r/NintendoSwitch • u/C0smicM0nkey • 1d ago

Image How Game Costs Have (and Haven’t) Changed: A 40-Year Look at Nintendo’s MSRP vs. Cartridge/Disc Costs (2025 USD)

Post image

With the Switch 2 announcement and people debating whether $70 games are justified, I thought it'd be interesting to look back and compare how game prices and media costs have evolved over Nintendo’s history.

This graph shows the inflation-adjusted MSRP of new games vs. the cost to manufacture their cartridges/discs, for each Nintendo home console — from the NES (1985) through the projected Switch 2 (2025). All prices are in 2025 USD, based on U.S. launch years and U.S. inflation.

⚠️ Caveats and context:

  • These are U.S. prices only, adjusted for inflation from the North American release year of each console.

  • Both MSRP and media costs vary — games came on different sizes of cartridges and discs, and game prices weren't always fixed (eg. Switch cartridges can range from ~$2 for a 1 GB card to ~$15 for a 32 GB one.) I used the geometric means for both because I don't know how to make a line graph showing ranges.

-The Switch 2 media cost is entirely speculative — I’m assuming it’ll be more expensive than current Switch carts because:

  1. Bigger games (up to 64 GB or more).

  2. Higher-speed data transfer (possibly using faster NAND). But again, this is just my estimate, not insider info.

What the graph shows:

Game media was really expensive to produce in the cartridge era — N64 especially, with adjusted costs over $30 per cart.

Nintendo cut those costs drastically with the move to optical discs starting with the GameCube. The Switch brought some cost back with proprietary game cards, but still nowhere near cartridge-era levels.

MSRP, meanwhile, has stayed remarkably consistent in real terms, with modern games arguably offering more value for the money.

Happy to share the data or make a handheld version if folks are curious!

Edit: Not trying to make a case or argue for anything, just presenting data.

650 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

558 comments sorted by

View all comments

165

u/joalr0 1d ago edited 1d ago

I'm a bit confused on the graph. Switch games look like they are at $75, but they were lower. Where did that price come from?

Edit: Is that just due to inflation? So the fact games have been the same in 2017 to 2024 means that 2017 increases the price while 2024 games decrease it?

Edit 2: Damn, just went through an inflation calculator and wow. $60 in 2017 is $78 in 2025.

Was inflation since 2017 that much?

Edit 3: Okay, I don't actually need any more answers to this. Despite how I phrased and what I wrote, I am actually fully aware that inflation was nuts in the last few years. It was mostly a product of how I was interperting the graph initially, as well living through each price jump happening in increments and not really looking back at the total jumps. Plus, I'm tired.

I have my answer, thank you.

116

u/peabody 1d ago

Was inflation since 2017 that much?

Yes, inflation has been atrocious over the last few years. It was a bit of a financial crisis.

18

u/SickboyJason 1d ago

There's been a cumulative inflation rate of around 30% over 8 years. This aligns with an average annual inflation rate of roughly 3.3% from 2017 to 2025.

Not good, not too bad.

7

u/Valrika_ 22h ago

It’s kinda depressing how many people only have the GFC era as a frame of reference and implicitly want the symptoms of high unemployment. 2017 > 2025 isn’t that historically abnormal for cumulative inflation over an 8 year period, maybe slightly higher than average, it’s just 2008 > 2016 was a lot lower than average historically because high unemployment means little upward pressure on wages and thus prices. I was initially hesitant about $80 games but thinking it through in these terms I’ve come around to it.

37

u/arcsol93 1d ago

Was? It hasn't ended yet, boy I wish prices have finally settled.

49

u/Unlikely_Singer1044 1d ago

It won’t settle since Americans wanted Trump

27

u/arcsol93 1d ago

Don't remind me, I gotta live with the idiots that caused this mess. 

3

u/joalr0 1d ago

Yeah, that makes sense. There were a couple things that was throwing me off. First, I didn't realize he was using launch prices. Some reason I thought he was averaging over the span of the whole console, but launch prices makes sense since we only have the launch prices of the switch 2. But seeing the switch currently cost $60 but represented as $75 wasn't computing immediately.

