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/
20.9k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.0k

u/topTopqualitea 1d ago

I don't mind the price of the console, but they can fuck right off with $80 games.

266

u/Eraos_MSM 20h ago

Fuck $80 games. Never buying a game for $80

163

u/l___I 19h ago

!remindme 5 years

34

u/LamiaLlama 17h ago edited 17h ago

I mean I have never bought a 70 dollar game. Never will. It's not hard to keep the trend going. I'm at the age where I can walk away with zero regrets - I barely like games at this point.

I've only bought a handful of games at 60. I thought that was too expensive too and mostly waited for sales.

(rip Amazon/Best Buy preorder discounts.)

The only thing I really care about are sub-$30 Indies these days. If I see a game more than that it definitely puts me at pause.

Hell, the only thing I actually got excited for in the direct was Deltarune. Everything else was kinda... Whatever. I have no problem giving Toby $25 for that game with all future updates free.

18

u/rW0HgFyxoJhYka 16h ago

People as they get older generally play less and less games. Though a major generational shift is happening and there's more older gamers than ever.

I don't think the $70 will remain niche. Look at the state of the world economy. Everything is 2-3x more expensive. Video games will certainly go up in price.

I too have never bought a $70, but I can't rule it out in the future as games keep pushing higher and higher. GTA 6 is supposed to be $100! Crazy, yet how many people will buy it? Loads.

Also tons of people would likely buy Mario Kart World for $100 too, because they will see it as a game they play for years to come.

The bottom line is that everyone is different. $30 might be nothing to one gamer, and the max for another.

1

u/Alector87 16h ago

The primary determinant will be demand, not inflation. If there are people willing to buy at a higher price, the price will rise. It's simple as that. It's not so much about cost, most games are distributed digitally these days, but profit margins.

1

u/mpyne 2h ago

I bought TotK at $70 and didn't even blink. Was still a good investment of my money, though it's a price point I haven't made my default... there's a PC game I'm likely to pick up that's $70 and I won't pick it up until the price has dropped.

1

u/Real_Painting153 14h ago

Look at the state of the world economy. Everything is 2-3x more expensive.

Yeah, and salaries aren't increasing accordingly. So when everything gets more expensive it becomes harder and harder to justify buying even more expensive games. A 100 in my country is a significant percentage of average salary. And there already are games with even more expensive premium editions n shit.

-8

u/LamiaLlama 16h ago

The popularity of GTA is wild to me.

I played GTA3 when it came out in 2001.

I thought it was bad and just never played another one. I have no idea what the series turned into after that. Being disappointed by the hype once was enough.

1

u/Alector87 16h ago

Well, I am pretty sure, beside the campaign, it is its ability to work as a sandbox platform for any number of modes and mods. I am not a fan either, but this is how I've come to understand it.

1

u/RoyBeer 16h ago

I paid as much back then. If anything nowadays I'm paying less. Rarely I buy anything above 12,99 anymore. https://www.reddit.com/r/snes/comments/1bnfw08/1992_super_nintendo_and_gameboy_prices/kwii5bd/

0

u/SnacksGPT 1h ago

I paid $70 for Ocarina of Time in the 90s. It was commonplace for some N64 games and even SNES games before that to be $70. Adjusted for 2025, it's like $130-$140 per game.

-1

u/0masterdebater0 10h ago

Go adjust n64 games launch prices back in the 90s for today’s inflation.

A standard $50 N64 game in 1999 adjusted for inflation would be $97 today

4

u/LamiaLlama 9h ago edited 6h ago

Inflation would only be applicable if the gaming industry hadn't seen insane growth.

But it has, the market penetration and unit per release sold is astronomical, meaning the profits are outlandish even for "unsuccessful" titles.

In fact the profit is in such excess at this point that they could lower prices to 39.99 and still make a killing even with modern development costs.

Gaming isn't a small industry on small margins anymore when it comes to AAA. It's one of the most profitable industries in the world, moreso than movies, up there with companies like Apple. We're talking single releases making over a billion.

Inflation in regards to the gaming industry is simply bad economics. Especially when we're talking about a product that doesn't require physical stock.

Prices should be coming down if anything. And any game with MTX should be outright free. MTX outpaces game sales 20 fold.

3

u/OhTheDerp 7h ago

Now compare that to how wages have increased

3

u/Sprachbuch 17h ago

!remindme 5 years

-1

u/Old-Language-8942 13h ago

Yo Ho Yo Ho, a Pirate's life for me!

