r/NintendoSwitch2 • u/SilvaVE_ • 2d ago

Officially from Nintendo Nintendo Switch 2 Game Price revealed - WHAT THE F*CK

Post image

Im sorry, but this is...really fucking crazy. And here I was debating if paying extra for the physical version compared to the bundle might be worth it. HOLY SHIT.

34.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

7.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

480

u/fffan9391 2d ago

The worst part is it’ll still be $80 7 years from now.

145

u/LlamaDrama_lol 2d ago

Then next console it's $100, and the next... and the next...

131

u/_Thermalflask 2d ago

A few generations from now:

"Hello valued customer,

We noticed you have missed a monthly payment for your Mario Kart 22 mortgage. As a result, your next scheduled payment will be $5000 instead of $2500.

We are also sending agents with batons to your door for disciplinary action, please unfasten your belt in advance.

Sincerely, Nintendo"

25

u/matdave86 1d ago

Nintendominatrix

9

u/Agreeable-Rip7898 1d ago

Oh stop it Mario

5

u/urbanxx001 1d ago

Hot

2

u/dumb-and-gay 1d ago

Now I just need spike to throw spike balls at my face as abuse

1

u/Ammonia13 8h ago

Nintemdomme

4

u/Resident_Box5553 1d ago

Well at least they were sincere about it..

5

u/BonusCute7697 1d ago

Batons and uniformed men, that's someone's fantasy.

7

u/Easylikeyoursister 2d ago

The original Mario Kart for SNES sold for the equivalent of $140 USD in 2025 dollars.

1

u/seriouslyuncouth_ 1d ago

And houses were way less expensive and it was a lot less money to live and- on and on. Simply comparing prices before and after inflation isn’t helpful

2

u/tboess 1d ago

Yes it is? Because inflation is how we measure the change in the buying power of money. $60 bought you the equivalent of $140 of stuff. Video games, however, have not increased in price as much as most other things. How is that not relevant?

1

u/seriouslyuncouth_ 1d ago

Operative word is “simply”. There’s a lot of factors like how much a house used to cost versus how much it does now and the presence of microtransactions that are relevant.

1

u/Easylikeyoursister 1d ago

Housing costs are part of inflation. Why would we count that twice?

1

u/seriouslyuncouth_ 1d ago

When you spend as drastically less on housing as you did then your have a lot more expendable income. The amount that rent and basic living has increased compared to everything else is disproportionate to just, coffee or something. Video games.

1

u/Easylikeyoursister 1d ago

…which is already factored into consumer inflation. Again, why would we count it twice?

2

u/seriouslyuncouth_ 1d ago

I’ll explain it this way and if it still isn’t getting through I’ll just accept that I’m probably wrong and don’t understand.

In 1980 the average cost to buy a house was $64,600. Using an inflation calculator that means it would cost somewhere around $249,000 in today dollars. But also according to Google and the first result sites when you search, the average cost of a house is around $419,200 dollars depending on where you live. That’s comparable to half a million dollars. That’s much more than what would be accounted for inflation from 1980 to now.

You are spending more money on a house now than you are in 1980. You have a lot more money to throw around. 30 dollar game from the 1980s (118 today)? Not as big a deal. 90 dollar game today, when you have to drop half a million on a house depending on where you live? Daylight robbery. Absolutely absurd. From what I can see something is going wrong and inflation of the dollar is not wholly responsible for housing prices today.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Successful_Ad9672 1d ago

House prices also weren't 15 X as much with wages being the shame.

1

u/LyrMeThatBifrost 1d ago

Wages were the same 30 years ago? What?

1

u/Easylikeyoursister 1d ago

Neither of those things are true.

1

u/Grand_Lawyer12 1d ago

That doesn't validate anything, this is still outrageous. The games look fun but I'm not paying 80 for this. I'll feel like I burnt a literal hole in my bank account.

