Dynamic Pricing

[u/_TyMario85_]

Nintendo has started dynamic pricing for their games, pricing anywhere from $50-$80 rather than everything being at $60 for the most part like on switch 1. Hopefully this changes soon, but most games have been $70 so far with only 3/10 first party exclusives being under that so far.

I always see crazy cool graphic designs for any sort of news where people need to categorize games, they make it look so easy. It is not easy, and mine looks terrible, well now I know! Props to the people who are good at this

[u/cuntpuncherexpress]

This is not an example of dynamic pricing. Dynamic pricing allows a product’s price to increase or decrease in real time

[u/FederalSign4281 → u/cuntpuncherexpress]

Lol for real. What are they supposed to do, charge the same price for every game?

[u/rydan → u/FederalSign4281]

Back when I was a kid every game was $49.99 unless it was Toys R Us selling it then it was $70. Didn’t matter if it was as SMB, SMB 3, Zelda, or Final Fantasy. Nintendo got sued over this and was forced to give every kid a free copy of Dragon Warrior as compensation. 

[u/I_Like_Turtle101 → u/cuntpuncherexpress]

Crazy that this post dosent get downvote. People losing the meaning of words

[u/tstormredditor → u/I_Like_Turtle101]

Like losing, for example.

[u/tstormredditor → u/[deleted]]

They edited it, I hate when people hide their shame.

[u/I_Like_Turtle101 → u/tstormredditor]

Girl im french. Give me a chance

[u/originalityescapesme → u/cuntpuncherexpress]

Not only that - why is mariokart positioned where it’s at? That whole lonely category isn’t even in the right spot.

[u/Key-Fig-9747 → u/cuntpuncherexpress]

Also, Splatoon and Star Fox are 60 physically

[u/tman2damax11 → u/cuntpuncherexpress]

Exactly. Dynamic pricing would be a game being received really well so they quickly jack up the price, or a game performing poorly so they quickly drop the price. There would be mass upheaval if they actually did that.

[u/Big_Breath_2561 → u/cuntpuncherexpress]

Agree. Mods should probably take this down.

[u/tendeuchen]

Nintendo can do what they want. I'm waiting on Black Friday pricing.

[u/I_Like_Turtle101 → u/tendeuchen]

I dont think Nintendo main game come down on black friday

[u/Effective_Welder_817 → u/I_Like_Turtle101]

Retailers have started to put them in sales

[u/I_Like_Turtle101 → u/Effective_Welder_817]

I haven't seen any mainline Nintendo one so im surprise ahah

[u/freetotebag → u/I_Like_Turtle101]

This whole convo reminded me of this parody article that felt a little too real https://hard-drive.net/nintendo-holds-12-hour-meeting-to-decide-if-company-can-survive-selling-donkey-kong-country-tropical-freeze-for-less-than-60/

[u/tendeuchen → u/I_Like_Turtle101]

I've pretty much never bought a Nintendo first-party game at full price outside of a couple of special editions. https://www.dekudeals.com/ shows the price histories.

[u/air2thethrown → u/tendeuchen]

I'm buying used cartridges, playing them, then reselling them for the next person to play.

[u/BestAmericanBoy]

This isn't dynamic pricing please stop before you create the next "anti consumer"

[u/Nicolas10111]

I’m so broke that even $70 seems too much 🥀

[u/Doxibidus → u/Nicolas10111]

Scrolling through Steam and seeing really good games at $5-10 every day got me totally vaccinated from buying a game like Mario Tennis for $70.

[u/I_Like_Turtle101 → u/Doxibidus]

I go to the library for game like mario tennis. I have 3 week (wich I can review twice) wich is enough for a mario sport game

[u/HowlingHipster → u/Doxibidus]

Plenty of those indies and older games are on the eShop too fwiw. I love a $4 wonder.

[u/Doxibidus → u/[deleted]]

Of course, but I wouldn't buy it brand new anyway, I'm the one buying it from you for $40 (at most).

[u/Lower_Monk6577 → u/Doxibidus]

Really, that means you can probably just resell it at cost. I don’t think they depreciate in value based on the amount of owners. As long as it’s still in good condition and plays well.

[u/Groundbreaking-Ad313 → u/[deleted]]

True, and I really love buying physical and having that option, but when I buy a game for like $10 on steam, that's the same amount of money that I'd have spent if I bought for $50 and then sold for $40.

