Topic: Nintendo Switch --OT--

1) They don't need an excuse, but that still doesn't make it right or even fair really. Nor do I believe they should be defended for it like you have in the past and today for the most part.

2) Of course not, but with Nintendo, it's pointless as you're still going to pay $60 most of the time for a Nintendo published title for the life of the Switch.

3) But it still completely screws anybody who didn't buy a Switch anywhere near launch. You can't tell me it's even remotely fair to anybody that they still would have to pay $60 for games like Breath of the Wild, Super Mario Odyssey, or even games like Astral Chain or anything that isn't even remotely new.

The part about Sony being criticized for being greedy was just in general, not aimed at you specifically. Honestly, I buy several 1st party PlayStation titles at launch because I really want them right away as long as I am able to play it right away. An exclusive from them has been a sort of event for a while now, but unlike some games, I find them generally worth the price. It is also different since I've had a PS5 since 6 months or so after launch, not 5 years later like the Switch. It is mainly 3rd party PS5 titles that I wait on, but regardless, the option is there for everybody, while it is not there at all for Nintendo fans. Sure, that doesn't matter if you buy at launch, but at some point there should be some sort of a cutoff when there are 10's of millions of people that have bought a Switch well after games should have started their price slide.

To keep this from getting way too long, I'll just condense the rest into a final paragraph. I took offense because you gave the impression that you think value preservation is more important than being reasonable to a consumer such as myself that bought a Switch 5 years into it's life cycle. If you still have a 6 year old game now, you probably wouldn't be selling it anyways. The vouchers are a decent idea, but that's also locked into a paid subscription. Gold coins are ok, but you are still talking about being forced to use them for old $60 games. Try not to ignore the millions of people that don't buy games at launch.

@KilloWertz To be fair, it took Demon Souls here on PS5 almost two years to hit £50, the price of most Nintendo games. And that was only in a sale, that seems rather infrequent. Sony seems very intent on keeping those £70 (That's nearly $90) prices high for the generation with intermittent sales that dont go too deep.

And sure you can argue retail, but guess what schmuck bought a digital PS5.

In terms of buying first party games on console, I actually think Nintendo might be the best value for money. If you exclude the subscription services, as there you don't own your games and if you exclude third party titles which they have less control of, rarely do any of them do genuinely deep sales, and if they do, it comes years and years after release.

Nintendo let you purchase their first party stuff at a deep discount on day one via the voucher system. On the flip they are also the least likely to ever discount their games at all, but if valuing owning titles on launch, the Switch is the best value by far. It is basically 40 quid for a title on the Switch forever with the vouchers, versus like say a PS5 game which might launch at 60 quid (or I guess 70 these days) and will hold that price for probably two or three years, maybe longer, before going into a brief sale. But you also have no control over this, and it may not even happen, whereas the Switch gives you the control over this purchasing decision.

@KilloWertz “You can't tell me it's even remotely fair to anybody that they still would have to pay $60 for games like Breath of the Wild, Super Mario Odyssey, or even games like Astral Chain or anything that isn't even remotely new.”

How is this an issue of fairness/unfairness though? It seems you have an expectation that isn’t being realised, based on what other companies decide to do, but it doesn’t mean Nintendo are being unfair to you. By that logic it’s unfair that Sony don’t put first party exclusives on PS+ from day one, as Microsoft do with Gamepass.

There is absolutely nothing wrong or unfair with Nintendo not dropping the base prices on their games, full stop. It's an industry practice to boost demand and nothing more. There is no moral obligation whatsoever to drop prices.

And I'll defend anything I like if it makes sense to. shrug

You have options as a consumer. You can choose the buy the games new at $30/$40 down the line in sales (which apply to almost all Nintendo games eventually). You can buy them used to save money and cut Nintendo out of the loop. You can make use of the various 'buy 1 get 1 free' sort of deals that pop up online. Or you can choose not to buy them at all.

It's not like your only choice is to literally pay full price for any old Nintendo game.

If you keep an eye on sites like Deku Deals, twitter accounts like Wario 64, and subreddits like NintendoSwitchDeals, it's fairly easy to catch these.

I've literally never paid full price for a Nintendo game after launch, and I've purchased at least a few when they weren't in the launch window.

How does it screw over non-launch purchasers? It's not like the games will cost you more. If anything, it shouldn't be difficult to find pretty much anything not OOP around the $40 mark. Or, if you prefer digital, grab a set of vouchers with discounted eshop credit and voila!

There is no issue of fairness involved. Game pricing isn't, and never will be, an issue of 'fairness.' Just because other companies feel the need to devalue their products after launch by steeply dropping the price because they don't think demand will stay consistent doesn't put a moral onus on Nintendo to do the same.

I mean, personally, I think it sort of sucks that Sony's games are the only ones I HAVE to pay $70 for if I want to get them day one. All of Ninty's can be had for $50 or less at launch digitally. Instead, the 'benefits' of their strategy go to people who wait months or years to buy in. Does this mean Sony has an obligation to match Nintendo and Microsoft in offering more affordable day one software?