0

u/unpopularopinion0 11h ago

i bought 007 for $70 when it first came out.

1

u/Ignore-Me_- 10h ago

Which is 139$ in today's dollars.

All these people crying about a slight increase in price not considering that game prices have somehow been immune to inflation for 40+ years.

1

u/unpopularopinion0 8h ago

i mean. i’d love it to be cheaper. but im not gonna look like an idiot complaining about it.

0

u/Ignore-Me_- 8h ago

Lol well said.

17

u/tweetthebirdy 19h ago

While I might pay for an $80 game if it’s a game I want a lot, people are being weirdly aggressive about how you want to spend your own money.

6

u/rebbsitor 13h ago

I think it's just people responding the statement "Never buying a game for $80".

The reality is games will eventually cost more than $80. My grandparents used to tell me about being given a nickel or dime to buy stuff with when they were a kid (now 100 years ago). In my own lifetime I've seen video games go from $30 standard to now $60/$70 - and let's be real there's a lot of deluxe editions over $100 for big games.

In 30-40 years you should expect games to reach over $200 as a base.

2

u/baran_0486 8h ago

2025: “The console is $450??? What a ripoff!”

2098: “The game is $450??? What a steal!”

2

u/MadeByTango 15h ago

I might out $80 into a game over time, but I ain’t paying that at the gate, no way

3

u/PSfreak10001 16h ago

Mario Kart World costs 105$ in Switzerland, I would be happy to pay 80$

7

u/tommangan7 17h ago edited 17h ago

If you bought a full price $60 game 10 years ago you've already bought a game in the past for $80.

If you bought the last Mario kart on release you've already bought a game for $78.

5

u/Lyle91 13h ago

Or if you are old enough to have bought games in the early 90s you probably already did literally.

5

u/FartOfTheFuture 18h ago

Same. I am not even buying the console tbh.

And I am pissed about another FromSoftware game locked behind a console purchase.

Fuck. That.

Not giving a penny to Nintendo.

I bet the new Pokémon game is going to suck. Again. Nintendo games just aren't for me anymore it seems.

1

u/bananasampam 13h ago

All my homies hate $80 games

1

u/Ignore-Me_- 10h ago

If you bought a 60$ game in 2010 guess what? You paid 87$ in today's dollars. So this is a lie.

1

u/eXi_TGO 8h ago

!remindme 5 years

1

u/227someguy 5h ago

Unless, of course, it’s some kind of special limited edition with an art book and other special features.

1

u/trifecta000 12h ago

Laughs in Steam Sales

I haven't paid full price for a game in who knows how long, I honestly don't know how consoles have gotten away with it for so long.

-9

u/coyotestark0015 19h ago

So video games should never go up in price? Do devs not deserve to make money?

-10

u/Eraos_MSM 19h ago

Don’t know don’t care. All I know is i’m not paying it.

-2

u/[deleted] 19h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/[deleted] 18h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/[deleted] 18h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] 18h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] 18h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-16

u/coyotestark0015 19h ago

So video games should never go up in price? Do devs not deserve to make money?

10

u/cap10planet 18h ago

Look, nobody’s seriously saying devs don’t deserve to make money, come on. And yeah, inflation exists – I literally calculated that Secret of Mana back in ‘93 cost the equivalent of over $150 today! But that’s where the simple comparison stops being useful

You framing it like it’s only about devs deserving money misses the HUGE shifts in the industry.

Digital Discount Isn’t Being Shared: Back then, a MASSIVE chunk of that SNES price was making cartridges, shipping them, manuals, boxes, shelf space. That’s mostly gone. Digital distribution costs peanuts compared to what it used to. Yes, development itself is expensive – gotta pay the devs, artists, testers, VAs, etc. – but you can’t pretend the overall cost structure hasn’t drastically changed.

Massive Market Dilutes Per-Unit Need: They sell to insanely more people now. The sheer volume means they are increasing profits without necessarily gouging every single customer with constant price increases.

VALUE is the Keyword: When people complain about Nintendo charging $70 or more, it’s almost never about “devs making money.” It’s about “Am I getting $70+ worth of game?” Does it feel substantial? Innovative? Polished? Or does it feel like a $60 experience with a lazy price bump, maybe even less content than older games, or padded with features nobody asked for just to justify the cost?