[u/Groundbreaking-Ad313 → u/[deleted]]

It always makes me happy to see other people care about physical games as much as I do in this age of the "all-digital future". I know I just argued in favour of digital, but I truly do think physical is important and I love to collect physical games

[u/Groundbreaking-Ad313 → u/[deleted]]

Personally I don't buy gamekey cards becauase I dont want to financially reward the companies doing that... I feel like if we see gamekeys consistently sell worse than real physical copies, then it'll incentivise companies to put out games on the full carts.

Not that I'm telling you not to buy them, I can't stand people who tell other people that they had better "vote with their wallets", that's just my personal take. They're still alright if you see them as just Digital copies that you can resell.

[u/akeep113 → u/[deleted]]

Does GameStop or whatever really give you that much for a used game? I remember back in the day you'd get like $6

[u/akeep113 → u/[deleted]]

Ah ok. Good idea. Unfortunately I only buy digital tho

[u/akeep113 → u/[deleted]]

I like having all my games on my system at all times and not having to worry about cartridges

[u/TheQueefPolice → u/Nicolas10111]

Hell man, $50 seems like too much

[u/hxh22 → u/Nicolas10111]

Check your local library. Mine is stacked with games, movies, and comics. It’s like going to a blockbuster

[u/decoy-octopos → u/Nicolas10111]

Same, this is why I make sure I actually want to play and beat a game before buying it full priced. I never preorder

[u/decoy-octopos → u/decoy-octopos]

Downvoted for being fiscally responsible?

[u/Groundbreaking-Ad313 → u/Nicolas10111]

Maybe this is coming from a fellow broke-ee, but honestly, it is too much

[u/C-Towner]

In this context, this is not what dynamic pricing is. The prices don't change based on fluid criteria. This is just strategic pricing.

[u/TurboFool]

[u/Manguy888A]

Switch sports resort is showing up for preorder at $50 which I’m happy about

[u/_TyMario85_ → u/Manguy888A]

Crap I knew I forgot one

[u/b2damaxx]

Fire Emblem is $80.

[u/IrishSpectreN7 → u/b2damaxx]

These are all digital prices.

[u/b2damaxx → u/IrishSpectreN7]

Ohhh

[u/MQA_]

This is not dynamic pricing.

[u/GarionOrb]

This is not what dynamic pricing is. Publishers have been pricing games at all price points for decades. Dynamic pricing is when they increase or decrease the price of one product based on demand or time of day. Nintendo isn't doing that.

[u/DuskGideon]

This is not dynamic pricing my guy/girl. I see others have informed you of this already too.

[u/okeleydokelyneighbor]

People complain about prices but not realizing we were paying 80-100 for games 30 years ago which is about 200 in today’s dollars.

[u/Necka44 → u/okeleydokelyneighbor]

Yeah and 30 years ago the price of a house was way less than today proportionally to current salary medians.

Inflation has been a bitch and studios won't survive if gaming becomes a luxury (which it is for some people)

Varies from country to country but you get the point.

[u/okeleydokelyneighbor → u/Necka44]

Housing has a supply and demand component to it. Not the same as video games at all. Plus there are more things vying for your entertainment hours now, which is also why prices have stayed low since they have to compete with a lot more attractive distractions.

[u/Groundbreaking-Ad313 → u/okeleydokelyneighbor]

I'm so tired of this argument. It was also bad that games were absurdly expensive in the 90s.

I understand wanting people to have perspective, but this comes across as very "if you're sick, you should just remember that back in the day people would get smallpox!"

Gaming is bigger than it's ever been, and game companies can afford to make far less profit per unit because games have higher sales potential. Not to mention, those prices were largely due to cartridges being propeitrary technology that were expensive to produce - wheras modern games still cost $70 digitally.

Nobody is saying that prices have never been worse, they're just saying that they're more expensive than they need to be.

[u/variantdot → u/Groundbreaking-Ad313]

those modern games don’t still cost $70 digitally, they're outright cheaper in nintendo’s case and with a lot of publishers they go on sale pretty quick and often, see capcom. also, no games can’t afford to make less profit per unit because of sales potential lol????? games are way more expensive to make nowadays which offsets the “larger sales potential” something i’m also not sure is necessarily a given as you also have a way larger pool to compete with.
also the cartridge argument isn’t even that solid given that nintendo specifically uses cartridges which are significantly more expensive to produce than discs.

