re: Even if I wanted to buy a Switch...

quote:

---

It’s impossible to bad mouth Nintendo on here because of 2-3 posters.

---

What 3rd Parties have decided to do with ports is ridiculous, that's fine.

And Nintendo does plenty of "bad" things. Their Online Service is a waste, most people agree in theory. They waited too long on release, etc. Most people admit Nintendo makes boneheaded decisions.

quote:

---

Also, I guess everyone’s forgotten about PlayStation’s Greatest Hits collections on literally all of their consoles. Dropping prices on games is hardly a fricking new thing. shite even Nintendo does their “Selects” for the 3DS and and “Players Choice” series for the GameCube and N64.

---

quote:

---

They could drop the price. They’ve done so in the past.

---

Yes, and they did that 3+ Years into the Console Life Cycle. We're barely over 18 months of the Switch. So, if there is no Nintendo Select Line in 2020, you'll have an argument I agree with.

quote:

---

They don’t want to. It’s extremely anti-consumer.

---

Hasn't been on the market for 2 years yet. That and they've already put Arms and 1-2 Switch on sale twice.

Are you just now realizing that Nintendo published games rarely drop in price until they get put in a Selects/Players Choice line? They have been that way since as far back as the Gamecube days.

If a Nintendo published game isn't in a greatest hits line and isn't full priced it means it bombed so hard they are trying to unload the copies they printed.

If it's still full price it means it's an evergreen title that sells well enough they have no reason to drop the price. You don't have to like it but that's been their business model for at least 20 years now. This is not something they started with the Switch.

So apparently I don't understand "economics", so legit question, why can I get Skryim SE on every other platform for $40 but $60 on Switch? Doom for $20?

quote:

---

why can I get Skryim SE on every other platform for $40 but $60 on Switch? Doom for $20?

---

I dont think anybody is arguing with you on these points. Same reason Call of dutys are still mostly 60$ on steam. They are still selling

quote:

---

Horizon Zero Dawn, a February 2017 release, complete edition, is $20

---

This is your best and only so far, good comparison. Very little DLC, nearly same release as BotW. This is where the "retained" value idea comes into play. Not only that, this is supply and demand. There are countless open world/survival games on the PS4, and most of your PS4 players are FOTM players. They play the next greatest open world game as soon as it comes out, so the only way to get a gamer's attention who haven't played the game is to significantly drop the price, otherwise, why play Horizon now, when you could be playing Red Dead with everyone else?

I think this is less "Nintendo won't drop the price," and more "Sony has to drop the price to move units."

quote:

---

God of War is already $40.

---

Digital Deluxe is $50, so we're talking about a $10 difference. Is it really that much at the end of the day? And again, how much was THAT edition at release?

I hope you realize that when you spread buyer incentives around you allow for a bigger range of costs over time. I assume you've never bought the $120 Black Ops bundle.....but enough people do that you holding out to buy $40 BLOPS later down the road is not a blow to EA's bottom line. They can drop the price quicker and get a different flow of buyers over time.

Nintendo never plays that game. Want more proof? Here is all the configurations of RDR2. Think about that in terms of the buyer. Not only that, the long term DLC is still unknown, so you may not even know what you are paying for in terms of long term DLC.

Nintendo's most extensive DLC games are Splatoon (which you don't pay for MP DLC) and Smash.

Here's Smash's DLC: LINK

They already tell you exactly what you get and on the timeline (Funny enough, where they miss release dates ALL of the time, they are 100% on DLC dates). This shows a lot of planning on the front, and they even tell you what you would pay if you don't buy the pass. They are actually quite transparent about their DLC plans. For all the crap that you want to put on Nintendo, the way they handle DLC is the best in the business IMO. They only use it where necessary, or when it's fan service, it's usually cheap, and it's usually planned as further development, rather than ad hoc. And they always give you the value of the game up front.

And to me, that effects this whole pricing conversation, because everything that you see, outside of the rare case of Horizon, are different development and pricing models that are specifically built to drive down the cost of the core game over time and de-value it far quicker.

And I thought OML was the novel writer...

I've given you plenty of examples of Nintendo owners having to pay more money for games than anyone else for really no good reason, and you keep trying to explain to me why it's a good thing.

This is more of the rest of the gaming world figuring basic stuff out and Nintendo convincing it's fans they know better. It's quite the accomplishment.

quote:

---

sicboy

---

Or I can put it this way:

Would you prefer Nintendo to put loot boxes and alternative revenue models in Nintendo games so that they drive down the core cost of games faster than they do now? Is that what you want Nintendo to be?

quote:

---

He would complain about that too

---

sic has a point in some cases, like the online pieces and the 3rd Party ports in this thread, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Skyrim SHOULD NOT be $60, but that probably isn't Nintendo's choice.

But on 1st party NEW GAMES, it's a completely illogical conclusion when Nintendo doesn't exploit the fanbase via other pricing methods (I'm not saying Nintendo doesn't exploit the fanbase, they prey on fandom all of the time, and they are good at it). But they are the most consistent, and to me, most honest about pricing and costs on the consumer. Again see the very clear Smash DLC vs. RDR2.

Nintendo games also have season passes, so it's not a great argument. Xenoblade 2 especially as I've paid $120 for the special edition and season pass. Breath of the Wild has a season pass. MK8 had a season pass. Smash will have one.

Just as not every game on PS4/X1/PC have season pass, Nintendo only does it where it's convenient.

Also, in your example of FF15, the Royal Edition includes the content from the season pass. Street Fight V has the season pass included in its Arcade Edition along with gameplay updates (priced reasonably at $40 and goes on sale often).

quote:

---

If you think BotW is going to drop in price before the release, or at the very least announcement of the new Zelda you're high. There is zero reason to lower the price. Gamers just got used to this formula from the shitty AAA titles that come out yearly.

---

It has and will go on sale, just not for $10-30 as it would if it were published by any other company. If you're economic enough and watch, you can find good deals on Nintendo games. They're just not easy to find and their storefronts have zero deals.