In the age of the Crash/Spyro remakes, Nintendo still charging 60$ for their remakes seems especially screwed up.

[WestEgg]

I mean, the very premise of this thread is that Nintendo tends to put a Nintendo tax on their ports and remakes. It's clearly not "because I said so," and it's just a silly strawman used in place of a proper argument. Indeed, the game could have a budget that calls for what $60 games typically have, but I don't know that this is likely. From my perspective, I don't reckon that anything shown demonstrates that it is a higher-budget game than remakes tend to be.

Click to shrink...

I really doubt remaking this game would require any less effort than making an original 2D Zelda, so I don't really see how "Nintendo Tax" applies here. It's a full effort title. It's not like anyone questioned the Metroid 2 remake being full price on the 3DS. Not sure why this is different.

 

[Deleted member 176]

it's obviously not worth the price so just don't buy it. get the original instead.

 

[Piscus]

Crash and Spyro probably wouldn't have sold at $60. Zelda probably will.

 

[teacup]

I really doubt remaking this game would require any less effort than making an original 2D Zelda, so I don't really see how "Nintendo Tax" applies here. It's a full effort title. It's not like anyone questioned the Metroid 2 remake being full price on the 3DS. Not sure why this is different.

Click to shrink...

Let me get this straight. No less effort but every map, item, dungeon, character and every part of the story is exactly the same.

So none of those things take effort to make?

 

[D.Lo]

Nintendo tends to put a Nintendo tax on their ports and remakes.

Click to shrink...

Kindly look up the meaning of the word 'tax'.

Unless Nintendo is in charge of the government where you live...

 

[Unknownlight]

I mean, the very premise of this thread is that Nintendo tends to put a Nintendo tax on their ports and remakes. It's clearly not "because I said so," and it's just a silly strawman used in place of a proper argument. Indeed, the game could have a budget that calls for what $60 games typically have, but I don't know that this is likely. From my perspective, I don't reckon that anything shown demonstrates that it is a higher-budget game than remakes tend to be.

Click to shrink...

There was a poster some pages back who pointed out that this entire thread could be viewed as a proxy debate between capitalism and socialism, and nowhere is this more clear than this post.

If a game has a lower budget than another, should it be expected to also be sold for a lower price? Is aiming for a higher profit than necessary "greedy"? This all feels like a philosophical question to me.

 

[Parthenios]

Some games are worth more than other games.

Part of that might be due to a decades long approach to preserving game value.

 

[WestEgg]

Let me get this straight. No less effort but every map, item, dungeon, character and every part of the story is exactly the same.

So none of those things take effort to make?

Click to shrink...

Yes, those parts have been figured out already by virtue of being a remake. And the Zelda series reuses items, characters, enemies, etc between titles all the time, heck A Link Between Worlds even used the same map. This game however had to create and model new assets for everything, create a new engine (or modify an existing one), reprogram and rebalance everything in said new engine, rearrange and record all tracks and sound effects, add at the very least the dungeon maker mode, and of course QA test and optimize the game. This is by far the most costly and effort intensive portion. I'd be confident in guessing this is easily the highest budgeted 2D Zelda to date.

 

[Deleted member 3093]

Kindly look up the meaning of the word 'tax'.

Unless Nintendo is in charge of the government where you live...

Click to shrink...

It's a figure of speech. Like how the higher price on Square Enix games for the DS was referred to as a "Square Enix tax" - AKA, an extra amount of money you pay for no apparent reason aside from pedigree of company/brand. I am not saying that Nintendo is in charge of the sales tax, I'm saying that Nintendo's ports and remakes tend to be overpriced compared to other ports and remakes, and it does not appear to be based on the budget.

 

[Schreckweg 5000]

I paid 10 bucks to watch Biggest Little Farm. Budget probably under 10 000 dollars.
I could have watched Endgame for the same amount of bucks. 356 million dollar budget.

Guess I got robbed.

 

[justiceiro]

Charging $60 dollar for a single game remake is outrageous? Capcom be like:

I guess we can at least be sure we won't get microtransactions added to the zelda game in a later update. Somebody has to pay for the lost profit by not including it.

Also, I'm past the point of simpathy by now. Switch has been out for years now and everyone who cared should alreadly know by now how expensive everything from it is, yet switch keep breaking nintendo sales records. It's a moot point, there are way more people mad that nintendo is not doing more remakes("hurdur, why doesn't you want my money nintendo") than ones frustrated by the existing ones. The only thing we should be buying from nintendo ritgh now, its their stocks.