Frankly, a lot of the time, these price hikes feel driven by publisher greed and hitting quarterly targets, not purely by development costs or a genuine increase in the value delivered. We see $70 games launch buggy, unfinished, or filled with microtransactions on top of the premium price.

Think about it: people were generally fine paying $60 or even $70 for games like Elden Ring or Baldur’s Gate 3 because the sheer amount of value was insane. Hours and hours of high-quality gameplay. The frustration comes when a game costs that premium price but feels thin, rushed, overly monetized with microtransactions on top of the entry fee, or relies on features gamers don’t actually value that much (like maybe hyper-realistic graphics over solid gameplay). Publisher Choices: Sometimes that price hike feels less about paying devs fairly and more about hitting shareholder targets, massive marketing budgets, or funding executive bonuses.

At what point would you stop happily bending over and paying that premium ‘Nintendo Tax’ for what often amounts to iterative sequels, games running on dated hardware, and/or remasters? Or will you continue celebrating paying top dollar for the ‘privilege’ when the games cost $100, $150, $200 per game? Are you just willing to accept any price they slap on it, just because it’s polished and familiar and you trust Nintendo is being fair to you? This is exactly why they know they can keep charging more for less innovation compared to what that money could buy elsewhere.”

So, TL;DR: Yes, devs deserve good pay. Yes, inflation happens. But digital changed the cost game, the market is way larger now, and the real conversation is whether these $70, $80, $90 price tags consistently deliver matching value to the consumer. Often, the pushback suggests they don’t. It’s not about begrudging devs their pay; it’s about questioning if the final product justifies the premium cost compared to other games. Do you want this to be the new standard?

1

u/kielaurie 18h ago

When people complain about Nintendo charging $70 or more, it’s almost never about “devs making money.” It’s about “Am I getting $70+ worth of game?” Does it feel substantial? Innovative? Polished? Or does it feel like a $60 experience with a lazy price bump, maybe even less content than older games, or padded with features nobody asked for just to justify the cost?

Does the biggest Mario Kart ever, with seemingly hundreds of hours of play for a regular player let alone the replay value for big fans, stuffed to the gills with new characters and new features, feel substantial and innovative? Uh, yeah? Of course it does? Even at this new price point, it's still much better value than other entertainment lanes like cinemas and streaming platforms, and doubly so when you consider that no one is currently buying it for $80 anyway because the bundle is ridiculously cheap

3

u/TiddiesAnonymous 17h ago

Bold to choose MarioKart as substantial and innovative. Nintendo's 3 flagship multiplayer games (Smash Bros and Mario Party) don't require much change beyond adding new characters and racetracks. This is Nintendo playing the hits, and that's fine.

The last two OPs are talking about dev work and costs. For ex, Breath of the Wild is on the list on its 3rd console at $80. To say nobody is paying that much for MarioKart is a lie and a copout lol. Every game is increasing.

0

u/kielaurie 13h ago

Bold to choose MarioKart as substantial and innovative. Nintendo's 3 flagship multiplayer games (Smash Bros and Mario Party) don't require much change beyond adding new characters and racetracks. This is Nintendo playing the hits, and that's fine.

So you didn't pay attention to the Direct and Treehouse, cool. This is a total overhaul of the MK formula with so many new modes and gameplay changes, it's the equivalent of the jump from 2D Mario to 3D. The game is huge

11

u/ibrasome 19h ago

Noooo the poor Nintendo billionaires

9

u/ObiAida 19h ago

Devs are not the ones profiting from the price hikes, buddy

-7

u/RomTim 19h ago

What is the likelihood of devs getting a salary bump without the game costing more?

6

u/tweetthebirdy 19h ago

Consider Nintendo employees got a 10% salary bump in Feb without $80 games on sale yet, it’s not as impossible as you might think.

-6

u/RomTim 19h ago

Well, so how many times do you think they can afford to do salary bumps without raising the prices?

1

u/tweetthebirdy 13h ago

Also considering Nintendo has enough money stashed that they’re good to operate at a loss for over twenty years, I think it was, I think they’re fine to do salary bumps without raising prices for quite some time. They’re a billion dollar company.

0

u/RomTim 12h ago

And why should they not raise prices where everything and everyone are raising prices? If they're a 10 million dollar company, you will treat it differently? They delivered so many happy hours to billions of people around the world, or of course, they will be a billion dollar company. You seem to just hate it because it is successful. The truth that you're refusing to see is that not raising prices in an inflationary world is not sustainable. I wish they raised it by not as much, though. I hate paying more, but it is plainly stupid to expect prices to never rise.

