*** Nintendo Switch ***

[BMox81]

I think it also has to do with the perception of whether one if getting ripped off or not. I am guessing it cost a hell of a lot more money to make Uncharted 4 vs Bomberman, yet they want the same amount of money. Also to do with the opportunity cost. I would still pay £40 if it was a game I really wanted to play regardless of how much it cost to make, but Bomberman is not such a game so they will not see my money until the price drops significantly to a price I am comfortable with. Plus it is Konami

I do actually want to play the Street Fighter II game on the Switch quite a bit, but I would feel ripped off if they wanted more than £20 for it. Would probably end up picking it up second hand for cheaper at a later date.

I'm not knocking your stance - you're perfectly entitled to do what you want, but you only wanting to pick up SFII second hand for example is one of the reasons why people are saying Nintendo is supposedly doomed.

I dunno, you'd expect people actually want Nintendo to do well but a select minority just aren't willing to shell out for it. And that's the crux of it all - everyone wanted the Switch to be cheap and have cheap games with it.

Anything else and it was DOA to them.

 

[Kreeeee]

I'm not knocking your stance - you're perfectly entitled to do what you want, but you only wanting to pick up SFII second hand for example is one of the reasons why people are saying Nintendo is supposedly doomed.

I dunno, you'd expect people actually want Nintendo to do well but a select minority just aren't willing to shell out for it. And that's the crux of it all - everyone wanted the Switch to be cheap and have cheap games with it.

Anything else and it was DOA to them.

I'm happy to pay the full price for big ticket titles such as a new Zelda or Mario, but I am not willing to fund extreme examples of profiteering for games that require very little development.

I am not a cash cow or a mug.

 

[BMox81]

I'm happy to pay the full price for big ticket titles such as a new Zelda or Mario, but I am not willing to fund extreme examples of profiteering for games that require very little development.

I am not a cash cow or a mug.

You don't know what type of development has gone into Bomberman (as an example) to get it onto the Switch.

 

[Kreeeee]

You don't know what type of development has gone into Bomberman (as an example) to get it onto the Switch.

Very, very little compared to a game like Zelda or Mario.

 

[Emlyn_Dewar]

As above, I can't fathom paying £50 for Bomberman.
It's the sort of game that would be great for a few people all playing it on their Switch in the same room, but from the friends I've spoke to who're buying the Switch, Bomberman isn't even on the radar.
I can't see that price lasting very long, especially when it's competing with Zelda (as a launch game, I'm aware they are totally different! ).

 

[KraniX]

Yeah we all have different criteria. If a game required little effort, such as straight forward ports of old games (Mario Sunshine, World of Goo) or quick updates of simple games (Street Fighter 2 and Bomberman), then I refuse to pay a lot for it.

Indie games are another area where I expect to pay less.

I get where you're coming from but playing devil's advocate slightly and taking the earlier example of Uncharted 4 it seems you're willing to pay based on the effort that's gone into the creation of a game rather than how much you'll potentially get out of it?

In that case should Overwatch be <£20 since all Blizzard did was create a few character models and some maps?

 

[Kreeeee]

I get where you're coming from but playing devil's advocate slightly and taking the earlier example of Uncharted 4 it seems you're willing to pay based on the effort that's gone into the creation of a game rather than how much you'll potentially get out of it?

I do think game prices should reflect the effort that went into creating them.

 

[KraniX]

I do think game prices should reflect the effort that went into creating them.

So an annual big budget cookie-cutter COD or FIFA can sell for £50 but something made by a smaller team with less budget who have worked relentlessly on their game, possibly for years shouldn't be able to sell for full price?

 

[TNA]

I'm not knocking your stance - you're perfectly entitled to do what you want, but you only wanting to pick up SFII second hand for example is one of the reasons why people are saying Nintendo is supposedly doomed.

I dunno, you'd expect people actually want Nintendo to do well but a select minority just aren't willing to shell out for it. And that's the crux of it all - everyone wanted the Switch to be cheap and have cheap games with it.

Anything else and it was DOA to them.

I want Nintendo to well, does not mean I am happy to let them take me from behind however!

