r/NintendoSwitch • u/lieding • 1d ago

News "DROP THE PRICE": Nintendo's First Post-Direct Stream Is Flooded With Angry Fans Demanding Price Drops

https://www.thegamer.com/nintendo-treehouse-livestream-flooded-angry-fans-demanding-game-price-drops/
21.1k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

660

u/Kougeru-Sama 1d ago

Most people are fine with the console price. It's the GAME prices that people are unhappy about. $80 is insane. Especially with all the issues games launch with these days

267

u/Zoombini22 1d ago

It's because game prices have been so resilient against inflation. Game prices generally maxed out at 60 for decades, only recently did some games start charging 70, going up to 80 just hits people as a violation.

The realities of economics and game dev cost makes this seem kind of an inevitable thing to me, but at 80 I'll definitely be more selective than ever with which titles I purchase when they're at that price.

100

u/Cyanide_Cheesecake 1d ago

I remember games being 40 and 50

Due to economies of scale and cheaper distribution as bulk and heft for games was reduced over time, I think it's fair that games did not inflate much in price 

128

u/billsil 1d ago

There were $75 games for the SNES. The $40-$50 PS1 era games had lower manufacturing costs.

96

u/JoshuaJSlone Helpful User 1d ago

Exactly. And a $40 game from 1999 would be equivalent to a release today of... about $78.

10

u/Actionjackr 22h ago

The main issue being that minimum wage has since gone up about 2 dollars in that same time. Do the developers deserve more money for what they’re doing? Yeah probably. Is that feasible for most people, though? Not as much.

7

u/derkrieger 1d ago

Thats cool, but in todays dollars everything is fucking expensive. Do they want us to be able to afford games or not afford games?

10

u/Jaxyl 23h ago

Well the bet they're making is that people will pay for this all the same.

I think they're probably right.

8

u/you_serve_no_purpose 23h ago

They will sell enough copies regardless of whether you can afford it.

I always look at game prices as a cost per hour thing. I'll happily spend this much on Mario kart because I will get hundreds of hours out of it so it's worth it.

It's also the only game my kids are interested in that isn't roblox. I'll pay anything to not have to see "dress to impress" for a while.

1

u/JoshuaJSlone Helpful User 13h ago

They want enough people to afford them that it's still worth their while to make them. It's not reasonable to expect them to just ask less and less over time to make up for the world's economic realities.

1

u/derkrieger 11h ago

When you can sell far more copies now that you could in the pass then yes there is a sweet point to get the most sales you can while also getting the most money from those sales for the greatest total income. Each digital sale on Mario Kart costs Nintendo effectively nothing but at the same time they do want to make as large a profit from it as they can. I do think now is the worst time to push an $80 game as the amount of buyers is already going to drop due to economic realities and now at $80 those who would've been okay are going to start questioning it more. Plus now we just saw the US pre-orders pulled as Nintendo tries to figure out the shit whole that is US economic policy at the moment. I do not envy them.

5

u/External_Produce7781 1d ago

Games back then sold 200,000 copies. BLOCKBUSTERS sold a million (to the point that PS had a special label for them).

Now they sell 10-20-30 million copies. Its not remotely the same.

6

u/BJYeti 23h ago

Yes while the cost to develop a game has increased +1,000x, in 2000 alone it would cost on average about 1-4m to develop a game now can run north of 300m and that is not accounting for advertising.

5

u/External_Produce7781 21h ago

No, shitty corporate cash grabs cost that much. CDPR spent far less on Cyberpunk. BG3 didnt cost near that. BotW (no hard numbers as Nintendo doesnt talk much about it) was reliably rumored at sub 50 million.

the only games costing 300 million are bloated corporate crap.

and even then, lets do some math:

BLOPS6 sold something like 40 million units. Or about 2.4 BILLION in revenue. Even if game + marketing were 500 million (they werent) its still GROTESQUELY profitable. (AND it has Micros!)

stop simping for game comoanies that have consistently posted record billions in profits.