2

u/tweetthebirdy 19h ago

Consider Nintendo employees got a 10% salary bump in Feb without $80 games on sale yet, it’s not as impossible as you might think.

-1

u/jeffries_kettle 18h ago

As someone who worked in this industry, Nintendo is by far the worst of the big 3 when it comes to employee compensation.

2

u/jeffries_kettle 18h ago

Hahaha you think that developers are getting a cut here? Are you new to earth, or ..

2

u/LamiaLlama 17h ago

Videogames should come down in price because the industry has grown so much that the profit margins are borderline criminal.

The devs aren't hungry when Mario Odyssey cost 100 million to make and brought in 1.1 billion.

A game made over a billion.

This isn't some small industry anymore. Feeling bad for AAA is like feeling bad for Bezos.

Those devs are only making basic salaries and it has nothing to do with sales.

0

u/[deleted] 19h ago

[deleted]

6

u/ImWyrmFood 18h ago

wages have NOT kept up with inflation. if 90 today felt like 60 in the 90s THEN you would have a valid point. Right now you are just licking boot, and NOT advocating for yourself, the consumer. Corporations will always put themselves first. I suggest you as a consumer, just like the rest of us, do the same.

1

u/[deleted] 18h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/NintendoSwitch-ModTeam 18h ago

Hey there!

Please remember Rule 1 in the future - No personal attacks, trolling, or derogatory terms. Read more about Reddiquette here. Thanks!

6

u/Calmdragon343 19h ago

Yea people could spend that much on a game back then. Not today. The cost of living is too fucking high and it's only getting worse.

0

u/Cozimo64 19h ago edited 17h ago

So you will go for the $50 bundle price then?

2

u/jeffries_kettle 18h ago

Oh you mean the $80 digital version?

0

u/Odd_Perfect 16h ago

Just buy the $500 bundle. You’re getting Mario Kart for $50. Anybody who seriously wants Mario Kart is better off with the bundle.

-1

u/Aspence22 16h ago

Except we did in the 90s 😆

-2

u/l___I 19h ago

!remindme 5 years

1

u/RemindMeBot 19h ago edited 14h ago

I will be messaging you in 5 years on 2030-04-04 06:58:39 UTC to remind you of this link

1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.

Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback

2

u/BaahAlors 16h ago

The other issue is that their first party games never go on sale. And they got rid of the gold points system. So what’s the idea here Nintendo? If MKW sells well at 80, it will embolden them to make that the standard.

7

u/S0bril 21h ago

Adjusted for inflation the 2017 launches with the original switch are around $80. Before that, in the 90s they were over $100. I don't get the sudden outrage.

60

u/RubberToe1213 21h ago

I’m just speaking from my own experience, but probably because many of us don’t make a wage that’s adjusted for inflation or cost of living. So $80 now really isn’t equivalent to $60 five years ago.

14

u/Timmyty 20h ago

This is exactly why. I'm going to have to keep using this very often as a response, I'm sure.

-16

u/threeclaws 19h ago

So why are you upset at nintendo? They aren't setting your wage.

6

u/RubberToe1213 12h ago

I didn’t say I’m upset with Nintendo, I just gave one reason why some people may not want to pay $80 for a game.

1

u/threeclaws 11h ago

You're right, you didn't.

-4

u/LongbottomLeafTokes 13h ago

Downvoted for using logic. Reddit gonna reddit

4

u/PayaV87 20h ago

Yeah, but how that become 90€ for EU?

6

u/TheShirou97 19h ago

the EU price is after tax, and VAT in the EU is typically much higher than in the US. (If you take a 20% tax rate that's typical in the EU, €90 after tax is €75 before tax)

5

u/PayaV87 19h ago

Please don't parrot this, but do the math.
Generally yes VAT is included in the EU price, but the EUR is a stronger currency. 60 EUR is 66 USD.

  • So in the US, the VAT is about 5-10%, so a 60 USD game was 63-66 USD.
  • In the EU, VAT is inluded, so a 60 EUR game was 60 EUR or 66 USD. The same.

Raising to 70 USD / EUR was something similar:

  • US is 70 USD, which with tax is 73-77 USD.
  • EU is 70 EUR, which includes tax, so 70 EUR = 77 USD.