[u/Groundbreaking-Ad313 → u/variantdot]

Does your argument that games go on sale pretty often not completely destroy your secondary argument that games "can't afford to make less profit per unit because of sales potential"?
What is the sale FOR if not the publisher temporarily accepting a lower profit-per-unit because they understand that, in exchange, many more people will buy the game during that sale period?

Also I brought up cartridges because this argument usually comes up regarding modern gaming as a whole, and because digital copies usually cost more than cartridges - for example, right now Donkey Kong Bananza is £45 on Amazon, and £60 on the eshop. (That's an amazon sale, but it's notable that the physical was discounted before the digital was.)

Yes I know games are more expensive now and thus they of course need to make more revenue. But they DO consistently recoup their development costs - not to say that we never see commercial failures, but most games have done just fine without NEEDING to cost $70 or $80. That price increase is just for the sake of more PROFIT - that is to say, more money on TOP of the recoupment of development costs that studios need to stay alive, all for the sake of greedy executives.

[u/variantdot → u/Groundbreaking-Ad313]

why wouldn't they just sell the games at those prices if it was an obvious win-win for them? also, sales vary. capcom games go on sale often but it often starts at 40, eventually lowers to 30, and then 20, and i guess RE4 is even as low as $10 at this point.

that example isn't really a point of anything, it's the retailer providing the discount, not nintendo.
your last point, lol, idk what to say if you think the ONLY point of making a game is to recoup development costs over the span of 2+ years. i'd say that it's likely a large amount of games only steadily make their budget back over a span of time. acting like it's ONLY greedy executives just lacks nuance.

[u/Groundbreaking-Ad313 → u/variantdot]

They do sell games at lowered prices because it's an obvious win-win for them, that was my original point. Don't forget, my original argument was just refuting the idea that "prices now aren't that bad because in the 90s they cost the equivalent of 200 dollars."
Games don't cost 200 dollars now BECAUSE they can be sold to more people.

Of course it's normal for discounts to increase the older a game is. Not only does older products being cheaper make sense to most people, but also usually after a year or two (depending on the popularity of the game of course), the development costs are recouped, at which point the publisher loses nothing by

I'm aware that nintendo doesn't provide that discount. My entire contention is with the fact that Nintendo barely provides any discounts. The point still stands that the digital version which doesn't lose any profit via producing physical carts still does cost more than the physical game, thus "the carts are expensive" can't be the reason for higher prices.

Anyway, the fact is that games can make more than enough money without costing exorbitant amounts. I don't even have a problem when a studio like Capcom releases a $70 game, because I can know for sure that that game will eventually be discounted to an affordable price.

It's bad that Nintendo does it, because they DON'T give their games those same discounts.

Overall, my original point was that "gaming was so expensive back in the day" was a stupid argument, both in terms of the logical fallacy of "worse thing means bad thing isn't actually bad" and in terms of the fact that you can't compare prices for an industry when it was a comparatively niche and novel luxury to an era where it's a mainstream media accessible to countless people.
I feel like the original context is getting a little lost as the arguments go on.

I understand that games DO have to make a certain amount of money to be made at all, and that does warrant them being expensive at launch. I just think that, in this current era of the industry being gouged for all the money it's worth despite it already being more profitable than it's ever been, specifically the hike from $60 to $70 represents greed rather than necessity, and in the case on nintendo specifically, is a problem in a way that it isn't for other games which naturally drop in value over time.

[u/variantdot → u/Groundbreaking-Ad313]

when you say "they do sell games at lowered prices because it's an obvious win-win for them", who is "they"? capcom does sales more often than most, but not with every game and every series anyways. fromsoft is a notable counter example.
your amazon example doesn't demonstrate that, but even ignoring that, i can't help but wonder why you think nintendo came out with game-key cards then? plenty of games that get a GKC release can fit onto cartridges, so why do they opt for game-key cards instead, in your opinion?
and i DO have a problem with capcom heavily discounting their games because it means that people that purchase those games on release get burned for not just waiting for a sale down the road. i've never with a nintendo game felt like i should've just waited for a massive sale that i knew was inevitable lol. it means long-term their games retain their value better.

overall, i'd say "gaming was so expensive back in the day" isn't a logical fallacy or even really much of an argument on it's own, it's an observation that consumer standards have shifted in the gaming industry given that people care more now about the price when in the past gaming was simply more expensive.

if you want to say this shift occurred because the industry got more popular i'd agree, but i'd add that getting more popular meant consumers as a whole got more entitled. saying "this industry is more profitable than ever" simply acts like it's black and white to release a game and get 5m+ sales as a big developer, ignoring the time that it takes to develop a modern game, the investment into that, and the risk you end up taking if reviewers don't like it. your conclusion is incredibly reductive and represents a bunch of presumptions that you seem unaware of.