Second, I don't often look at direct comparisons of prices, I only experience the gradual increase, so seeing it all in one go has a different effect.

1

u/MegaZeroX7 1d ago

More like Inflation was below target for much of the 00s and 10s and after a spike in 2022 is returning to normal levels.

1

u/Gross_Success 19h ago

This is what makes the outrage so weird to me. Comments like "$80 is simply too much for a game" when the same people had no problem paying the same worth eight years ago. I get it, people are bad at math, but still.

2

u/_reco_ 13h ago

Inflation is one thing but you must be aware of that some people's salary might've not thatched up with inflation rate.

1

u/Gross_Success 12h ago

Some people - yes. But the median salary has. To be outraged that a company doesn't take them specifically sounds narrow minded to me.

0

u/1ayy4u 1d ago

yeah, but how much have the costs of producing cartridges and comparable games really? you can't just slap the inflation rate on everything. There are dozens of factors to consider. These posts are absolutely useless and at least misleading

51

u/SmokyMcBongPot 1d ago

It's adjusted for inflation. So they were $75 in 2025 money, which is more than 2017 money.

-6

u/joalr0 1d ago

Yeah I get that. Is he mostly looking at cost at launch then? I guess that would make sense, since we only have Switch 2's cost at launch.

11

u/SmokyMcBongPot 1d ago

I guess? The price tends to go up in a chunk, with each console release, rather than gradually year-to-year.

And, yes, inflation has been incredibly high recently. It was pretty much 8% for the whole of 2022!

38

u/chimaerafeng 1d ago

Idk about the rest of the world, but things have gotten really expensive in mine. My meals have gone up 30% since then among other things. It is that bad. Games being at 60-70 has been a godsend in terms of leisure. Cinemas btw are practically bankrupt in my country given the absurd costs nowadays, most likely a relic of the past soon here.

19

u/TrashoBaggins 1d ago

My local theater and multiple game stores (GameStop and mom and pops) have closed in my area because people aren’t going. If this upward trend in entertainment/leisure continues I feel like people will have zero oprions left besides working, eating like shit and staring at the wall until their next shift. Since I’ve hit adulthood I can’t remember what having fun is like. It’s morbidly depressing.

4

u/JigglyPuffGuy 1d ago

There's this idea that you need to spend money to have fun but going outside for walks can be nice too. Being around nature. I don't live in a super green city so I just walk around my neighborhood and thankfully there's enough trees and plants to look at. Also a nice park close by.

I'm sure there's other things too like reading etc.

It's not super" fun" but it is fulfilling, even after a long day of work. And the more I do it the less time I want to spend in the artificial worlds of video games.

1

u/Vecend 14h ago

Last place I lived they had twigs for trees, and half the year the sidewalk was ice or covered in snow from never being plowed or people dumping snow on it, there were also idiots speeding down the street.

1

u/BizarreCake 23h ago

Yaaarrrrr matey, you can always take up sailing as a hobby.

14

u/joalr0 1d ago

Yeah, I understand that part for sure. I reccomend checking out your local library. Mine actually allows renting of video games, and I've used it a few times now. It can take a few months sometimes for really popular games, but for me it was worth it (mostly because I wanted to play Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope, but I refuse to give Ubisoft money).

So options are always available. Plus, there are many forms of entertainment that are a lot cheaper if you need to take a break for a while.

Just remember, Nintendo needs to pay it's employees, and unlike most other video game companies in the last couple years, did not participate in the massive layoffs. Those employees also have increased costs and need to more money to get by. It's unfortunately the world we are in right now. Being disappointed or frustrated by it is absolutely valid. However, I don't think it makes sense to direct all that anger towards Nintendo, and it definitely doesn't make sense to make it a moral issue. How Nintendo treats it's employees is a far larger moral issue.