 

[Deleted member 3093]

I paid 10 bucks to watch Biggest Little Farm. Budget probably under 10 000 dollars.
I could have watched Endgame for the same amount of bucks. 356 million dollar budget.

Guess I got robbed.

Click to shrink...

The point is talking about the justification for the pricepoint in an industry noted for not selling ports and remakes, generally, at the same price as a fully new game.

 

[Schreckweg 5000]

The point is talking about the justification for the pricepoint in an industry noted for not selling ports and remakes, generally, at the same price as a fully new game.

Click to shrink...

We are talking about an industry which has 60 whatever price point games, with gacha industries included to prey on vulnerable children. The industry does it is not an argument, it is a constantly changing observation.

And when someone in the industry offers you more bang for the buck, than I guess do it like me and get that entertainment offer instead.

 

[Tokklyym]

Some games are worth more than other games.

Part of that might be due to a decades long approach to preserving game value.

Click to shrink...

This guy gets it. Nintendo has been at this for a long, long time and they have always committed to the idea that their name is a badge of quality. After curating 30 years of brand associations, they are more than OK with being most expensive item on the shelf. They are a lifestyle brand. Every item for the Switch, hardware or software, is more expensive than comparable offerings from other video game companies, this is not by accident.

Nintendo does this because they believe it will make them more money.

 

[Anti]

M8, nintendo fans will eat you alive. They buyany trash port nintendo gives them at any price, defend it and thank them.

It is a lost cause...

 

[Phendrift]

For one, LA is a masterpiece. More acclaimed than any game you listed in the OP. Does the quality back up a full price? Yes.

Second, it's a full remake from the ground up with redone visuals, music and engine. Also worth the full price.

Third, if we wanna go the dumb "game length should always correlate to price" route, it's about a 15 hour game. Also justified full price, unless you wanna argue Naughty Dog games don't justify their price.

And lastly, I'd rather Nintendo not devalue their games. I can get it Day one in complete confidence I wouldn't have to wait for a sale if I wanted it cheaper months later. And no MTX.

 

[Phendrift]

M8, nintendo fans will eat you alive. They buyany trash port nintendo gives them at any price, defend it and thank them.

It is a lost cause...

Click to shrink...

Yeah, because a beautiful remake of an amazing game is a "trash port"

 

[Slim]

It's the customers fault basically.

 

[jaekeem]

I mean I'm not buying it at that price, but other people will

can't blame nintendo for charging a market price for exclusives if their consumers will pay it

 

[Samanosuke Akechi]

Nintendoes what activision don't!

 

[Deleted member 10737]

It's not about quality but rather a different business model, although quality is definetly a factor otherwise they wouldn't be able to sustain their strategy.

The difference to me is that most large game companies act more like technology compianies: they go though continuous cycles of incremental improvements. For each new game they tipically upgrade their production values, improve the engine, improve graphics, improve the netcode, add new features, etc. etc. also they create new settings and a new narrative to highlight those features.
So in the end the main value they're selling to customers is novely: new story, new features, new online communities, better graphics etc. The thing is novelty tends to wear off quickly, this is why most AAA games lose value over time. Plus, it's in the publisher's own interest to depreciate the game over time, because the next year they have a new novelty to sell and it has to be clear for the market that the previous game has become outdated.
It's not a coincidence Rockstar doesn't depreciate its games as quickly. There is certainly a question of quality, but also they don't want their games to become outdated before their next title is ready and they have long development cycles.

As for Nintendo, they act more like a toy company: they don't aim to create a novelty or a cutting-edge product, but rather they aim to create and sell a unique playstyle. Take 3D Mario as an example. Mario 64 was disruptive, after that they didn't a create a newer, improved version of M64 but rather they made Sunshine: a game with a unique theme (tropical) and a unique playstyle (fludd/water mechanics). Later they made another game with a unique theme (space) and a unique playstyle (gravity), and so on Mario Odyssey is another game with a unique theme (travelling) and a unique playstyle (morphing). This way, every time a new game in a series is released, the previous one doesn't become outdated. Even if it was released in 2002, to this date there is not another game in the market like Mario Sunshine, with its specific playstyle.
This is the reason why Nintendo games keep their value over time, the same reason why they can afford to update a gameboy game form 1993 and sell it for 60$.

Click to shrink...

very well said

Nintendo wants to charge $60 for Awakening? That's their prerogative. They know that the hardcore are going to buy the game at that price.

Click to shrink...

you think only hardcore nintendo fans are going to buy the game at that price?