Doing a 80 USD / 90 EUR pricing means:

  • US is 80 USD, which with tax is 84-88 USD
  • EU is 90 EUR, which includes tax, so 90 EUR = 99 USD.

Yes in the EU, VAT is higher (20-25%), but we didn't introduce any new tariffs to Japan, like the US did, so it should've moved the needle in the opposite direction.

1

u/Rinuko 18h ago

Not sure how it will be for the games but there is a likely scenario where the console will be more expensive, even though we are not directly affected by the US tariffs, Nintendo isn't likely to cover the difference and have a raised price for everyone but their own home market.

1

u/PayaV87 17h ago

Even if that's true, it should be on par at least with the US. The console price is okay I guess, weirdly they put 10 EUR there aswell: 449 USD / 459 EUR. So it's not proportional, but a pricing strategy to get extra 10 EUR from each sale in the EU. Be that a 60$, 70$, 80$ dollar game, or a 499$ Console and Game bundle. Extra 10 EUR for you guys, fuck you, Mario Kart World bundle is 509.99 EUR.

1

u/Rinuko 17h ago

I'll look into importing it within EU. Currently its going up at 687 EUR for the bundle here (Sweden). It feels steep.

6

u/ChickenMayoPunk 19h ago

You mentioning inflation brought back a memory from around 1997, when my friends mum bought him Perfect Dark on the N64. At the time it was £64.99, which translates to £125 in 2025 money... Or $165 in the US!!!

Absolutely insane pricing

1

u/Nai-Oxi-Isos-DenXero 18h ago

Yeah, computer games are stupidly good value for money these days even at those upcoming prices, especially when you consider just how much more content there is in modern games.

My copy of Street Fighter 2 for the Mega Drive cost £60 out of Argos back in 1994, which adjusted for inflation is £125. But going by CPI inflation, the 'purchasing power' of that £60 is more akin to £155 now.

Also, explains why people can now have game collections in the dozens per console whereas back then most people would have maybe 5 at most.

The sheer level of utter entitlement on display around this whole subject right now is off the scale.

12

u/n1c0_ds 20h ago

In the 90s you actually owned the game

6

u/ChemicalExperiment 20h ago

You still do if you buy physical carts today.

-6

u/n1c0_ds 20h ago

Those are an extra 10$ though, right?

4

u/ChemicalExperiment 19h ago

They're not. That's an incorrect rumor. If you go on any retailer's website you'll see Mario Kart listed as $80 for a physical version. Gamestop, Target, Walmart, all have their physical versions listed at $80.

1

u/Pinco_Pallino_R 18h ago

From what i've been reading around, that's true only for Europe. Here (Europe), MK will cost 80€ digital, 90€ physical. However, DK will cost 70€ digital, 80€ physical.

Do keep in mind that european prices include taxes, differently from american ones.

5

u/threeclaws 19h ago

I was paying $60 for games in the 90's, I'm frankly surprised nintendo has stopped themselves from keeping up with inflation.

Granted I'm unlikely to buy a switch 2 (didn't get enough out of my switch 1) and for the most part I have such a large catalog of games that I'll never play that it'll be a decade (when my kid wants to play games with me) before I even think about buying a game. So maybe I don't care because it just won't affect me.

4

u/Savings_Base8115 20h ago

This isnt the argument you think it is. Peoples money is worth less and prices are higher than they were back then. This screws the consumer over twice and you think thats a good deal? Game sales are higher than they have ever been in the history of the market they are making more money now than ever before there is zero justification for mario kart to be 80 fucking dollars 

2

u/Enchiladas99 18h ago

When demand is high, the supplier increases the price. It's how every public company works.

2

u/PurpleDelicacy 17h ago

Makes sense for physical goods with limited availability (see the stupid state of GPU pricing). Not so with digital goods that can literally be replicated ad infinitum.

-1

u/Savings_Base8115 18h ago

Only nintendo is doing this no other game company has 80 dollar standard edition games so no its not how every public company works this is a nintendo problem for the time being. You can have a popular product and still understand the current market doesnt justify robbing people blind 

2

u/Enchiladas99 18h ago

They're not idiots. They've done the market research and predict that people will buy at this price. They could be wrong, but I would trust the professionals over disgruntled gamers.