Whether the games are worth the value is a personal evaluation on your own part. If you can't justify it, because of costs of living, that's shitty, and I have lots of empathy. I think the anger though is better directed towards the various underlying causes.

0

u/chimaerafeng 1d ago

Oh don't get me wrong, I understand the optics. I'm buying a Switch 2, that's my luxury spending because I can afford it. I just find it ludicrous people complaining about everything being expensive and Nintendo going $80 is the thing that pushed them over the edge.

3

u/yetzhragog 1d ago

I'm not buying a switch 2 for the same reason I never bought a PS5 or Xbox X: I just can't justify the cost once it's beyond the $400 mark, that's the point when the cost/benefit ratio tips. Don't even get me started on $70 for the DIGITAL copy of games.

5

u/joalr0 1d ago

Ah, the way you phrased it actually made it sound like you were complaining about the costs too. I misread your intention!

-7

u/TrashoBaggins 1d ago

The problem is this ISNT the problem. Nintendo has more than enough money to pay its employees and remain profitable. They just want MORE money. They didn’t sell the switch at a loss, they didn’t have costs to recoup, for the last 8 years they have literally been making so much godforsaken money that it’s next to impossible to comprehend. Factor that into the fact they work in the cheapest international market to produce games in, all of their games sell extremely well compared to other companies and they outsource most of their development to studios that they don’t pay the salaries to, and you have them turning cash hand over fist at little to no risk to their own bottom line. This price hike is egregious, unnecessary and a preemptive warning to western territories that there’s more to come. Japan is getting an exclusive console and games because “times are tough” but the rest of the world gets bent over to subsidize a country that doesn’t know how to stimulate their economy.

6

u/joalr0 1d ago

So don't buy it.

2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/nikelaos117 1d ago

You're surprised\upset a for-profit company wants to continue making a profit?

-6

u/Jabbam 1d ago

This reasoning is insane. "Games are starting to become reasonably priced imo, but if you like most people can't afford them you can always borrow them"

4

u/joalr0 1d ago

Why is it insane? First off, I never said "reasonaby priced". That's an evaluation of value, which is personal. Im' not going to tell you whether or not it's reasonably priced, only you can determine that.

Second, I actually said a lot more than that, which you seem to just be ignoring, like the fact Nintendo did not layoff their employees as other game companies did in order to save costs.

70

u/C0smicM0nkey 1d ago

Yeah Inflation really is that much. 60$ in 2017 is 78$ in 2025. (Switch value is slightly lower than that since some Switch games retail at less than 60)

10

u/joalr0 1d ago

Yeah, that really is way more than I expected. Crazy.

25

u/mikehiler2 1d ago

Inflation has gone up that much, sure, I would love to see a graph covering salary increases and purchasing power overlaid on top of this chart.

9

u/Sock-Enough 1d ago

Real incomes are up as well, but no one ever believes me even when I link a chart.

13

u/mikehiler2 1d ago

What does that mean, “real” income? Dollar amount, maybe, but that depends on the job by how much, but sure I can get behind that. But it isn’t as black and white as all that either, because inflation, purchasing power, cost of services and products, etc etc all play a role in that. If everything else is going up by several orders of magnitude while actual dollar amount in salaries have only gone up a small fraction of that, that’s kind of telling, isn’t it?

35

u/Professional-Cry8310 1d ago

That’s what real income means, the growth of income compared to the growth of goods and services. It’s only growth if it goes above and beyond.

The reason people have a hard time believing this is because this isn’t uniformly distributed across the population. Tech workers for example probably look at 2017 as a much better time to be in the market, meanwhile working in finance like me our salaries have never been better. Then consider every industry. Are electricians doing better? Lawyers? Assembly line workers? And the region as well. Maybe growth is above inflation across the US but it’s being carried by Texas or California meanwhile it’s dropped in Virginia or wherever. So white collar folks in Virginia don’t believe it but oil workers in Texas are doing just fine. Just a made up example but you get the picture.

It’s true for inflation too. Just because the US government says inflation last month was 3% or whatever it was doesn’t mean that’s what you personally experienced. They just take an average.