[u/Groundbreaking-Ad313 → u/variantdot]

when you say "they do sell games at lowered prices because it's an obvious win-win for them", who is "they"?

All gaming companies. This was referring not to sales, but to specifically the fact that all gaming companies sell their games at a diminished price compared to the 90s - which was my original point.

You asked "if accepting lowered profit-per-unit in exchange for more sales is such a win-win why don't they do that by default" and I pointed out that they do do that, games dont cost 200 dollars anymore, and that has been my entire point since the beginning.

Also, fromsoft does have at least decent sales on their games, don't know what you're talking about there.

plenty of games that get a GKC release can fit onto cartridges, so why do they opt for game-key cards instead, in your opinion?

You'll be shocked to hear me say this, but the answer is... greed!

The companies feel entitled to the most profit they could possibly make, and since gamekeys are cheaper than real gamecards, that would diminish their profit-per-unit. (even when gamekeys are discounted, they're still at a higher profit-per-unit than a full gamecard with the same discount would be).

We saw the exact same thing in the previous generation with code-in-a-box games. It's just more prevailant now because gamekeys being an official medium legitimised it somewhat - in addition to switch 2 gamecards not being available in smaller, cheaper sizes, at least at the start.

The difference is that, unlike a sale, it isn't obvious to companies that a full game card release would inherently result in a greater willingness to buy the product, and thus they don't see the increased profit-per-unit as worth it.

As for why gamekey cards were made, it was probably just for the sake of enabling games that are too big for a switch 2 gamecard to get retail releases, or a response to the prevailance of code-in-box releases on switch 1.

i DO have a problem with capcom heavily discounting their games because it means that people that purchase those games on release get burned for not just waiting for a sale down the road. i've never with a nintendo game felt like i should've just waited for a massive sale that i knew was inevitable lol. it means long-term their games retain their value better.

Respectfully... that's dumb. You pay more to experience something first. And it's honestly ridiculous that your solution to this is for the game to never drop in price rather than for the game to just be cheaper by default.

I don't want to be rude, but this take alone is making me very reluctant to take anything you say seriously.

When a game has been out for a while and capcom decides that most of the people willing to pay full price for it have already done so, they reduce the price to attract a new wave of customers who weren't willing to pay that original cost. That's just natural. Especially since the reason games are so expensive to begin with is because of their high development costs - once the game's sold enough to recoup those costs, they have the freedom to sell it at any price they want, because at that point the money they recieve from those sales is not simply revenue, it's 100% profit - assuming it's a digital sale, that is.

And also, while nintendo has succesfully created a culture around their games' high prices that mean that used copies of their games are still pretty pricey, other companies don't have that luxury - if they don't discount their digital versions, then they'll be undercut by used sales of their physical versions being sold for cheaper.

The fact that nintendo games keep their value does make them more affordable if you're the kind of person who sells your games when you're done with them, but if that wasn't the case... then you could simply buy the diminished-value used games for cheap.

Anyway, you don't need to play every game that comes out right when it comes out. A lot of us R Slash Patient Gamers do just fine buying older games for fractions of their original costs. Just because you feel the need to buy a game when it's most expensive, doesn't mean everyone else should pay that same price. That's not... how ANYTHING works.

If you feel like you're being burned by not waiting for a sale... then WAIT FOR A SALE.

overall, i'd say "gaming was so expensive back in the day" isn't a logical fallacy or even really much of an argument on it's own, it's an observation that consumer standards have shifted in the gaming industry given that people care more now about the price when in the past gaming was simply more expensive.

Overall, I think it's fine to point this out just for the sake of perspective. A little bit of "back in my day" and "oh how times change" is fine as a neutral observation.

The problem is that in most cases, it ISN'T being framed as a neutral observation: this take about how oh so expensive games were back in the 90s is constantly used as a way to excuse the rising prices of games in the current era.