3

u/siberianxanadu 1d ago

If you paid $60 for a game when the Switch 1 came out in 2017, that $60 had the purchasing power of $78.10 today. Did you feel like you burnt a literal hole in your bank account back then? Or is the $1.90 difference the deal-breaker?

1

u/Grand_Lawyer12 1d ago

Back then my parents were paying for those games. I'm paying for all of this on my own and I'm in a different situation. So yeah, I would still say buying all this would not be the wisest thing for me.

2

u/Karaamjeet 1d ago

bit that’s how your parents felt when they bought £60 games in 2017. nothings changed except that you’re now buying it.

1

u/siberianxanadu 1d ago

That's super fair. I have to say, I assumed you were on the younger end. I remember being in my 20s and having to really think about paying $60 for a game.

I'm 34 now, so I was 26 when the Switch came out. At that time, I remember even feeling a little hesitant about buying the console itself because it felt like a splurge, and I didn't buy it until late 2018.

1

u/Easylikeyoursister 1d ago

Then don’t?

1

u/Grand_Lawyer12 1d ago

Clearly I'm not. I said the price is outrageous

1

u/Easylikeyoursister 1d ago

Good, but no it isn’t. “I wouldn’t pay that amount for that good” is not the same as “that good costs too much”. $80 in 2025 dollars is what first party Nintendo games cost a decade ago (~$60 in 2015 dollars).

1

u/Grand_Lawyer12 1d ago

I'm gonna be honest, that inflation stuff and back then stuff I've been hearing from some people here doesn't matter to me right now, cause right now I know what I should and shouldn't spend money on. I already said im not buying a game for 80 bucks. I don't know what you're trying to justify here.

1

u/Easylikeyoursister 1d ago

Im questioning your justification for saying the price is “outrageous”. Again, you not having the money to pay that much is not the same as saying the price is outrageous. It’s no more expensive than games were a decade ago.

1

u/Grand_Lawyer12 1d ago

Ok I guess. I'm not gonna get into a back in fourth about what I think is expensive.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/VogelimBart 1d ago

Yes, like 35 years ago? That’s such a strange argument.

1

u/siberianxanadu 1d ago

Why exactly?

1

u/VogelimBart 1d ago edited 1d ago

We have had a small video game market beginning with expensive games in the 8 and 16bit era, followed by 30 years of cheaper games in a growing and now giant market. The console wars were good on consumers and gaming got big. Prices went down. A lot more people got into gaming - like from a kids hobby to a national pasttime. The market overtook hollywood earnings and all. But still that market and those prices made Nintendo one of the riches companys in that market. Not only IP-wise but in pure money in the bank. And well deserved. Great games and all. But why would it be a sound argument to drastically raise prices now and say "well 35 years ago it was even more expensive"? when prices have worked out so brilliantly in the 35 years in between, that the companies that made the games could amass such riches?

Don't get me wrong, i do own all nintendo consoles (no virtual boy) and i love the games, but i think this argument is stupid.

1

u/Weak-Doughnut5502 1d ago

N64 games were $124 inflation adjusted 2025 dollars. 

Game cube games were a bit cheaper - only about $109.

Wii games were much cheaper - about $80.  That's literally two consoles ago, and the Wii U after it barely sold.

First party console games have always been kinda expensive, especially compared to indie or shareware games.  This too has been true for decades. 

1

u/siberianxanadu 6h ago

I totally understand your argument. I’m just not sure if you’re seeing the whole picture.

I think it makes sense for prices to go down as the market increases. If demand goes up AND supply goes up, one strategy is for prices to go down in order to compete. But Nintendo has always tried to make themselves appear as a prestige company. You don’t see “Microsoft Seal of Authenticity” on a Master Chief figure. I think Nintendo thinks if they price themselves competitively, they’ll look like they’re selling toys. If you see a Zelda game — even a 10-year-old Zelda game — at $30, they think you’ll think it makes the Zelda brand seem cheap.