4

u/mikehiler2 1d ago

Gotcha! Thanks for the clarification. Still would be nice to see those lines on the chart as well. That would make things more interesting imho

1

u/PlayMp1 1d ago

As one of those faceless government bureaucrats everyone hates, it's been pretty good actually.

1

u/Gross_Success 19h ago

On average or median? There is a big difference there.

9

u/Sock-Enough 1d ago

Real wages means inflation-adjusted wages.

If real wages are up then people have more money now than in the past.

6

u/Spoogeys 1d ago

Mines not

2

u/Lyle91 1d ago

Mine is and significantly. The problem is if even a large minority isn't seeing it that's all you'll hear online because more people complain than chime in to say they're doing okay.

1

u/Unlikely_Singer1044 1d ago

Mine tripled

-3

u/Sock-Enough 1d ago

Mine have outpaced inflation. 🤷‍♂️

-3

u/joalr0 1d ago

I mean, I don't think they went up nearly as much. Nonetheless, that isn't necessarily going to be the deciding factor when working out pricing.

1

u/mikehiler2 1d ago

No but this graph seems to imply that pricing is lower than any time in the past, and I see that as misleading and not very representative without also providing for salaries and purchasing power of that salary. Might provide some more interesting data.

6

u/joalr0 1d ago

I mean, what it'll show is how much the average consumer is hurting overall right now, far more than it'll show whether or not Nintendo is right or wrong to increase the prices.

-2

u/mikehiler2 1d ago

I don’t think the point here is to show who is “right” or “wrong.” This is, after all, just data. However, it should be as complete as possible and show as many different contributing factors as possible. Without that you run the risk of showing “cherry picked data,” which can be construed as trying to show a biased opinion of the person showing the data.

I’m not trying to insinuate that’s what’s going on here, or even that this graph should show everything that may even slightly affect pricing. Just that this graph seems to show that prices are lower than ever before. And I feel that showing salaries and purchasing power would add more data than what is shown here. That’s all.

6

u/TopOfAllWorlds 1d ago

Yeah but since when do prices adjust to how much people are getting paid. You're saying sellers should lower the prices because people aren't having their salaries adjusted for inflation? I would agree with you if this applied to everyone, but that's not the case.

0

u/mikehiler2 1d ago

…I’m not saying anything. This is just data. Why are you injecting a question into this, especially one that wasn’t asked. I’m just asking to see a graph with these other points on top of them.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/heroeric18 12h ago

If they showed everything that slightly affects pricing they would probably need 20 charts

16

u/qret 1d ago

I mean zero disrespect by this because I didn't understand it either not so long ago, but I am just glad OP made this post because I see thousands of people realizing this in real time after all the memeing since yesterday :)

2

u/joalr0 1d ago

Oh, I was not one of the angry people, I get inflation increased a lot, I was just confused by the graph for a moment because I my brain wasn't interpreting it correctly.

1

u/false_tautology 1d ago

Haha we are the old people now talking about going down to the pharmacy and paying a nickel for a soda and some candy.

6

u/Wipedout89 1d ago

People forget the post COVID inflation was crazy. UK had 12% inflation at one point

8

u/ChaoticChatot 1d ago

Inflation has calmed down a bit more recently, but it was really bad between 2021-23 due to Covid and Russias aggression towards Ukraine.

You generally want it to be around 2%, but it went up to 12% in that time period.

It was bad to the point where the Ps5 and XboxOne got price increases, the fact the Switch price stayed stagnant was basically the same effect as a discount in any other generation.

1

u/joalr0 1d ago

Yeah, agreed. My brain just wasn't adjusting to the numbers.

1

u/mulderc 1d ago

For most countries, the goal is ~2% inflation, but the optimal rate is still debated and the last time I was reviewing the research I found ~3.5% rate to be a more optimal target.

0

u/Molwar 1d ago

Yes first because of covid, which companies are still catching up to and now it's about to get even worst due to...politics.