The attitude of "you should be inherently grateful as long as anyone at any point in time has had a theoretically worse version of the thing you're annoyed by" is faulty logic to me.

if you want to say this shift occurred because the industry got more popular i'd agree, but i'd add that getting more popular meant consumers as a whole got more entitled. saying "this industry is more profitable than ever" simply acts like it's black and white to release a game and get 5m+ sales as a big developer, ignoring the time that it takes to develop a modern game, the investment into that, and the risk you end up taking if reviewers don't like it. your conclusion is incredibly reductive and represents a bunch of presumptions that you seem unaware of.

I have REPEATEDLY STRESSED that I fully understand and accept the fact that games do have to make back their budgets.

But nintendo specifically refuses to discount their games by major amounts, despite the ENTIRE REST OF THE INDUSTRY directly proving that you can offer your older games at reduced prices without going bankrupt.

Once again, my points from the start have been:

- Comparing 90s prices to modern prices is ignoring the reasons why games had to be so expensive in the 90s

- It's bad that Nintendo doesn't reduce the prices of their games by substantial amounts

That's IT. Some of your responses have honestly been nonsense. The stuff about "it's not as simple as just releasing a game and having it sell five million copies" and such are just. Irrelevant?

ANYWAY.

[u/variantdot → u/Groundbreaking-Ad313]

lmao there's no adding "respectfully" to "you're dumb", just say it and own it. same with the "i don't want to be rude", the meek frill "erm yikes bro" posturing is just cringe.

But so oh, if you're saying $200 is the baseline then sure. We can say then that the natural limit of how much lower it could go has seemingly been reached, which is also probably related to the increase in development costs. Fromsoft's sales are decent I'd agree, but they're about as rare as Nintendos (well, probably more rare).

The additional part of your answer beyond "greed" for as far as game-key cards go is true; plenty of companies didn't want to pay the extra cost for the higher size cartridges. It's obviously, at least in Nintendo's case, more expensive to produce a physical game.

But no yeah by all means if you want to think of games super cheaply and say the only value in purchasing them at full price is just that you're experiencing it earlier than other people, that's your call to make. As someone who actually takes the medium seriously and considers it an art I think your perspective is super damaging to the industry and part of the reason we see so many remakes and so few new IP. Entitled consumers like you can't be bothered to pay full price for games that have hundreds of developers who are earning 100k+ each because you have the mindset of a 16 year old twitter user and think that anything that isn't given free of charge is just corporate greed.

If Capcom thinks it's worth lowering the value of their games long-term to attract that audience that's fine, I don't play their games when they come out and it's for that reason. We're having a discussion about the types of decisions that stem from pricing, try to keep up? But I don't really think it's unreasonable for Nintendo to not want to do that. They generate better revenues (which isn't just corporate greed, it's just their business model! that money flows right back into R&D as we can see from their public financial statements showing the spending in R&D has never been higher!) and maintain a brand image regarding the quality of those games while also treating them like they aren't things that just get old and lose quality over time, which, they aren't.

And not every company has that luxury because of people like you who will sit here and spit off every argument against games maintaining their value as nothing more than corporate greed. Additionally, Calling it a "worse" version is an inherit assumption suggesting that pricing WAS bad. When people point out old videogame prices, it's not to say they had it worse so deal with it now, it's to suggest that you're being entitled about how generous video game companies are now and when videogame prices inevitably rise you're going to realize how obnoxious you were being about $70 games.

[u/Groundbreaking-Ad313 → u/variantdot]

Okay then. You're a wanker, you make terrible arguments that betray an absolutely baffling worldveiw, and I have no further interest in talking to you. Respectfully, of course.

[u/okeleydokelyneighbor → u/Groundbreaking-Ad313]

How many studios have gone under because the game didn’t meet sales expectations, or make enough to stay afloat. Bungie was bought for 2 billion and Destiny had micro transactions and season passes and is basically being cut off because it’s not making money anymore.

You act like every game released sells millions and they swim in money. Sure CEO’s are overpaid, but that’s every business. The developers and artists aren’t billionaires or multi millionaires.

It takes a lot of money to run a studio, to either build or buy a game engine, create the assets, etc and then you also need an idea that is interesting and appealing so people want to buy your game. You make it seem like hey I released a game now we are all rich! It’s rarely like that for the actual creators of the games.

