Nintendo Nintendo to charge $70 for Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom (Voucher discount available)

[crispy4000]

The Legend of Zelda™: Tears of the Kingdom for Nintendo Switch - Nintendo Official Site

WWW.NINTENDO.COM

---

The Legend of Zelda™: Tears of the Kingdom

 

[Xbob42]

lol

[thedarkstark]

Just because? 

 

"We do what we must because we can"

[TheShader]

3 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

lol

I assume the 'lol' is because this won't lose Nintendo a single sale, and we all know it.

[stepee]

Well, they did at least just raise employee rates 10% which makes it seem a little better tho I’m sure was part of the point of the inflation bonus timing 

[TheLeon]

2 minutes ago, thedarkstark said:

Just because? 

 

"We do what we must because we can"

They saw other companies getting away with it, so they’re joining.

[crispy4000]

So now we know where that 10% employee raise is coming from.

[crispy4000]

Just now, TheLeon said:

They saw other companies getting away with it, so they’re joining.

 

Just like charging for online play!

[Xbob42]

10 minutes ago, TheShader said:

I assume the 'lol' is because this won't lose Nintendo a single sale, and we all know it.

It'll definitely lose a sale from me! Bitches weren't justified selling your shit at $60, let alone $70, especially with no sales. I'll just have to play via alternative means. 

[crispy4000]

They rescinded the price.  But yes, it was $70.

 

We'll know for sure tomorrow.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

8 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

They rescinded the price.  But yes, it was $70.

 

They realized their mistake and quickly rectified it.

 

The actual price was supposed to be $80.

[Brick]

That was the price for the Switch 2 version 

Spoiler

There is no spoiler. I'm on mobile and hit the spoiler button by accident, and there's no way to get rid of it. You've wasted your time reading this. 

[Xbob42]

1 minute ago, Brick said:

That was the price for the Switch 2 version 

  Hide contents

 

This would be more acceptable. But absolutely zero chance of me paying $70 for a Switch game.

[crispy4000]

Just now, Brick said:

That was the price for the Switch 2 version 

It's a hint that the Switch 2 is targeting a current-gen development spec.  Right?  Right?

 

That's how they get me to buy more $70 games from them.  As it stands, I'm in for Zelda, Xenoblade and maybe Mario.  Nothing else.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Lame, but I'm not gonna let $10 keep me form playing a game like this.

[Xbob42]

13 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Lame, but I'm not gonna let $10 keep me form playing a game like this.

How much would keep you from playing a game like this?

[Kal-El814]

Damn that's some Ocarina of Time money.

[stepee]

I’m actually more than okay with the $70 price point as I can’t think of a new reason why games should be going down in price (like when they switched from carts to disc) yet their general resilience to inflation means that they have been going down in price for awhile now.

 

Even $70 is like if games were $50 in 2010, when they were $60. There’s anti consumer stuff I can bring myself to care about but this isn’t one of those things. Also a lot of these games are more expensive to make than they were back when they first started charging $60 for games yeah.

 

That said everyone has their own value on things and I’m happy for the people who do care to be loud about it as it not bothering me doesn’t mean I won’t take cheaper games which that helps with.

[Xbob42]

1 minute ago, stepee said:

I’m actually more than okay with the $70 price point as I can’t think of a new reason why games should be going down in price (like when they switched from carts to disc) yet their general resilience to inflation means that they have been going down in price for awhile now.

Here's two reasons:

1. Unfathomably bigger consumer base

2. Massively reduced shipping cost to get games to stores, almost 0 cost for digital

[Bacon]

On console, you should only be allowed to charge by how many frames per second your game runs. 30fps? Well, that will be 30 bucks. What's that? Your games has massive dips in an area with too much grass and too many trees, well, looks like that's going to cost you.

[stepee]

19 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

Here's two reasons:

1. Unfathomably bigger consumer base

2. Massively reduced shipping cost to get games to stores, almost 0 cost for digital

 

I do think digital should be cheaper than physical and it’s weird that never worked out that way.

 

Personally I don’t think more people buying games now means they have less value to me but I see how you could use that for some gamer math as well

 

Still, even with the $10 back on, they’ve still gone down compared to about when I started digital buying myself anyway. Not to mention all the other things that makes videogames cheaper today.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

29 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

How much would keep you from playing a game like this?

Kind of an odd question. Obviously Nintendo isn't going to start charging $150 for base games. I don't like the price hike, but it is what it is. If it's something I'm really excited for, I'm not gonna let a few bucks stop me.

[Xbob42]

5 minutes ago, stepee said:

Personally I don’t think more people buying games now means they have less value to me but I see how you could use that for some gamer math as well

It doesn't mean they have less value, it means they can potentially make many times the sales that they would've when games were more expensive, so "rising costs" is heavily, heavily offset by the fact that there's probably like 500x more gamers these days.

 

2 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Kind of an odd question. Obviously Nintendo isn't going to start charging $150 for base games. I don't like the price hike, but it is what it is. If it's something I'm really excited for, I'm not gonna let a few bucks stop me.