Look, I have pre-ordered and 100% will be keeping my pre-order for the Switch, plus purchased Zelda and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and 2 steering wheels. So I am shelling out. But can definitely understand why someone would not want to pay silly money bomberman and Street Fighter II.

How many people do you think are working on Street Fighter II for the Switch and for how long? I bet not 10% of the resources and man power have been put into it vs Zelda, yet if they think I am going to buy it at full price or even close, they are dreaming. It is not a brand new game you know... I will pick it up brand new if they price it correctly!

I'm happy to pay the full price for big ticket titles such as a new Zelda or Mario, but I am not willing to fund extreme examples of profiteering for games that require very little development.

I am not a cash cow or a mug.

+1

 

[Kreeeee]

So an annual big budget cookie-cutter COD or FIFA can sell for £50

I don't buy those games, and I don't factor marketing costs into it which makes those games very cheap to develop and only worth £15-20 for me if I was to buy annual games.

 

[TNA]

So an annual big budget cookie-cutter COD or FIFA can sell for £50 but something made by a smaller team with less budget who have worked relentlessly on their game, possibly for years shouldn't be able to sell for full price?

But Street Fighter II it is not a new game. This is the point...

I also do not buy the games mentioned above every year. Once every 3 years or so I get a FIFA when it gets a new engine.

 

[SwiftJump]

Got my switch pre order, was tempted to trade in my Xbox one s and get it half price. There seems to be a lot of hate on Nintendo for some reason.

 

[BMox81]

I don't buy those games, and I don't factor marketing costs into it which makes those games very cheap to develop and only worth £15-20 for me if I was to buy annual games.

You seem to be missing the point - you're basically saying that an indie doesn't have the right to charge full price for their game because it's not a big budget title.

 

[Kreeeee]

You seem to be missing the point - you're basically saying that an indie doesn't have the right to charge full price for their game because it's not a big budget title.

I've not missed the point, we all have different criteria.

 

[KraniX]

But Street Fighter II it is not a new game. This is the point...

I didn't mention SF2 but my point is what do you care? If you get a decent game out of it, enjoy it, and sink a ton of hours into it then isn't that value for money even if you paid full price?

Journey is very short but as an experience it's amazing, same goes for Firewatch, I'll remember those games forever, much more than some of the rubbish I've paid full price for.

 

[TNA]

I didn't mention SF2 but my point is what do you care? If you get a decent game out of it, enjoy it, and sink a ton of hours into it then isn't that value for money even if you paid full price?

Journey is very short but as an experience it's amazing, same goes for Firewatch, I'll remember those games forever, much more than some of the rubbish I've paid full price for.

Everyone is different. I care because I know exactly what I will be getting when buying Street Fighter II and I have a price I am prepared to pay for it.

I think we are both making different points though it seems, as I agree with what you are saying, but that does not apply to the point I was making with Street Fighter II. For example only just yesterday on the Resident Evil 7 PC thread some people were saying they are disappointed with the length of the game, yet I would take RE7 over RE6 any day, even though it does not last half as long.

 

[Kreeeee]

I didn't mention SF2 but my point is what do you care? If you get a decent game out of it, enjoy it, and sink a ton of hours into it then isn't that value for money even if you paid full price?

Journey is very short but as an experience it's amazing, same goes for Firewatch, I'll remember those games forever, much more than some of the rubbish I've paid full price for.

I care because a low budget title has a lot of flexibility with its price.

If I know a game is low budget then I will wait until it's cheap and then get it for a few quid.

Like I did with Journey as it happens

 

[KraniX]

Personally I won't be buying Bomberman or SF2...

 

[TNA]

Personally I won't be buying Bomberman or SF2...

I will get both, at the right price however

If Nintendo want full price, they should make games worth of it. Make me a new F-Zero (a good one) and I would even pay £60 for it

 

[Broken Hope]

You seem to be missing the point - you're basically saying that an indie doesn't have the right to charge full price for their game because it's not a big budget title.

Show me an Indie game on PS4 or XB1 that's £40? Indie games are pretty much never £40.

This is simply then taking advantage of the system not having many games at launch.