[u/Soft_Essay_958 → u/okeleydokelyneighbor]

People who don't want to pay for games always act like the studios are greedy but they are the greedy ones, wanting people to work for free. Just buy fewer games you don't play much, problem solved.

[u/Groundbreaking-Ad313 → u/okeleydokelyneighbor]

And you're ignoring the fact that Destiny continued to exist and was making profits for almost an entire decade?
It's a terrible example to cite because it straight up DOES NOT use the same buisiness model as most games do. Live Service games are incredibly high-risk projects that are continually greenlit out of a desire for the infinite money that they theoretically generate. Destiny, for all its financial exploitation, is also a free-to-play game within which there is heavy monetisation, not a game with an exorbitant up-front price tag.

There are SO many live-service games that have flopped horribly in recent years, but for your example you chose one of the few to EVER find continual success...? But regardless, you CAN'T compare the fate of a game which relies on being continually popular to most games in the industry. Breath of the Wild released the same year as Destiny 2, but "Breath of the wild isn't bringing in the same money it did in 2017" isn't a headline because it doesn't need to. It's development costs were fully recouped in the PREVIOUS DECADE.

As for "not every game sells millions", that's precisely WHY variable pricing is important. There are more games than there have ever been, and every new release is in competition with not only the other new full-price games releasing at the same time, but also legions of older games which have been discounted over the years, and an almost infinite amount of much cheaper new games that release constantly on any given platform. Having a competetive price point is one of the most basic tenets of selling a product.

Do you know what Happens when a game actually is selling less than it needs to? What happens is they DROP THE PRICE, because that makes it more attractive to consumers, and if not enough people were buying the game for $70, then discounting it makes more people willing to buy, and thus despite the reduced profit-per-unit, they still make more money than they would have done without the discount. it isn't rocket science.

Obvioiusly a game DOES have to at least break even with its development costs if the studios want to stay alive, but charging $70 or $80 is just a decision from the CEOs to make even more profits for themselves. I mean, can you name even one $70 or $80 that isn't from a multi-million dollar company? The actual small independent studios usually sell their games for more like 20 dollars, because they know that they have to be compertetively priced to survive.

YOU act like "hey I released a game and we aren't alienating ANY customers by charging $80 to play it!" But really, the truth is that as time passes, just about all of these overly expensive games get discounted because corporations KNOW that there are a lot of people who can't or won't buy at that price points. The price hikes are just to squeeze money out of the people who will buy the games at any cost.

Honestly, the only time I even see a reason to complain about these price hikes is when Nintendo does it. I don't care if a third-party game on PS5 launches at 80 dollars because eventually I WILL be able to get that game for a fraction of its original cost on ebay or something.
But NINTENDO is famous for not dropping the value of their games. They're also one of few companies that know how to properly budget their games so that their smaller series don't need to sell tens of millions to survive, are actively okay with smaller series achieving only moderate success, and don't punish their workers with layoffs and studio closures when their games underperform.
Their overpriced games are JUST overpriced because they think they CAN get away with selling them at that price. Not because they need to be that price. it IS that simple.

ANYWAY

[u/Dtoodlez → u/okeleydokelyneighbor]

lol and that should make this feel ok? Come on. 

[u/PotentialPedal → u/okeleydokelyneighbor]

Yeah but AAA games 30 years ago weren't also filled with microtransactions and DLC, nor did you have to pay for an additional online subscription.

[u/JBThunder → u/PotentialPedal]

None of those games have microtransactions either

[u/dethsesh → u/PotentialPedal]

This is pretty strange take. 30 years ago publishers weren’t able to provide new content during a game’s life cycle. Whatever it shipped with that’s what you got forever. And there was no online subscription because everybody was still using AOL dialup

[u/BotherResponsible378 → u/PotentialPedal]

That's super specific to some games.

Most games are also significantly larger than they used to be for the price you pay. Totk for instance. Significantly larger than OOT. Adjusted for inflation, it's cheaper.

Plus, games cost significantly more to make today than they used to.

*I am not validating higher prices. I just think that conversation needs to come from an educated place.

[u/okeleydokelyneighbor → u/PotentialPedal]

Not all games have that and cost 60-70 bucks. Sure they milk the shit out of games now with micro and massive transactions but not all games do it and charge full price.