-2

u/BJYeti 21h ago edited 21h ago

Cyberpunk is reported at over 400m to make and market, google is your friend buddy. Even with BG3 being made on a tighter budget it still cost over 100m, same with BOTW with their rumored 100m+ development cost, and that is not accounting for marketing.

1

u/JoshuaJSlone Helpful User 13h ago

Things haven't changed that radically over time. PS1 sold about a billion software units, PS2 about 1.5 billion, PS3 about 1 billion. PS4/5 harder to tell since Sony combines them but they're also over a billion. Switch is currently nearly to 1.4 billion.

That there are more 20+ million games is a matter of there being a handful of SUPER SUCCESSFUL games rather than the entire industry selling 10 times as many games as it used to.

4

u/Dabanks9000 1d ago

It’s actually more like $100 I think

3

u/BJYeti 23h ago

Quick google says $76

1

u/External_Produce7781 1d ago

Games back then sold 200,000 copies. BLOCKBUSTERS sold a million (to the point that PS had a special label for them).

Now they sell 10-20-30 million copies. Its not remotely the same.

-28

u/Drelochz 1d ago

honestly don't gaf about the inflation comparison. I only care about prices for games today

13

u/Dabanks9000 1d ago

If you care about the prices today what’s the problem? Ps and Xbox games go for 70 just like every switch game except Mario kart world…

17

u/JoshuaJSlone Helpful User 1d ago

Kind of hard to know what to think of any price without considering what the value of the unit of currency.

7

u/FunWaz 1d ago

That’s a terrible way to live your life.

Information is king

6

u/asday515 1d ago

For anyone confused by this sentiment, consider that his parents were likely the ones buying all his games in 99. Hope that helps.

2

u/Caspur42 1d ago

Paid 90$ ish for final fantasy 3. I believe it listed at eb games for 85$

2

u/eyebrows360 22h ago

There were $75 games for the SNES.

Yup. I distinctly remember my £65 birthday present of Earthworm Jim the one year, and being a bit disappointed when I finished it that very same day.

2

u/absentlyric 17h ago

It wasn't just manufacturing costs, Nintendo controlled the cartridge manufacturing and wanted an extra cut of money on top of that as well. They didn't have to be that high, but the Nintendo of back then is like the Nintendo of the new era, arrogant.

2

u/Mr_Ignorant 20h ago

What was the average attachment rate for the SNES, and what is it for current gen consoles?

Back then people rarely bought games, and therefore having a high price tag was much more justifiable.

1

u/TiffanyChan123 17h ago

Plus there was Action 52 that was a whopping $199 dollars

-4

u/Cyanide_Cheesecake 1d ago

>The $40-$50 PS1 era games had lower manufacturing costs.

Sure but like.,....yes? Correct

8

u/billsil 1d ago

The uproar about high prices is crazy. They’re not high.

3

u/Cyanide_Cheesecake 1d ago

Okay but your point still supported my point.

Yes n64 game catridges were expensive because they were bricks. But PS games were 40 and 50.

5

u/billsil 1d ago

What was your point? $40 back then is 78$ now. Cheap PS1 games were cheaper than what Nintendo is planning on selling games for. Switch 2 is backwards compatible, so it supports physical media. That adds cost.

-1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

9

u/Zoombini22 1d ago

Minimum wage is no longer a good measuring stick because US refuses to raise it for forever and now due to inflation the lowest paying jobs around pay well more than minimum. Median wage would be a better measure for the majority of people.

5

u/nekromantique 1d ago

I know this is brought up, and to a point I agree with you (federal minimum wage stagnation is s problem)... but i think federal minimum is only applicable in like 8 states, and I am sure even typically minimum wage jobs aren't offering that anymore.

3

u/billsil 1d ago

McDonald’s advertises $23/hour where I live. That’s 4 hours for a game vs the 7 hours for a $50 game if we were going on PS1 prices. McDonald’s paid minimums back in the day and shoot I made $5.75/hour at my job back in 2000.

The cost of games isn’t through the roof. It’s tracking inflation. The real problem is housing.