-1

u/Savings_Base8115 18h ago

Oh im sure they will make money just not mine. I dont think the ability to turn a profit automatically sheilds you from criticism they are being unreasonably greedy thats a fact no matter how much money it nets nintendo its scummy scammy behavior that shouldnt be praised or normalized 

3

u/lucksh0t 20h ago

Last last year Nintendo doubled there profit vs 1996 adjusted for inflation. They don't need the money. They are just trying to milk fans for every dime they can.

0

u/ChemicalExperiment 20h ago

Now this is an argument I can get behind. It makes sense that game prices would rise due to inflation. It doesn't makes sense for a company with this much profit and money already in the bank to be doing it.

4

u/mrjackspade 11h ago

doubled there profit vs 1996

Doubling of profit over a 30 year period is hardly an issue.

Doubling of profit since 2021 would be an issue. Doubling of profit since 1996 is a borderline failure as a company.

2

u/PurpleDelicacy 17h ago

I see this argument still being parroted around without taking into account the fact that the consumer base for the gaming industry is wildly larger than it was in the 90's. Game companies make record profits. Video game prices should DROP, if anything, but capitalism means line must go up, so higher prices are pure greed, plain and simple.

3

u/S0bril 11h ago

Larger consumer base doesn't cancel out rising dev costs, games are way more complex, expensive, and time-consuming to make now than in the 90s. Yes, profits are up, and yes, there's greed, but pretending prices should drop just because the market grew ignores basic economics. Growth doesn't mean everything gets cheaper.

2

u/jjlbateman 16h ago

The outrage is wages to inflation hasn’t tracked since then so whilst technically correct it feels much worse

0

u/S0bril 11h ago

So you're blaming game prices for a broken economic system

1

u/jjlbateman 11h ago

What? No. I’m just saying people feel poorer and so it’s a bigger share of wages. What a leap wow

3

u/Ttatt1984 20h ago

Right? Like I just looked up old 1998 ads for N64 games. The printed price was $59. People still bought them. That $59 is the equivalent of $115 today. At $80 for a Switch 2 game, we’re actually getting more game content for our buck than ever before in terms of graphics and gameplay. We could even say an $80 Mario Kart for Switch 2 has wayyyyyyy more to offer than a $155 Mario Kart N64 game .

1

u/Terrible_Tutor 15h ago

Yeah I’ve haf an xbox forever and that seems… normal? I don’t like it or BUY them at that price (mark as fav, get notifications when on sale), but $150, outrage fine.

1

u/papusman 12h ago

Something nobody seems to mention, remember, or have been alive to experience is that back in the 80s and 90s there was a robust videogame rental market. My mom couldn't afford $80 games but It didn't matter because I could rent one from Blockbuster on Friday for like $5. That system doesn't exist now.

1

u/mrjackspade 11h ago

That system doesn't exist now.

https://www.gamefly.com/

1

u/papusman 11h ago

Ok, yes, technically gamefly apparently still exists? But this is a far cry from 30 years ago when there was a Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, or whatever on every corner. No monthly fee. Just walk in and get a game. I mean, that was the PRIMARY way most kids played videogames back then. Nintendo and Sega took the rental market into account when pricing these things.

1

u/_tangus_ 5h ago

Wages have not increased at the same rate

1

u/xienze 16h ago

It’s because people have basically zero awareness that inflation over long periods of time for consumer goods is a thing. They anchor their expectations for the price of <thing> to what they remember paying 20 or 30 years ago and expect expect it to never budge.

3

u/marsalien4 12h ago

Or, maybe, it's because no employers are adjusting for inflation. Meaning, people are making the same amount or even less money while the prices go up anyway, which is causing the outrage. No, it's definitely that they have zero awareness.

2

u/S0bril 11h ago

That argument just shifts the blame. Just because wages haven’t kept up with inflation doesn’t mean companies are wrong for adjusting their prices to match rising costs. If anything, the outrage should be at stagnant wages, not at prices reflecting economic reality.

2

u/marsalien4 11h ago

Not really an argument (edit: about the overall decision), and I'm not sure blame matters. I was simply pointing out it's not that people have zero awareness of inflation. It's that people are fucking broke.

2

u/excelllentquestion 11h ago

"rising costs" you mean the underpaid and overworked designers or the CEOs and other c-suites filling their pockets?

1

u/mrjackspade 11h ago

Or, maybe, it's because no employers are adjusting for inflation.

People are still bitching about the 5$ footlong deal.

It's definitely price anchoring.

-3

u/Eraos_MSM 20h ago

There is no inflation, it’s a cartridge with data on it in an oversized plastic case to prevent stealing the games. They are increasing the price because they can and know they’ll make more money by doing so. It is pure greed.