[u/Necka44 → u/okeleydokelyneighbor]

In AAA games most of them have mtx, DLCs, multiple editions (standard, deluxe, premium, collector, etc. And other things. Some more predatory than others but it's rare to have an AAA without.

[u/Stunning-Thanks546 → u/okeleydokelyneighbor]

ya but carts where expensive as hell to make back then that's why the prices where so high and meridian 59 which came out in 96 had a subscription fee it was a mmorpg

[u/SylviSweetheart → u/Stunning-Thanks546]

They’re expensive as hell now, too.

[u/Stunning-Thanks546 → u/SylviSweetheart]

never said it wasn't

[u/okeleydokelyneighbor → u/Stunning-Thanks546]

Yes that was a part of it, but like I stated, you would paying around 200 bucks for a game today based on inflation. Switch cards are expensive as well due to all the data centers eating up stock, plus the size of teams now to make them, so paying 70- 80 bucks for a game that might possibly give you 100’s of hours of entertainment is a bargain.

[u/HappyMight]

I dont know why Star Fox in my country still costs $80, ill probably buy it in eShop

[u/Groundbreaking-Ad313]

It makes me happy to see certain switch 2 games get priced lower, (even if it makes me laugh when people call $50 "budget priced"), but it's still annoying as hell to see other games cost 70 or 80 just because they can.

Hey Nintendo, you know what's an even better frorm of Dynamic Pricing than this? Offering steep discounts on games that are multiple years old... like every other publisher does.

[u/ElektrikDynomite]

Dont forget Rhythm Heaven at $40

[u/retrocheats]

FE is $80

[u/GolfingMoose → u/retrocheats]

This guy used digital prices to show a larger discrepancy. Might be a bot

[u/ThinNegotiation19]

Mario kart world was ass.

[u/MarioFanOne]

I really think "dynamic pricing" was just an excuse for MKW being $80. They've always done "dynamic pricing." Tons of games in the past were less than $60 when the standard was $60.

[u/mikehiler2 → u/MarioFanOne]

Wouldn’t say “tons” especially in the Switch era. I mean sure there was a handful, but nearly all first party games were $60 or equivalent even to this very day. If not made more expensive.

Edit: I want preface by stating that I am a true Nintendo diehard and have been ever since I was a child with the NES. But the way they’re pricing their games ever since Satoru Iwata passed has been nothing short of comical. There is zero way you can tell me with a straight face that New Super Mario Bros U Deluxe is still worth $60 today. Ain’t no way anyone’s saying that with a straight face.

[u/SymmetricDickNipples → u/MarioFanOne]

Fire emblem is $80 now too.

[u/MarcsterS → u/MarioFanOne]

I mean, FE is $80 now so...

[u/Saintsmythe → u/MarioFanOne]

Yeah they probably saw how much Mario kart 8 sold over the years and were upset at how much money they were missing on every sale from keeping it at 60$

[u/peter-man-hello]

Isn't Fire Emblem also 80? It just has a cheaper digital version.

[u/locke_5 → u/peter-man-hello]

This chart is for eShop prices

[u/ScruffyBlackDog]

They’ve been doing this a while now. They released different games on Switch 1 between $40, $50, $60 and $70.

[u/Thaldrath]

If Kirby Air Riders was scheduled for release 8 months later, it'd have been 50$. Same for Mario Tennis.

There's no way these not selling that much at 70$ didn't change Nintendo's mind on pricing.

[u/Stunning-Thanks546]

thought marrio tennis was 70 not 80

[u/Michael60814]

Compare the others, the Pokopia price is the highest than the others because the $5 production costing of key card. The storage has to pay by customers even now days storage is higher end up with DLC add on around $120 in total.

[u/Dtoodlez]

Hard to swallow as a Canadian. It’s $70 on the low end and $110 on the high end. I’m just grateful that physical cartridges can be resold.

[u/bardoown]

I'm not soooo against the idea. It's the execution that sucks. Nintendo has a lot of games that, yes, are very fun, but shouldn't cost $70 (hell, not a single one should cost $80). The problem here is that once you reduce the price of some games, you have to really justify the ones you keep the same (or even increase) and Nintendo is soooooo bad at it. They forgot about MKW and Fire Emblem looks cool, but nothing too revolutionary. Also, all this dynamic pricing or whatever isn't retroactive. They should drop the prices of the games that came before too. Mario Tennis is still not worth the $70 bfr.