 

[Phendrift]

It's not about quality but rather a different business model, although quality is definetly a factor otherwise they wouldn't be able to sustain their strategy.

The difference to me is that most large game companies act more like technology compianies: they go though continuous cycles of incremental improvements. For each new game they tipically upgrade their production values, improve the engine, improve graphics, improve the netcode, add new features, etc. etc. also they create new settings and a new narrative to highlight those features.
So in the end the main value they're selling to customers is novely: new story, new features, new online communities, better graphics etc. The thing is novelty tends to wear off quickly, this is why most AAA games lose value over time. Plus, it's in the publisher's own interest to depreciate the game over time, because the next year they have a new novelty to sell and it has to be clear for the market that the previous game has become outdated.
It's not a coincidence Rockstar doesn't depreciate its games as quickly. There is certainly a question of quality, but also they don't want their games to become outdated before their next title is ready and they have long development cycles.

As for Nintendo, they act more like a toy company: they don't aim to create a novelty or a cutting-edge product, but rather they aim to create and sell a unique playstyle. Take 3D Mario as an example. Mario 64 was disruptive, after that they didn't a create a newer, improved version of M64 but rather they made Sunshine: a game with a unique theme (tropical) and a unique playstyle (fludd/water mechanics). Later they made another game with a unique theme (space) and a unique playstyle (gravity), and so on Mario Odyssey is another game with a unique theme (travelling) and a unique playstyle (morphing). This way, every time a new game in a series is released, the previous one doesn't become outdated. Even if it was released in 2002, to this date there is not another game in the market like Mario Sunshine, with its specific playstyle.
This is the reason why Nintendo games keep their value over time, the same reason why they can afford to update a gameboy game form 1993 and sell it for 60$.

Click to shrink...

Yeah this is pretty true for Nintendo. Many of their 30 year franchises don't feel as iterative as some that have been around for just as little as a decade or less.

I think Sony is also kinda catching onto that with their franchises.

 

[Boiled Goose]

Pro tip. The other games aren't cheaper because corporations are being kind to you.

The price is what the market can bear.

 

[Council Pop]

it's a load of falsehoods and extreme hyperbole.

Click to shrink...

It's economic reality. You want cheap games? Welcome to an AAA industry crash.

Games are cheaper now than they were 30 years ago.

Is that the sign of a healthy industry to you?

 

[Mekanos]

You want cheap games? Welcome to an AAA industry crash.

Click to shrink...

Well, at least I'd have time to catch up on my backlog.

 

[StallionDan]

It's economic reality. You want cheap games? Welcome to an AAA industry crash.

Games are cheaper now than they were 30 years ago.

Is that the sign of a healthy industry to you?

Click to shrink...

Ports do not cost so much that they need be priced high. MTX are put in for greed to stuff shareholders pockets, not because of game budgets. GAAS is just about a way to push MTX and not a necessity. I can go on forever with what is wrong with that post but this stuff should be obvious.

 

[Swift_Gamer]

Is it really a remaster when the source material is 2D? I have a problem paying full price for HD upgrades but Link's Awakening is a new game that just happens to share a scenario and layout with the original game: everything else was built froM scratch.

Click to shrink...

Crash, Spyro and shadow of the Colossus were made from Scratch.

 

[MatildaMuggins]

Crash, Spyro and shadow of the Colossus were made from Scratch.

Click to shrink...

Mentioned earlier in the thread, but Toys for Bob "traced" the levels from the original Spyro games, for lack of better word.

Why isn't Resident Evil 2 being discussed here? Was that not full priced?

 

[Aleh]

Mentioned earlier in the thread, but Toys for Bob "traced" the levels from the original Spyro games, for lack of better word.

Why isn't Resident Evil 2 being discussed here? Was that not full priced?

Click to shrink...

That's no different than Link's Awakening using the same exact map layout

 

[Council Pop]

Ports do not cost so much that they need be priced high. MTX are put in for greed to stuff shareholders pockets, not because of game budgets. GAAS is just about a way to push MTX and not a necessity. I can go on forever with what is wrong with that post but this stuff should be obvious.

Click to shrink...

Link's Awakening is not a fucking port. It's like saying that Disney should have charged less for cinema tickets for this summer's Lion King and Aladdin remakes lmao.

 

[StallionDan]

Link's Awakening is not a fucking port. It's like saying that Disney should have charged less for cinema tickets for this summer's Lion King and Aladdin remakes lmao.

Click to shrink...