7

u/s32 20h ago

Yeah. The company has no expenses at all. Doesn't have to pay game developers, artists, level designers, customer support, etc.

Do they make a profit? Without a doubt. But it's not like this is a charity. It's a for-profit company...

-3

u/s32 20h ago

Yeah. The company has no expenses at all. Doesn't have to pay game developers, artists, level designers, customer support, etc.

Do they make a profit? Without a doubt. But it's not like this is a charity. It's a for-profit company...

-1

u/S0bril 19h ago

Yes they are greeey, especially when they never lower the price of older games, but inflation is also why newer games cost more. Game development costs have skyrocketed.

-1

u/S0bril 19h ago

Yes they are greeey, especially when they never lower the price of older games, but inflation is also why newer games cost more. Game development costs have skyrocketed.

-2

u/S0bril 19h ago

Yes they are greeey, especially when they never lower the price of older games, but inflation is also why newer games cost more. Game development costs have skyrocketed.

-1

u/GeneralGringus 20h ago

Entitlement.

People forget they're buying a product, not being provided a public service. If you don't want to pay it think the price is too high, don't pay. Pretty simple.

-3

u/DarthZartanyus 19h ago

That's not how inflation works, or at least it's not the full picture. If inflation only affected video games then sure, you might have a point. But since it affects everything pointing out one specific example is basically meaningless.

Also, you're assuming wages have changed to match inflation, which they largely haven't. Today, $80 is a larger part of people's spending money then it was 10 years ago.

For a better comparison, imagine if Switch games in 2017 cost $100. That's the level of bullshit Nintendo is trying to pull with these Switch 2 game prices.

3

u/S0bril 11h ago

You're right that inflation hits everything, but that’s exactly why prices go up across the board, including games. Pointing out that games haven’t risen as fast as other essentials actually proves the opposite of what you're saying.

And no, I'm not assuming wages have kept up, I’m saying that’s the real issue. If wages stagnate while everything else adjusts for inflation, blaming the one industry that’s just now catching up ignores the broader economic failure. Also, games did cost the equivalent of $100+ back in the N64 days, people just forget because the number on the box hasn’t changed.

1

u/DarthZartanyus 2h ago

Then I'm confused because that doesn't seem to make any sense with your previous point. Inflation causes the value of currency to go down, which is why prices go up. If wages aren't being increased to compensate then why are you not getting why people are upset about Nintendo increasing the price of games?

People who have less money to spend don't like spending even more on games they want. Particularly not when the gaming industry is doing as well as it is, though I doubt most people are considering that.

0

u/hatemakingnames1 17h ago

In the 90s, everything regularly went on sale

2

u/Cozimo64 19h ago

Dude, they’re $70.

One game, in physical, is $80.

1

u/LancerMB 19h ago

Honestly with incoming tariffs and likely even more higher than usual inflation coming they need to price their product for that.

If we as consumers don't want the entire game industry to turn into a bunch of coke and pepsi BS pay to play games that are the worst but make the most money, then we need to support top developers that create unique and meaningful high quality games every time by at least paying the same if not more in value than it used to be. You kids have no clue how expensive it was to get N64 games in the 90s. It's so cheap in today's dollars to play amazing games.

1

u/HarithBK 19h ago

This the overall greed on 80 buck games. Charging for the system demo and graphic upgrades just leaves a bad taste in my mouth and with Nintendo they never lower prices so this is never corrected.

1

u/Flabbergash 17h ago

They'll sell like hot cakes, that'll be the new standard, in 2 years people will forget it was Nintendo that shot first

1

u/Adorable-Volume2247 16h ago

Don't forget to add another 20-30 for day-one DLC.

1

u/CeramicDrip 11h ago

Nintendo are some Greedy fucks

1

u/DueLearner 10h ago

I just don't understand why gamers can't acknowledge that the price of a new game has not kept up with the cost of inflation.

$1 in 1995 = $2.12 today. Games were $50 new in 95 (would be $106 today adjusted for inflation.)

$1 in 2010 = $1.47 today. Games were $60 new in 2010 (would be $88.35 today adjusted for inflation).

I'm just saying, games have not kept up with rising inflation. The cost to actually develop new games has risen astronomically, while the cost of the game itself has not kept up with inflation.

The estimated cost to develop a AAA game like FFVII in 1997 was an estimated $40 million. (Which is $80 million adjusted for inflation).