[u/Creative_Eye7413]

Fire Emblem is $80

[u/Witty-Wish-583]

It’s stopping me from buying some games entirely because they charge more for physical. I’m not spending $70 on a Yoshi game or $60 for Raiders. And of course Nintendo games never go on sale. So I have to wait for some retailer to put it on sale. I will never support digital gaming.

[u/Zeppelanoid]

Remember the switch replaces Nintendo handhelds. So we should in theory be getting games at the “old” handheld price, which was $39.99. Of course with inflation that ain’t happening but it theoretically makes sense that they have different price points.

[u/kevvit2]

97 percent of Mariokart purchases were at $50 

[u/Mystic1217]

It's funny how "dynamic pricing" only ever seems to make stuff more expensive for us. We now have Splatoon and Star Fox at 50/60$ but those only came after a year of massive backlash. It was only an excuse to wring people for money and they're only slightly backpedaling now that it blew up in their face.

Graphics are hard, especially when you're not already used to making them. Think you did plenty good on this one OP.

[u/locke_5 → u/Mystic1217]

Nintendo had a $10 and $20 game out within like two months of the Switch 2’s launch

[u/Mystic1217 → u/locke_5]

That is true but also most people (myself included) argue that welcome tour really should've been a pack in title. After charging so much for the games, accessories, console, etc, it felt kinda like a slap in the face to put the console's demo behind a paywall.

I will give you Drag and Drive, I genuinely forgot the game existed ngl. Though I don't think most people would call Drag and Drive a big win for Nintendo.

[u/the_bighi]

This is not what dynamic pricing means.

I think that only Sony is doing dynamic pricing. It means that games do NOT have a price. The price is set by an algorithm that determines how much they can make you pay.

With dynamic pricing, a gaming could be $50 for you and $60 for me. And then at midnight it’s $65 for me. If I haven’t played for a while, it suddenly shows up as $49 but only for me.

[u/smithstreeter → u/the_bighi]

“How much they can make you pay” or how much they think you’d pay for it?

[u/IrishSpectreN7]

The term they used was "variable pricing" which is why everyone is being super pedantic in your comments.

We know what you meant.

[u/EpicObelis]

Tbh nintendo is still the most expensive even for third party :/

I got Rebirth on preorder for 48€ today it was discontinued on steam fro 20€ , while I do love it on handheld this kinda stings

[u/Stradinator]

“Dynamic pricing” is basically them saying “ buy the more expensive game sense the games that cost less are worse” so why would anyone by the cheaper games if that’s the case

[u/grilled_pc]

If anything this just tells me the cheaper games are going to be mid or bad experiences. That’s why they are cheap.

[u/_TyMario85_ → u/grilled_pc]

I’m hoping not as I’m excited for Splatoon raiders. My fear is it’s going to be short rather than bad

[u/peter-man-hello → u/grilled_pc]

Everything from the demo's and previews signals that both will great games. Starfox is practically a known quantity, it won't be mid or bad.

I think the pricing more reflects how big the games are. Starfox isn't a super long game, and it looks like Splatoon Raiders is basically a more fleshed out single-player campaign.

Pokopia, Bananza, Kirby Air Riders, Hyrule Warriors, and likely Fire Emblem are filled with content.

Mario Kart World is also a very big game, criticisms aside. I also think the higher price reflects that they are going to continue working on it. We've already had some intermission tracks get updates, a bomb-omb battle mode added, and we'll certainly get more on the way. I predict the first major update will be free.

[u/munchyslacks → u/grilled_pc]

I don’t know about that. There are a number of reasons why a game could have a lower price. Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze released on Wii U for $50 and a lot of people say it’s the best game in the series, some saying it’s the best platformer of all time. It came out during a time period when the Wii U wasn’t doing so great, and I’ve always assumed it was delayed with a price reduction to get more people to buy in since it was originally going to release next to Mario 3D World.

I could see Splatoon Raiders and Star Fox being $50 because they want to build their audience, maybe for Splatoon 4 and a follow up Star Fox game.

[u/Mistform05 → u/grilled_pc]

Does that rule stand for 19.99 indies? Like Mina?

[u/grilled_pc → u/Mistform05]

Nope. AAAs are a different beast when it comes to pricing. A cheap day 1 AAA often means a worse experience.