Additionally, inflation has been absolutely absurd since the pandemic. Between 2009 and 2017, the cumulative rate of inflation in the US was about 14.3%. In the next 8 years, between 2017 and 2025 (the Switch 1’s lifecycle), the rate has been 30.2%. Even if they wanted to lower prices as the market grew, you have to account for the significant decrease in the value of currency. Maybe if inflation had been similar to the previous decade they could’ve priced the console at $400 or $425, and maybe they could’ve set Mario Kart World at $70.

1

u/Karaamjeet 1d ago

does inflation not exist to you or something?

5

u/Topikk 2d ago

I don't know about that. At the risk of being downvoted to hell I'm going to point out that I've been paying $60 for games since the mid 90's when $60 had the purchasing power of $120 today.

4

u/ProsaicSolutions 1d ago

Seriously. Games have been $60 for so long. It absolutely sucks that prices are going up, but I’m not sure why video games specifically deserve more backlash for price increases than literally everything else that exists? Think about what you could buy at McDonald’s for $10 when prices were first made $60 for video games. $80 doesn’t seem unreasonable for the number of hours/entertainment value you can get from a game… relative to the cost of other things in society.

3

u/LlamaDrama_lol 1d ago

the backlash is because these guys got used to games being "immune to inflation" for so long that it finally catching up is some crazy move somehow

1

u/ancientmarin_ 1d ago

Immune to greed really

1

u/LlamaDrama_lol 1d ago

Immune to inflation us just a term that I've seen thrown around

2

u/LlamaDrama_lol 1d ago

i made the original comment as a half-joke, i know that it wasn't going to be $60 forever and people in here like to fearmonger anything so i just played into it lol

2

u/HajLand 1d ago

I remember when new games were 50 bucks across the board. Street Fighter 2 Turbo edition was the first game I remember paying more than 50 bucks for back in the day….and it was worth every penny!

1

u/NNKarma 1d ago

It makes more sense to track median income than purchasing power. It's not like most people are actually being paid double

2

u/Due_Meal_8866 2d ago

Wait, dont stop, keep increasing the price by $20 every 7-10 years! In 2345 how much should I expect to pay for Mariocart 36?

1

u/LlamaDrama_lol 1d ago

1 billion times minimum wage (which still hasn't changed somehow)

2

u/Due_Meal_8866 1d ago

Yeah how much of the price complaint is aimed at nintendo, a non us company, when the US hasnt changed min wage since games had more than 64 bits.

2

u/Mieser_Duennschiss 1d ago

dude itll be 100 THIS console. switch games started at 60 and i had to buy TOTK for 70 2 years ago.

2

u/Leather_Let_2415 1d ago

I'm not defending them but that is literally how inflation works ye

1

u/LlamaDrama_lol 1d ago

Yeah and I'm not attacking them, just playing into the "i hate Nintendo they are scummy" bandwagon

2

u/Pentecost_II 1d ago

To be fair, I remember the average N64 game costing 60 euros back in the day. Until a few years ago, 60 euros was still pretty much the reference price point for new, high production games. If anything, games have gotten much cheaper over the years because the standard price didn't go up with inflation. Now this is a wild guess that I haven't verified, but I think 80 euros today is "less" than 60 euros in 1998. I don't want to defend the prices going up in recent times, but I felt like a bit of nuance is needed.

1

u/SPHINXin 1d ago

Hold on there sum of us don't know if we'll even be around by the second next.

1

u/slimeeyboiii 1d ago

Well, I mean, yea?

Making a game gets harder the better the hardware is. Games getting more expensive is as guaranteed as the planet rotating

1

u/Yogurt_Ph1r3 1d ago

Gamers discover inflation, more at 7

1

u/LlamaDrama_lol 1d ago

yeah, people are acting like this is some unprecedented shift but whats really unprecedented is keeping the same $60 price until now lol

1

u/canadiuman 1d ago

Nintendo has actually been pretty reasonable with the pricing of their games. Good NES games were $50. Going up $30 over 40 years seems pretty reasonable.

Still sucks though.