Never said it was, but all their ports to Switch have been full price.

 

[MatildaMuggins]

That's no different than Link's Awakening using the same exact map layout

Click to shrink...

It's kinda different. It's like drawing from a reference versus... tracing something.

 

[Aleh]

It's kinda different. It's like drawing from a reference versus... tracing something.

Click to shrink...

Well Link's Awakening is grid based so the result is still 1:1

 

[Council Pop]

Never said it was, but all their ports to Switch have been full price.

Click to shrink...

Ports of same-generation games, and the latest games in their respective series.

 

[sir_crocodile]

Never said it was, but all their ports to Switch have been full price.

Click to shrink...

The ports are aimed at a new audience that never knew these games even existed as the wii u was a failure and only a small percentage of the switch audience bought it there. They throw in extras here and there on the off chance existing owners will rebuy, but that's really just a bonus.

 

[Zelas]

The ports are aimed at a new audience that never knew these games even existed as the wii u was a failure and only a small percentage of the switch audience bought it there. They throw in extras here and there on the off chance existing owners will rebuy, but that's really just a bonus.

Click to shrink...

Nobody knew MK8 existed?? 8.5 million hipsters helped that game stay under the radar?

 

[Lyrick]

Nobody knew MK8 existed?? 8.5 million hipsters helped that game stay under the radar?

Click to shrink...

That's such a small slice of the pie chart though

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Never said it was, but all their ports to Switch have been full price.

Click to shrink...

Captain Toad Treasure Tracker wasn't. It was $40.

But all in all, most of the ports and lower tier games constantly go on sale. DKCR, Mario Tennis Ace and Kirby Star Allies go on sale regularly. You don't have to pay $60 to play these games.

I got Splatoon 2, Mario Odyssey, Smash Ultimate, Yoshi's Crafted World, Pokemon Lets Go for the equivalent of 40 USD on launch day. I got Bayonetta 1+2 for $30 Canadian.

People always say Nintendo games never go on sale but I find its Mario Kart and Zelda that never go on sale. Everything else does if you wait long enough.

 

[Swift_Gamer]

Mentioned earlier in the thread, but Toys for Bob "traced" the levels from the original Spyro games, for lack of better word.

Why isn't Resident Evil 2 being discussed here? Was that not full priced?

Click to shrink...

Crash didn't do it.
RE2 isn't a 1:1 remake.

 

[Swift_Gamer]

I really doubt remaking this game would require any less effort than making an original 2D Zelda, so I don't really see how "Nintendo Tax" applies here. It's a full effort title. It's not like anyone questioned the Metroid 2 remake being full price on the 3DS. Not sure why this is different.

Click to shrink...

Except storyline, characters, dialogs, environment and dungeon layout were made ages ago? Are you saying this is like BOTW?

 

[sir_crocodile]

Nobody knew MK8 existed?? 8.5 million hipsters helped that game stay under the radar?

Click to shrink...

That's less then a quarter of the switches sold to date (whereas for the Wii U it was over 50% of the Wii U base). And because it was one of the best known of the wiiu ports, nintendo went to extra effort with all dlc packed in and battle mode. And probably caught a lot more of the wii u base then other ports, hence the switch version also being owned by more the 50% of the base.

Funky mode this was not

 

[D.Lo]

Nobody knew MK8 existed?? 8.5 million hipsters helped that game stay under the radar?

Click to shrink...

MK8D will sell somewhere between two and three times the entire sales of the Wii U.

 

[Zelas]

That's less then a quarter of the switches sold to date (whereas for the Wii U it was over 50% of the Wii U base). And because it was one of the best known of the wiiu ports, nintendo went to extra effort with all dlc packed in and battle mode. And probably caught a lot more of the wii u base then other ports, hence the switch version also being owned by more the 50% of the base.

Funky mode this was not

Click to shrink...

No. It sold as well as it did, even on Wii U, because it was MK. The additional benefits are nothing next to the MK name. There isnt one scenario where you can argue no one knew about a MK game releasing. Just stop.

MK8D will sell somewhere between two and three times the entire sales of the Wii U.

Click to shrink...

That doesnt make MK8 unknown in a vacuum. When MK Wii sold as well as it did were you saying MK7 was unknown?

 

[sir_crocodile]

No. It sold as well as it did, even on Wii U, because it was MK. The additional benefits are nothing next to the MK name. There isnt one scenario where you can argue no one knew about a MK game releasing. Just stop.

Click to shrink...

