 1994.) So in 31 years inflation on the price of a premium video game has been 0.75% annually vs 2.5% for all goods and that has resulted in a small 20% increase in the price over 30 years.
Closest link I could find to back up the inflation rate. If games increased in price Inline with inflation, they’d cost about £96 ($123) today.
Games have always been expensive, but less so now than 30 years ago.
P.s. If I don’t ignore online digital shops, I can actually get it cheaper the that 1994 price. Only £40 ($51). I mean come on its not like suddenly we have a bad deal on video games. Also if it really bothers you stop buying games at launch. I rarely spend more than a third of those prices now just by waiting a year or two.