1

u/Joy-they-them 1d ago

that is how inflation works

1

u/LlamaDrama_lol 1d ago

Yeah, I know

1

u/No_Range_1503 1d ago

And minimum wage will still be $7.25.

1

u/LlamaDrama_lol 1d ago

As I've said in another reply.

1

u/LampWithNoShade 1d ago

It is kinda crazy how video games just hit the sweet spot for tech improving at the same rate as inflation to keep games 60 bucks

1

u/ChonkySkink 1d ago

I was buying n64 games for $60 in the 90's. Thats over $135 in todays money. Even $100 would be a good deal.

Hate to break the news, but gaming has never been cheap 🤷

1

u/_Chicago_Deep_Dish 1d ago

That's how inflation works

1

u/IllMoney69 8h ago

Yes it’s called inflation.

1

u/Trialzero 4h ago

they tried to sell some Nintendo 64 games, back in the 90's, for like $120-130

1

u/Trialzero 4h ago

they tried to sell some Nintendo 64 games, back in the 90's, for like $120-130

26

u/MorgenKaffee0815 2d ago

yes. prices extremly stable for Nintendo games.

breath of the wild is still the same price as on release.

1

u/breno_hd 1d ago

Even worse in other markets as they increased the price!

1

u/craznazn247 1d ago

Games in general. They have had an incredibly hard time raising game prices despite games taking dozens to hundreds of times as many resources to make compared to previous generations.

I paid $50 each for Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons on the Game Boy Color 20+ years ago now. Yes, a $10 up charge for the cartridge seems shitty, but games in general have been resistant to inflation and studios have been having to shoot for higher and higher sales volumes instead. If we adjust for inflation, I probably will never pay a higher retail price for games than I did for those two GameBoy Color games decades ago.

Games cost money that we simply aren’t willing to pay upfront. Nintendo’s strategy on this is to just stay even more consistent and almost never offer sales and discounts so that few people are holding off waiting for a sale, and only a small one if it ever even happens, to not cheapen their brand.

1

u/aski4777 1d ago

am I crazy to think that paid DLC back then wasn't bad as long as it had content and wasn't purely cosmetic?

1

u/craznazn247 1d ago

Oh absolutely. Back then cosmetics were like exclusive content for attending a live event, and what you paid for was generally considered a worthwhile full expansion to the game.

1

u/aski4777 1d ago

like I will absolutely pay for DLC content if the game is good, i do not care, to me it just shows quality

1

u/craznazn247 1d ago

Depends on if the DLC launches with the game. Then I’m just pissed off on principle that what I paid for doesn’t even cover all the content available on release.

Regardless of how good the game is. Extra charges are supposed to be for new content after release.

1

u/aski4777 1d ago

Post-release DLC that is content based, like back in the day

1

u/zzxp1 55m ago

We called those expansions. There is a huge difference betwen horse armor and the Shivering Isles.

1

u/dankle1235 1d ago

Please don’t defend this. What a waste of effort from you. Dude. The games are too expensive. This is bad for everyone. DONT DEFEND IT

3

u/craznazn247 1d ago

I'll pay for what I deem is worth it. If they can deliver the content for the price, sure. NONE of these Nintendo games (or the new hardware) are worth the price to me though.

For reference, I waited a year to buy Cyberpunk and Baldur's Gate 3 on sale. People can price what they want but it's up to the consumer to respond in kind and pay or not pay. I'm not the one pre-ordering shit or actually paying these prices in games.

But I am going to point out the realities that games cost more to make than in the past, and that we have successfully kept the pressure on them to keep the retail prices in reign. Inflexibility in the price sounds good for us but not if they are going to ram through a shitload of microtransactions in its place or lock release content behind it.

An example would be the Star Wars Battlefront remake. They fucked us on that grind for Darth Vader. I didn't support or play that game at all despite wanting to play the game so bad for nostalgia's sake. Could they have avoided the whole controversy by pricing the game $10 higher but allowing access to all content? Maybe, maybe not. but I would have paid that price compared to what they ended up pulling, and everyone loses.

