It's a home console game because it's a game made for a fucking home console that you have the choice of taking it on the go.
Man, the Switch is still messing with people's heads even after three years of it being out.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Switch Lite/Switch undocked players, does it bother you that your handheld games are now $60 USD?
- Thread starter Uncle Squingis
- Start date
It's a home console game because it's a game made for a fucking home console that you have the choice of taking it on the go.
Man, the Switch is still messing with people's heads even after three years of it being out.
OP is 50% "portable ghetto" and 50% nonsense.
No, I don't see a reason why portable games should be cheaper by default.
No, I don't see a reason why portable games should be cheaper by default.
What pisses me off moving from 3DS to Switch is how they are charging so much more for such a small cartridge. We're getting so much less cart-for-your-buck.
Yup, those are still there tho, there's just not as much as there were before. I don't know why almost everyone here is acting like we don't know where OP is coming from.
To be honest I hadn't thought about it, but as someone who will be getting a Lite as an upgrade from a 3DS, you bring up a good point.
Why would how you play it change the price if it's the same game? It still cost the same to make. As ambitious as KIU is it's still a relatively low budget game with linear flight sections and linear levels made for a system further from higher end machine at the time then the switch is now.
Ports and 1:1 remakes are the only things I don't want to pay $60 for, if I own the originals. Otherwise I don't see the problem. These are HD games and the fact that I can play it in my hands doesn't change that.
I will say the price jump makes me more wary of the content value in Pokemon games (aka a 25-30 hour game with little postgame content) but as someone who exclusively plays in handheld this seems silly.
It would be cool if companies made more experimental and low budget games for 30-40 bucks though, like Mega Man 11.
I will say the price jump makes me more wary of the content value in Pokemon games (aka a 25-30 hour game with little postgame content) but as someone who exclusively plays in handheld this seems silly.
It would be cool if companies made more experimental and low budget games for 30-40 bucks though, like Mega Man 11.
Yes. That is exactly what makes them console games. The Switch has always been marketed as a hybrid home console - one you could take on the go with you. While I personally have no problem with the $60 price tag, I actually like
Wal-Mart's $50 price tag. Hybrid price for a hybrid console
I would never have imagined as a nine-year-old kid with a Game Boy a handheld that plays games that look like and that have as much content as BotW, SMO, Captain Toad, etc.
So the answer is hell no, I feel like I'm getting a deal on most of these games, tbh.
So the answer is hell no, I feel like I'm getting a deal on most of these games, tbh.
Are you seriously asking this? Lol. You're being incredibly selective and disregarding the console-tier games that get released for the Switch (DQ XIs, Xenoblade Chronicle 1 and 2, Breath of the Wild, and so on).
this is pretty dumb. the reason handheld games are traditionally less expensive is that they're smaller in scope or look much much worse, not that you played it on the go. if anything you should be mad that Nintendo is charging $60 for games with a more handheld scope (Link's Awakening, Pokémon) because they're on console now.
When it comes to Pokemon, yes.
Less content for higher price. But I won't buy it.
All other games have felt like a $60 game so no issues there.
Less content for higher price. But I won't buy it.
All other games have felt like a $60 game so no issues there.
Aside from the fact that it's impossible to differentiate between a portable and tv version of a game due to the nature of the console, I also just think it's unnecessary in today's climate. I think the history of portables was that they were more basic machines that parents might buy for their kids and that production values were lower than console counterparts so games needed to be cheaper to make the pitch tempting enough. But price conscientious parents can just give little Timmy a cheap tablet or hand me down smart phone loaded with free games for car trips these days. I don't think Pokémon Sword/Shield being $20 more expensive than Pokémon Sun/Moon is suddenly a bridge too far.
Furthermore plenty of digital titles retail for significantly less than $60.
Furthermore plenty of digital titles retail for significantly less than $60.
This. The upcoming Pokemon games are cutting over half Pokemon, cutting a lot of content present in previous versions, etc but the reat of the Switch games are 100% worth the 60 price tag.
Doesn't bother me one bit...if I ever want to dock it, the option is there.
Shit if I knew BotW would become my favorite game of all time I would've been willing to pay a lot more than $60 for it lol.
Shit if I knew BotW would become my favorite game of all time I would've been willing to pay a lot more than $60 for it lol.
I expect he's given up trying to discuss with people that think that way.
People have their minds set.
At launch, the game will have the same content it would have done if it contained the whole National Pokédex. It's just the locked content requiring a paywall of Pokémon Bank doesn't exist in this game. We're still hopeful they'll add them back in through patches but we'll see.
This constant claim of "Game Freak cutting content" is just tiring. If they kept every single bit of legacy content like Battle Frontiers, PWT, Pokéathlon etc., the games would be a bloated mess.
I don't care about it. But I hate $60 remasters
But every other remaster isn't $60: Crash, Spyro (3 games each), CTR, Shadow of the Colossus, Ratchet & Clank (this was a remake)...
But every other remaster isn't $60: Crash, Spyro (3 games each), CTR, Shadow of the Colossus, Ratchet & Clank (this was a remake)...
I can kind of see what the OP is saying here. I mean, direct console ports on the Vita like Need for Speed, Rayman Legends, Borderlands 2, Dead or Alive 5, etc were sold at a lower $40 price even with 99% the same content simply because they were handheld games.
As opposed to a bareboness mess?
Not to mention having your Pokemon caught in previous games in SWSh wouldn't make it a "bloated mess", especially when we're paying an anual fee to not have them fade into obscurity. Smh.
Personally, no. Realistically, development costs have caught up to the HD era and given the costs of the cartridges, reasonably I get it. At the end of the day, you have to make money back in some manner, and having the $30-50 for DS/3Ds was eventually gonna have to go the wayside
I'm still admittedly scratching my head at the full price for Zelda, admittedly, if you compare similar games of its nature (figured it'd be closer to $40-50, but that's really for another topic). But inherently, no doesn't bother me. Just a reality of development and material costs, really.
I'm still admittedly scratching my head at the full price for Zelda, admittedly, if you compare similar games of its nature (figured it'd be closer to $40-50, but that's really for another topic). But inherently, no doesn't bother me. Just a reality of development and material costs, really.
IIRC Rayman Legends on Switch isn't full price either. Many, many Switch games aren't, which is apparently news to some people.
Considering you're including undocked gamers, the question is pretty late to say "they now cost 60 dollars"