Just looking at the numbers a decent amount of them wouldn't have known it. But that's beside the point, whether they did or didn't, it's still a new game to them, which is the main point. By the time this generation ends, we're probably looking at the number of Switch owners who had bought MK8 on WiiU being like 10%

 

[WestEgg]

Except storyline, characters, dialogs, environment and dungeon layout were made ages ago? Are you saying this is like BOTW?

Click to shrink...

I already answered this like a few posts above yours. All of that is likely easily offset by this being the first HD 2D Zelda game that had to recreate everything from scratch, and there's very little doubt for me that this was the highest budgeted 2D Zelda to date.

 

[Zelas]

Just looking at the numbers a decent amount of them wouldn't have known it. But that's beside the point, whether they did or didn't, it's still a new game to them, which is the main point. By the time this generation ends, we're probably looking at the number of Switch owners who had bought MK8 on WiiU being like 10%

Click to shrink...

Show me the numbers you have that says the only people to know about a game are the people who have purchased it. You can't jump to the conclusion of "it was unknown" just because it sold less than other entries. At most you can blame the wii u experience for holding back sales, not a lack of knowledge the game existed.

 

[D.Lo]

No. It sold as well as it did, even on Wii U, because it was MK.

Click to shrink...

...and also because Nintendo artificially pumped up the attach rate of Wii U owners buying MK8 by literally giving away a free game with MK8.

That doesnt make MK8 unknown in a vacuum. When MK Wii sold as well as it did were you saying MK7 was unknown?

Click to shrink...

Well first, MK7 sold 18.5 million and counting.

And known/unknown is a relative thing. The Wii U outsold MK8, but the Wii U was relatively unknown, many many people thought it was an add-on. Who exactly would have heard of a Wii U game but not the console it was on? Who pays attention to games on a platform they don't own or haven't even heard of? Not as many people as you think.

 

[Roubjon]

This idea that certain games should be a certain price is absurd. The great thing is, people who make games can charge whatever they want for it. Clearly Nintendo thinks it is a good idea to charge $60 for it. And it will sell for $60. So they made the right choice.

Hollow Knight charged a measly $15 for their absurdly inventive, packed, and lovely game. That shit should have been $20 at least. But who am I to tell them to change the price of their game.

 

[TooFriendly]

The question of whether this game or that game are worth this much or that much, and whether or not enough effort is put into it so that it reaches some kind of tipping point where the price is allowed to go up a notch to '$60 full price' tier is so silly that I can't believe that it's even being treated seriously.

The discussion is so childish and unrealistic that to keep going it has to diverge into arguments like 'well this game over here got all new extra special graphics, so it's ok for it to be full price' or 'this is an indie game that only has a team of 5 people that worked on it, so it would just be greedy to charge full price' or 'this game is just a port from another console, so it's Just plain unfair to charge full price', or 'people are only willing to pay that much because they are blind fanboys'. I'm sure someone will say those are strawmen and not direct quotes, but those really are the basis of the arguments in this thread. In reality it doesn't matter if those arguments are true or not, it's completely beside the point. If a company makes an entertainment product, and they put it out for sale at a certain price, that product will either lose money, make money or occasionally make a shit load of money. If you think that a certain game isn't worth paying for, and everyone else agrees with you and doesn't buy it, guess what? It loses money. Is Nintendo going to lose money on Link's Awakening? I fricken doubt it. But you think Nintendo should drop the price anyway... because why?

Nintendo are pretty much the only big Japanese gaming company to come out of the past 30 years without having to merge with another game company or holding company to survive, apart from maybe Capcom. They are the only console platform holder to still be making consoles, while getting all of their revenue from games, and not be proped up in hard times by other divisions of a parent company, meaning that games is all they have so they better get it right. They have gone through massive highs and deep lows over the past 30 years, steep drops in revenue that would scuttle most companies. They are a tight-ass, conservative company that hoards their money is their war chest during good times so that they can ride out the tough times. But conversely they also make massive gambles on weird inventive hardware ideas that most companies or game enthusiasts would scoff at on first glance. Sometimes they payoff and sometimes they don't. Nintendo might be a weird company that makes annoying decisions sometimes, or they make games you don't like, or games that you think aren't worth that much money, but if you think you are better at business than Nintendo (which is what this thread basically boils down to), then you are just fucking delusional.

 

[Swift_Gamer]

... Do you really think they're just pasting new assets into the GB Link's Awakening engine and calling it a day?

Click to shrink...

They didn't do this with Spyro, crash and shadow of the collosus and non of those cost $60.