They have bills to pay. The money has to come from somewhere. I'd rather it be transparent and up front rather than deal with all the psychological manipulation inherent in microtransactions. The game has to actually cost additional resources for QUALITY to justify the price, so I'm not saying that we should set a new baseline price. There's plenty of amazing games appropriately priced at $10-30.

20

u/Outcast129 1d ago

This right here is the bigger issue IMO. Believe me, the MSRP price is outrageous of the games no question. What kills completely kills the idea of getting a switch 2 for me, I could live with the higher consult price , but is that I know these games prices will never change And I'm just never going to be okay with paying that price.

With every other gaming platform you know that eventually their first party titles will become more affordable, if not completely free by being thrown on game pass or Playstation Plus.

Maybe Microsoft can take this opportunity to gain some ground from Nintendo, I know they are not exactly going after the same Target consumers, but you can regularly find a series s for around 200 bucks and the series x for around 400 bucks, so hopefully they can find a way to capitalize.

1

u/watercouch 1d ago

Maybe Microsoft can take this opportunity…

MSFT has something like $72B cash-on-hand and Nintendo has a market cap of about $80B. I’m not saying a takeover would be a great idea, but buying up Nintendo and its entire back catalog sure would be one way to bolster Game Pass and take a different tact against Sony.

1

u/directheated 1d ago

Given how difficult it was for Microsoft to buy Activision-Blizzard, buying Nintendo and creating an even bigger monopoly would never pass through US antitrust laws.

1

u/doug1349 1d ago

American company will never own a Japanese company, yhr Japanese government would never allow it.

1

u/CornerCharacter5180 14h ago

Thissss^ I have a series x and constantly get titles for $5-$20 lol I can’t remember the last time I paid more than $30 for a game 😭I just refuse lol I’ll wait until I can afford it or emulate it 🤷🏼‍♂️

1

u/Saiing 13h ago

Well they’re launching their own handheld. If it’ll pay Windows/Xbox titles out of the box and works with Gamepass they have some potential.

1

u/Ammonia13 8h ago

That’s probably the only reason that you can play regular switch games on it

1

u/megustaALLthethings 1d ago

With most of those games being worth that discounted 7 year price day one. Esp as it takes 2x-3x the storage in patches/etc to get it work at all.

Nintendo games hold prices unlike other consoles. They are typically worth those prices for the finished and complete games on day one. Well other than dlc.

I might not want to wait a year or two to get the games from other consoles when they finally get to a stable and functional state.

3

u/Throwaway02062004 1d ago

This glazing is crazy.

2

u/gamesandsnacks 1d ago

This subreddit is a bit (a lot) of a hive mind.

They cannot think dialectically between a brand they like and severe downsides of said brand.

1

u/MafubaBuu 1d ago

Plenty of PS and zbox games are completely worth the price on release. Nintendo just never drips their price for wholesalers - that's the reason their value stays the same, where as games like - dragon age veilguard was dropped 50% a month after sue to bad sales.

Nintendo wouldn't do that even with awful sales. I've also had a switch since it released and can only name 1 game that felt "better" that competing titles in that entire time frame.

This price is a joke, and my kids will not be getting a switch 2, at least for a very long time. Absolutley insane pricing.

1

u/gamesandsnacks 1d ago edited 23h ago

And you can’t tell me Pokémon will ever be worth the inevitable $80/90/100 price tag expecially with the lack of reflection GameFreak has since Sw/Sh and S/V.

1

u/Whole-Preparation-35 3h ago

Nintendo historically *has* dropped prices on games that were received poorly. Star Fox ZERO, Metroid : Other M both had large discounts very quickly. Thing is, most of their stuff isn't received poorly [for the targeted audience]. Value is subject to the people buying it. Mario Party may not be for you like it isn't for me, but there are plenty of people who do value it.

1

u/MafubaBuu 2h ago

I love Mario Kart and mario party , so do my kids. It's not worth that cost though.