I know, but I've been critical of the MSRP price hike, and I wanted to make my own position clear. I think criticizing a gaming company for being "greedy" is like lambasting a zebra for having stripes.

I won't buy $70 base edition versions of games, but that's a personal decision, not one centered in any sort of moral conviction.

The thing is this: if sales of older games were sliding, Nintendo probably would either cut prices more or re-issue cheaper editions of their games (they still might, tbh). But they don't need to do that. Their games still sell insanely well years down the line on Switch. So prices stay high, and you have to rely on deals/the occasional sale to grab them for less.

Well, again, I don't run Nintendo, so those aren't my choices to make. I can only talk about how their choices impact me. And, as a launch purchaser (by and large), I find their approach to align the best with my purchasing habits. So, yes, I do defend them, because those practices are in my own self-interest, same as you criticize them for the same reason as someone not inclined to support them day one.

To go back to a previous example, should I start criticizing Sony for not offering launch window discount options? Is that an issue of "fairness?"

I don't think it is, but it's, frankly, just as valid an argument.

@Pizzamorg There is not a single game on the PS5 that won't be discounted at some point, and they eventually stay discounted, as a Switch game is briefly and then goes right back to $60. Keep in mind I am just talking about Nintendo published titles, as obviously 3rd party titles are part of sales a lot of times on all consoles. It also took Nintendo 5 years to introduce the voucher system that is locked behind a subscription service, but you aren't wrong. At this point, I'll be bowing out of this conversation as it's exactly why I hate getting involved in arguments. While I do think I made valid points, this is going nowhere, so moving on...

@kyleforrester87 Point taken about PS Plus and Game Pass, and sure it is an expectation, but at the same time it still sucks regardless to have to pay $60 for extremely old titles in comparison. How you view it doesn't change that fact, but again, I'm obviously wrong even though that's technically a different thing. This is about purchasing 1st party Nintendo titles vs. other companies' 1st party titles, not about subscription services.

I'm not trying to be one of these people that keeps going and gets himself ignored by a bunch of people and banned, and (like I said above) I hate getting into arguments on here in the first place, so I'll be bowing out. I hate the fact that Nintendo gets defended for anti-consumer pricing while others get criticized for it, which is why this started, but oh well.

@Ralizah No, they aren't obligated to, but it's still ridiculous regardless. It's your choice to defend it, and obviously this is going nowhere.

Nintendo first party titles rarely ever were on sale digitally up until the voucher system that is locked behind a subscription service was introduced 5 years into the life cycle. Physically most stay discounted on other platforms instead of having to sit there and hope that something goes on sale briefly.

As I said above, I don't like arguing on here in the first place, so I'll be bowing out. I know I am leaving other parts of the conversation untouched, but oh well as I don't feel like responding to this any more than I already have. I don't want to continue and get to the point where I get ignored, so I'll just leave it at that and let it die. I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree and shutup.

Adding onto my previous post above, without tagging anybody as this is for everybody in general...

Nintendo pricing is a touchy subject for me. We all can do whatever we want, and at the end of the day it’s about gaming and having fun. Sorry if this went too far, and obviously it’s better that the argument is over. Like I said, I never enjoy getting into these in the first place as I care more about enjoying my games and talking about that.

@KilloWertz I don't think it's about you being being right or wrong, it's just about what works for you. Point being, you shouldn't take offence to someone having a different view on the subject, is all.

I actually did forget the vouchers are locked behind NSO. That is a fair point. However, compared to PS Plus and Gamepass, NSO is relatively inexpensive right? Especially when you think you are effectively getting 100+ quids worth of games for 80 (or under depending on accumulated coins) quid every time. I think it is still balances, but obviously everyone's finances are unique.

@KilloWertz

That's because you have an expectation created by how other companies operate. And that's fine, as far as that goes, but your argument can essentially be reduced to "Nintendo's practices are bad because they don't align with Sony's." It's a statement of preference and nothing more. Whereas I think it's "bad" that Sony doesn't offer either the option of launch day discounts on their games (Nintendo) or put their games up on subscription day one (Microsoft). But, you know, that's my own issue. I'd never say Sony not offering games cheaper at launch is a matter of fairness.

I feel the same way about the online sub, btw. I think it sucks how expensive it is to access online gameplay on PS+, even if the service is technically 'better.' I'd rather pay $20 for NSO than $50, or whatever it is now, for PS+. But it's, again, not an issue of fairness.

The voucher system actually isn't new. It was there in NA very early in the Switch life-cycle, but was pulled until recently because Nintendo of America is probably the worst major branch of the company and frequently makes dumb and shortsighted decisions. Nintendo of Europe has, I believe, always had the voucher system in place since it first launched. Regardless, my point stands: you can fairly easily find the games for less than MSRP if you pay attention to sales and online deals.