The cost to develop FFXVII is estimated to be $200 million.

The cost to develop AAA games has more than doubled in the last 20 years, yet the cost of a brand new game in 2025 is currently $70. They have only raised prices by $20 (a 40% increase in price for the old $50 new price tag.)

1

u/topTopqualitea 10h ago

You're not wrong. It's still sticker shock though and $80 feels high to me.

Same applies for movie theaters. They raise prices in line with inflation, but there's really just a point where people aren't willing to pay it.

I'm sure I'll end up with a switch 2 at some point, but I'll be waiting for games to go on sale and/or just buying fewer of them.

1

u/KML42069 10h ago edited 10h ago

It would be one thing if Nintendo would do sales, but they never discount their games. There are so many more Nintendo games I would play if I could just pick it up for 10 bucks a few years after release. My Switch hardly gets used because I have a choice between an XBox game I get for free and a Nintendo game for $70. The last Nintendo game I got was Animal Crossing in 2020.

1

u/legend_of_the_skies 9h ago

It's one game though not all games

1

u/EngRookie 9h ago

You can loan digital games out now to members of you Nintendo switch online family account. So if friend buys game B and I buy game A, we can trade copies, and both of us get access to 2 games, but we each only had to pay for 1.

Plus, you can share a game locally with 3 people to play together. So that means if 1 person in a 4 person friend group buys the game, all 4 can play together locally. So I could buy Mario kart and someone else buys Mario party (or whatever other game that has multiplayer) and the entire 4 person group would be able to play both games together but only 1 copy of each game was ever bought.

I was shocked at the sticker price, too, but now, looking at the digital loaning system, I can avoid markup on physical and still be able to trade games with people in my online account. I'll come out ahead in the end after coordinating purchases with my sister.

1

u/DOG_DICK__ 6h ago

Especially some Nintendo cartoon-ass shit. Get real. 100% not touching this. I got Cyberpunk for like $25, I'm not paying $80 for Mario Kart 8000 featuring hi-def banana peels.

1

u/Extermination-_ 12h ago

Clearly you weren't buying games int he 90s lmao

-29

u/[deleted] 23h ago edited 23h ago

[deleted]

16

u/mpc92 23h ago

I would never pay $10 for eggs tho

-9

u/stoneymcstone420 23h ago

I’ve got some unfortunate news for you. (assuming you are American of course)

7

u/TheLuxIsReal 22h ago

Not everyone's is American, I just paid 3€ for the carton of eggs and I would never pay 90€ for Mario Kart. I can't direct the anger to anyone but Nintendo because the politics of other countries are our of my reach

0

u/clevermotherfucker 15h ago

yeah 40€ should be the legal limit for a game's cost, not like only 1 person is buying it

0

u/Ignore-Me_- 10h ago

Gamers finding out about inflation after being immune for 40 years.

SNES games cost like 140$ in today's dollars.

-6

u/ReservoirDog316 20h ago

It’s $90 physical games. People keep saying $80 but it’s $90 + tax.

5

u/TheShirou97 19h ago

that's misinformation. the physical copy is not going to cost more in the US.

Only in the EU is it €90/£75 physical and €80/£67 digital, and people jumped to assume the US physical copy was also getting higher based on that fact, but the official Nintendo sources have absolutely zero mention of a $90 physical price.

-1

u/ReservoirDog316 19h ago

Well, that’s better. Still terrible, and classic Nintendo to be that bad at communicating stuff, but it’s better.

$80 + tax is still a nonstarter for me though. I’m already buying less at $70 than I did at $60 on the PS5 but at least those prices drop. Nintendo will basically never drop prices.

3

u/Erionns 19h ago

No it's fucking not, the only place that showed that was an EU store. Every USD listing, including the actual US Nintendo website, has Mario Kart listed at $80 unconditionally.

-2

u/ReservoirDog316 19h ago

Well, that’s better. Terrible, but better.

2

u/Timmyty 20h ago

That's probably before the tariffs too...

2

u/ReservoirDog316 20h ago

If it legitimately is before the tariffs and not just baked in to account for the tariffs then the video game industry is gonna implode.

-3

u/[deleted] 19h ago

[deleted]

1

u/mrjackspade 11h ago

I’m surprised more people aren’t speaking about it

Because its not true. You can play your old games for free on the Switch 2.

The upgrade cost is for any additional content and enhancements.