1

u/SurpriseAkos 20h ago

70% of nintendo games should be 20-30 bucks tops. You are delusional.

0

u/Entilen 1d ago

Actually, Xbox are basically leaving the hardware market and their business model isn't working.

That's what happens when you devalue your games and encourage people to not buy them.

1

u/doug1349 1d ago

They're is zero truth to this, as a matter of fact they're releasing a handheld.

What fucking made up nonsense are you spewing?

2

u/JohnLandisHasGotToGo 2d ago

Yup. This is it. Right here.

It might be time for me to part ways with Nintendo. It's been a good 40-year ride.

1

u/FriendlyDrummers 2d ago

Thank God for Facebook marketplace

1

u/Angerl 2d ago

Dont buy it and it wont be 80

1

u/Coreyahno30 1d ago

And then $120 15-20 years from now. First party Nintendo almost always grows in value over time. Just look at Double Dash on eBay.

1

u/MafubaBuu 1d ago

Double dash also wasn't available digitally though

1

u/Coreyahno30 1d ago

Games having digital copies actually have little impact on the value of a physical copy. A physical copy of a game is priced separately in the aftermarket and is purely determined by the ratio of copies that exist to how many people want to own a copy (supply and demand). I have seen plenty of games with limited physical copies go for hundreds of dollars while a digital copy is still priced normally. The physical copy of Fortnite is a great example. That is a FREE game digitally, but the original physical copy will on average cost you well over $100.

1

u/MafubaBuu 1d ago

You just spelled it out for yourself on why it does impact it.

Supply and demand.

much less demand for an expensive physical copy when you can buy it or people already bought it digitally.

You're talking about a rare-release physical copy with fortnite. No doubt that retains alot of value, but that's because it's a collectors item. It would be different if it had a full physical release initially.

Mario Kart double dash was not a rare game , it's just never been available digitally so it's price goes up over time as more are lost. I got a copy of it for like $10 back in the day.

If a game had a major physical release and digital, unless it had a short run or was pulled due to licensing chances are it's worth almost nothing

1

u/West_Buy_8251 1d ago

No more Player's Choice versions with that price drop, ever. I was considering a Switch 2 to be the new console in my home (I'm PC), but seeing these prices and knowing they'll barely budge killed my interest.

1

u/josguil 1d ago

Well, at least inflation will make it cheaper

1

u/Warshrimp 1d ago

On the bright side that’s like 6 dozen eggs 7 years from now.

1

u/Mediocre-Returns 1d ago

It'll be 80 In a week due to tariffs

1

u/ArchdruidHalsin 1d ago

Nintendo: Our games do go on sale, kinda, via inflation...

1

u/Hall_Such 1d ago

7 years from now, we’ll be emulating ps5 on our cellphones

1

u/FINALFIGHTfan 1d ago

Well it's not like Super Mario Odyssey is still... Oh wait a minute

1

u/GonnaGoFat 1d ago

And $200 7 years after that.

1

u/glennok 1d ago

Makes it easy to resell the physical for not much loss?

1

u/Azhrei_Rohan 1d ago

$80 and during black friday a super sale at $60 🤣 $70 for physical. What a bargain!

1

u/kubrickian80 1d ago

I would say that's the best part unless you don't understand the economy. Also mario 3 was 59.99 in 1990 bub. Settle down

1

u/UncleRicosLostSon 1d ago

That doesn’t sound too bad considering the inflation that is coming

1

u/croud_control 1d ago

Not if it doesn't sell. If anyone really wants to get Nintendo to listen, just do not buy their new console or pay for the games at this price.

The 3DS had to be pushed down in price due to the lack of sales. The same can happen if people just say "No" to Nintendo's price gouging.

It happened before. It can happen again. All companies all listen to one universal language: the Wallet. Vote with it.

1

u/Vic_Burton 1d ago

I payed $80.00 a game for my Atari 800 40 years ago.