Why would I put you on ignore? Obviously I don't agree with your position on this matter, but that's hardly a reason to stop talking to you. I don't like arguments either, but, I guess, I don't really think of myself as arguing right now, just having a discussion. shrug Feel free to terminate the exchange if that's your wish, but don't let 'not wanting to be ignored' be your reason. IMO the regulars around here are pretty reasonable. We can have disagreements and still be good.

@KilloWertz and I can only speak for myself but I’m not even close to upset with you 😉

@kyleforrester87 @KilloWertz I'm definitely not upset, either. Killo seems like a cool guy.

@Kidfried
In my opinion, XBOX Series have nothing to offer for me.
No 1st party kids games like Nintendo, Game Pass idea that I never like them, 99.99% identical 3rd party multi console games with other consoles so I clearly see nothing special from XBOX Series.

I definitely choose PS4 & PS5 for my premium consoles for playing 3rd party kids games with better performance, Switch is for Nintendo stuffs and exclusive 3rd party on Switch.
Both of them offered me something.

@Kidfried
Oh, btw.
About PS4 / PS5 games.
Since I only play kids games, it has benefit for me as the kids games I wanted to play are mostly pretty cheap so I can get more PS4 / PS5 games to collect and play.
The pricey PS4 / PS5 games only happened on bigger or AAA titles, but since I don't even play them, it has no effect for me.

Well after over a dozen hours, I've finally become addicted to TotK. This past week has been a constant back and forth between "Meh, it's just more BotW" and "Wow, this game is so creative!". It hasn't stuck for me until now. The opening part made it feel like a brand new game. Then when you get to Hyrule it felt like BotW. Then you start exploring the chasm and sky and it felt like a new game again. So now I feel a balance of both aspects, which is great. There's a reason why BotW was so good and the same can be said for TotK.

My main gripe (and praise) about TotK is the building aspect. While it's rather streamlined to build stuff, it just breaks up the pacing too much. I prefer the simplicity and fluidity of BotW. It's also the reason why my favourite ability is Ascend because it's so simple and useful. Building is a cool ability though and it fits the game's openness and creativity. I'm probably going to get used to it over time in all honesty.

I've also realised that I miss BotW's abilities. The bomb has been retained, although it's now finite, but I miss being able to create platforms on water.

I have been wondering about something. I have completely forgotten about the existence of Age of Calamity. Do you miss out on stuff in TotK if you haven't played that game? I know it's a prequel to BotW, but stuff like Purah's new appearance has made me concerned that I've missed out on something. I really should play that game regardless lol. Can't believe that I forgot about it.

@LtSarge Haven't played it, but my understanding is that AoC takes place in an alternative continuity/timeline, so technically not canon to the stories of BotW and TotK.

@Ralizah If that's the case, then that's good. I don't feel as much of a rush to play it then!

@LtSarge Kinda waiting to see if the successor is backwards-compatible or not, and, if so, if games on the system with unlocked framerates enjoy performance boosts.

I'm not a performance snob by any means, but the demo was really herky-jerky at points.

EXTREMELY fun, though, so I'll still play it even if it means putting up with that aspect of the game. A locked 30, or even, dare I hope, 60 would make it that much more fun.

@Ralizah You never know with some people. I am on somebody's ignore list here and I don't know why, as occasionally I'll see a new post in a thread, but then I click on the thread and there's no post. Being put on ignore wasn't the sole reason I wanted to just put this to bed and move on though. Like I said, I don't really care to argue or whatever you want to call it in the first place. I know not everything can be rosy, but I'd still rather spend my time playing games and discussing them rather then spending time otherwise and then just getting aggravated in the process. All that and I don't really want it to continue to derail the thread.

I had forgotten that NoA was the only branch that dropped the voucher system for a while, so that's my bad there. I still don't think it's enough in the long run as it's still $10 off a game that doesn't need to be full price still, but it's whatever. I think why it's all such a touchy subject is how it kind of ruined the excitement I initially had to dive into the ecosystem after never having a Nintendo system since the NES. There's no way I'm spending $50-$60 for old games when my main console is still going to be the PS5. It'd probably be slightly different if the Switch was my main or only console.

Your judge of character must be spotty then if you think I'm cool.

@kyleforrester87 I took it as him thinking that protecting the value of games was more important than people that don't want to pay full price for an old game being stuck doing so, especially somebody like me who got a Switch 5 years in. Being used to what the other two companies do, like what I said above, it was a buzzkill to know that almost everything that would be discounted on the other systems if the Switch was their platform wasn't.

In the end, it is what it is though. I don't want it to continue to derail the thread.

@KilloWertz to be honest I don’t buy a lot of Switch games mostly because of the price, but every game I do own is at least good if not an absolute banger - worth £50-60 when I bought them, and still now in my view!

But yes, there is far less prospect of an impulse purchase, like I might make on my PS5.