Yeah, and my question was: what would stop you? I don't think it's a weird question, I think it's one game publishers think about every single day. I'm not asking to go "AHA! So $78 would be too much but $70 is fine?!" It's more that I'm curious where everyone's stopping point is. To me, a price hike should come with a clear advantage to me. After all, if I'm paying more money for the same stuff, I feel like I'm just getting boned.

 

Obviously everyone has their own point where it becomes untenable, and I imagine it's also on a game-by-game basis, but I think at some point publishers are gonna start pricing out a lot of people and sales will start being lost. It was mentioned that Nintendo wouldn't lose "one sale" from this and... I really don't think that's true. I think many people with smaller amounts of income were probably priced out of buying x numbers of games when the $60 hike happened and now buy x-1 games, and I could see the same thing happening at $70.

 

Just makes it harder and harder for people with lower income to actually get the games they want each year, especially with Nintendo's absolutely absurd aversion to sales. And even for people like me who like to buy lots of games, the math of "+$10 per game" quickly stops making sense. For a Zelda? Yeah I could see that being easier to stomach... for an occasional one-off title, but when Nintendo moved to $60 they moved all their games to $60, including their B-tier and C-tier stuff.

So maybe $70 wouldn't put folks off from a new Zelda, how about a Mario Tennis? Mario Party? Yet another Yoshi game? For me it all starts sounding like less and less impulse buys.

[Jason]

58 minutes ago, Brick said:

There is no spoiler. I'm on mobile and hit the spoiler button by accident, and there's no way to get rid of it. You've wasted your time reading this. 

 

That's what the undo button on the mobile editor is for.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I’m literally just talking about myself and one specific game. And I don’t buy a ton of games at full price anymore. 
 

Again, I don’t like this trend. I’m not defending it. 

[stepee]

I think if in two years they started releasing games at $80 it would make sense be concerned, but as long as they stick with price hikes under the pace of inflation and keep it to just once every two generarions or so I wouldn’t put much concern into it.

 

For me personally if I want to play a game for me to actually not buy it, it would definitely need to be $100+ 

 

If I REALLY wanted to play something and it was $200 sure I’d pay that. My issue is more time than the money though, games are cheap enough that my time is typically always going to be more valuable. 

[Biggie]

Spoiler

Xbob will buy this for $70 on day one. It’s a

 

[Ghost_MH]

30 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

Just makes it harder and harder for people with lower income to actually get the games they want each year, especially with Nintendo's absolutely absurd aversion to sales. And even for people like me who like to buy lots of games, the math of "+$10 per game" quickly stops making sense. For a Zelda? Yeah I could see that being easier to stomach... for an occasional one-off title, but when Nintendo moved to $60 they moved all their games to $60, including their B-tier and C-tier stuff.

 

I agree, but games have also been weirdly immune from inflation. The PS1 was a 100m unit console and I was paying $40-60 for games on that console without even taking into consideration multi-CD games. I mean, that's a TON better than the prices Nintendo was throwing around, but that's still $75-100 adjusted. Games are so much cheaper these days.

 

That said, yeah, I'd skip a ton of their smaller titles if they cranked up the price that high.

 

51 minutes ago, stepee said:

I do think digital should be cheaper than physical and it’s weird that never worked out that way.

 

It's money left on the table, but I also think a part of it is to appease brick and mortar retailers.

[Brian]

When you see Grubb saying $70 games need to sell 10 million to be considered successful by companies, you know shit is out of control. No wonder every game is considered a commercial failure. 
 

This doesn’t bother me since I will GameFly it

 

Plus BotW kinda sucked

[Xbob42]

1 minute ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

I agree, but games have also been weirdly immune from inflation. The PS1 was a 100m unit console and I was paying $40-60 for games on that console without even taking into consideration multi-CD games.

Nothing weird about it, the answer's right here: They were already really expensive. 

[Brick]

43 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

That's what the undo button on the mobile editor is for.

 

Oh. I never noticed that button before. Thanks! 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

11 minutes ago, Brian said:

When you see Grubb saying $70 games need to sell 10 million to be considered successful by companies, you know shit is out of control. No wonder every game is considered a commercial failure. 

 

I really am having a very difficult time seeing how the so-called "AAA"-tier is going to remain sustainable.

[ort]

I paid like $80 bucks for Street Fighter 2 on the SNES in 1992. 
 

(That’s $172 adjusted for inflation… and 100% I got my moneys worth from it as well…)

[Keyser_Soze]

I'm going to buy the OLED Tears console with no game and the $70 game on top of it.

[Ghost_MH]

16 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

Nothing weird about it, the answer's right here: They were already really expensive. 

 

I paid like $60 for OoT when it came out and I'm pretty sure that that one cart was as expensive as the entire Lunar Silver Star Story Complete and that game came with a ton of extras. Yeah, games have always been expensive. I'm just saying that the price of games has steadily come down over the last few decades in a way that just doesn't make a whole ton of financial sense.