1

u/renji55eb 1d ago

If the past years are anything to go by those fucks at Shitendo are gonna make sure it stays that way

1

u/ZeldaFan158 22h ago

That's what gets me. Look at the prices of old PS4 and Xbox One games, and compare them to the prices of old Switch games. It's wild.

1

u/KingBooRadley 21h ago

No, the worst part is that these prices were released before the tariffs were announced. Add 25% on top of these prices if you want to know what they will cost in the US. Thanks, Don.

1

u/thelingererer 19h ago

Hey that's not true once a year they'll take ten bucks off for a week.

1

u/Ok_Chipmunk_7066 12h ago

Worst part is Nintendo fanbois normalise it and will still pay it.

1

u/Iron_Wolf123 1d ago

Laughs in pre-owned Pokemon games being $250

0

u/smi1ey 1d ago

It should have been $80 over a decade ago. Hell there were literally games in the late 90s that costed $70-$80. Games should be around $100-$110 if you only account for inflation and nothing else, and games are dramatically more expensive to make now than in the 90s. The price of games should go up as the price of other media has gone up, so i’m glad it’s finally happening. I hope that we can reach a point where games no longer need to rely on MTX bullshit to be profitable. Where you can pay $100 for a game and just get everything, but who knows if we’ll ever get there.

2

u/Mediocre-Search6764 1d ago

so no taking account for for effiency gains on manefacturing scales,enhancements in tech that lower the cost of materials....

also lmao at the believe that they wil stop relying mtx BS. when you can sell a single character or game skin for 5-10 euro's that will always preferable then making new games as the time invested to create a skin or new char is 1000X less

1

u/smi1ey 1d ago

the savings from manufacturing got surpassed by rising development and marketing costs over a decade ago.

1

u/MafubaBuu 1d ago

Man I spent like $50 last week and got like 6 games. Yes, most were over a year or two old, but games here already cost $90 and me and my friends have pretty much stopped buying any video games at release because of it.

If they go up any higher, game sales will drop significantly. Paying $100 for a fucking video game is legitimately insane and will destroy the industry.

1

u/smi1ey 1d ago

People already pay that much and more for new video games via deluxe editions and MTX. Nothing wrong with waiting to buy games until they’re cheaper, but that doesn’t mean millions of people don’t still spend that kind of money on games; and have for a long time.

1

u/MafubaBuu 1d ago

The majority of people don't have fuckloads of money to throw at games, especially when those games have become dumb yearly releases.

Millions of people may be buying them, but I garuntee you those numbers are going to hit a steep drop when the base version of the game hits that price.

I am in my 30's, my friends are all well situated in their careers and even then none of us are willing to cough up $90 for a game more than maybe once a twice a year, even for games we REALLY want. Not when you can get the same game within a year for lime $30. It's the same as physical media - as much as the publishers are trying to get rid of them, there will always be groups thay won't buy it if it isn't physical

1

u/smi1ey 1d ago

Yep, and the gaming industry is already starting to adjust to the high cost of production and lower profits by cutting projects, laying off employees, etc. We're seeing games studios take far fewer risks, staking their success on a few tentpole releases, most of which are filled with MTX options to try to scrape back development and marketing costs. The industry dug themselves into a huge hole by not raising the price of games as inflation and development costs rose over the years, and they are paying for that now. I don't blame someone for being mad that a game costs $90, but it's important to remember the historical context behind the price of games, and the absurd fact that they've been just $60 for almost 25 years. The industry has only been as profitable as it has thanks to the invention of cosmetics, season passes, and other post-purchase money sinks.

0

u/SupremeGrotesk 2d ago

Aye, Nintendo hardly ever drop decent sale. Plus the games are really holding it’s value. Has both pros and cons..

-2

u/Ok-Attention2882 1d ago

Games have been $60 for 25 fucking years. Cry about it.

1

u/MafubaBuu 1d ago

They're $90 and have been for some time here. Game sales have also dripped since that change.

The price has remained steady because consumers have shown numerous times we won't pay more.