Steamdeck already has this experience for free 🙈
Steam is not free. Steam is 30% cut to businesses.
Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft offload their costs via yearly subscription costs as well as developers paying a protection fee to launch on their platform. Steam just has the highest protection money scheme. You wouldn’t want anything to happen to the games you’re publishing through them, would you?
Woooooosh
It’s the year 20X6.
I, his inheritor, am sorry to inform you that GabeN has passed. I’ve realized that I want an even larger pile of money, and it’s come to my attention that you aren’t paying for us to maintain your account.
You have 30 days to download your content or subscribe to Steam Plus at a cheap $X9.99/mo to avoid account deletion.
IDK how to feel about rising video game prices. On the one hand, prices were stagnant for decades. On the other hand, companies can sell far more copies of games than they could back in the 1980s and 1990s. The cost of games is all in the development. The more you sell, the cheaper the price can be. They cost next to nothing to package and distribute (or are distributed digitally.)
On one hand, games are a lot more complex and expansive than they were back in the day. On the other, game devs now have tools the creators of old couldn’t even dream of. No one is hand coding the next Mario game is assembly.
There’s a lot of variables here. And it’s really just hard to make a fair judgment about it.
If they’re turning billions of dollars in profit each year, there’s no reason to raise the price. Fuck them
Yeah but BOTW has already made them rich. Development is finished and even the next game is 2 years old. I call it pure greed.
In many ways I think rising prices could be great, but in reality, they won’t be. With the technology available today, we could have even cooler games than we do, and more games, and more great games. We could have more diverse and experimental games. It would be lovely if solo indie developers were able to make a living from making great games, rather than basically needing to chase a dream akin to getting drafted into the NBA. Game developers are seriously underpaid, it would be great if they got paid as much as other software developers, especially since their work is equally complex and usually more stressful.
In reality, rising game prices will not help with any of those things, and will just make the C-suite richer. The one silver lining is that this may allow small indies to start charging a more livable realistic price for their games.
They cost next to nothing to package and distribute (or are distributed digitally.)
Steam takes 30% cut. This, of course, does not apply to nintendo, but still
They’d make a lot more money if they priced it at the 20 - 40 range
They really wouldn’t. They would have to triple or quadruple sales to take that sort of a hit. As it stands it’s one of the best selling games of all time already, basically everyone interested in it already owns it.
Financially, they made the right decision. As annoying as it is from the consumer side.
If I were to buy a switch 2, I might consider a rebuy at 20-40, but I’ve already beaten it and I ain’t pain 90$ lmao
I guess that would be the case if you bought it, beat it and sold it, but most people in that scenario would already own it and then they would just buy the upgrade pack. This $90 option is only for people who don’t own the game in any form yet.
The idea that any significant contingent of people would not own it in any form, then suddenly want to play it on Switch 2 but would balk at the asking price seems unlikely, certainly not enough to cut the price in half.
If they wanted a cheaper option they could always just buy a used Switch copy and then just buy the upgrade pack. I would prefer cheaper Nintendo games too but the reality is this won’t cost them that many sales.
That assumes people actually buy it though. Everyone already has this game, so I would expect most of the sales to come from the upgrade pack and not the $90 switch 2 edition. Nintendo usually makes bank by selling old games at full price with a generational console gap.
Tons of the full price successful “remasters” on Switch were Wii games which people no longer used, and Wii U games which no one originally bought.
On the other hand, the last time I didn’t see Nintendo make bank on literally zero effort was never, so I’m not that hopeful that people won’t just shill out for this scam too.
i’m interested in it. i don’t own it.
Title is a bit misleading
There are a few scenarios here.
-
You own the game on switch and already have the dlc so pay nothing unless you want to pay $10 or have the switch online subscription for the switch 2 edition if you want the enhancements. For a total of $0-10 depending on your choice
-
You own the game but dont have the dlc so pay $20 for that and then $10 for the switch 2 version unless you have the subscription for a total of $20-30 depending on your choice.
-
You dont own the game so you buy the switch 2 version for $70 and the dlc for $20 for a total of $90.
This is not the same as the $90 game lie thats being told, but it is painted that way. To get clicks.
Paying $70 for a game and then paying more for an expansion is nothing even close to new. For example, Destiny 2 is free but if you want the DLC its gonna cost you between $150 and $270 depending on when you buy it as there are sometimes deals on.
Breath of the Wild is 8 years old at this point. Asking $70 for that is pretty egregious in my opinion. Maybe for TotK that’d be more acceptable but for BotW I think it’s a very steep price. Especially given that it’s common that rereleases usually include dlcs by default.
I’d expected $60 for the full package, not $90, given that the amount of development work was likely pretty low (the game was finished years ago after all). So 50% higher than expected.
The SM64+Sunshine+Galaxy bundle game was $30, for comparison. That’s three full games that they needed to put in effort for to run on the Switch.
Absolutely fair. An 8 year old game should not cost $90 all in.
I dont dispute that. I just think the article is misleading as there is a lot of talk about $90 switch 2 games, which turned out not to be true, and it creates anger that is misplaced. Even if the reality isn’t far from that lie.
I do, however, think it’s an interesting thought experiment to come at it from another angle.
Imagine the article was “8 year old AAA game and DLC at a huge discount” and the article said things like:
- breath of the wild was ahead of its time on release
- the graphics still look great thanks to the cell shading and art style
- unique gameplay elements and a modern feeling combat system
- vast open world with expansive storyline
- on par with modern games
- currently only $50 on this deal, a bargain considering everything you get for that price
From this point of view i think you would agree that anyone would argue its worth more than $50 and that its a great deal despite being 8 years old.
Nintendo games should definitely come down in price over time, but the point is its just so easy to spin something however you want if you use the right words.
-
Nintendo doesn’t give AF about poor people.
They aren’t your friends, they don’t care about you - they care about the money in your pocket.
They know they are too big to fail, so they are gonna raise prices 50% no problem.
Why would they? Not saying it’s right, but there’s literally zero motivation for them to focus on people who can’t buy their products. They are a luxury good.
They are a company who exists to make money, not entertain us, despite that being what they say (in order to sell more). Them, and every other for profit company in the world.
I’d wager most video game companies don’t
No for-profit company does as they don’t get money from them. This is not caring about anyone who’s not wealthy.
So sounds like a public library check out.
They have literally been doing this with every older game they’ve ever produced. New system? New larger price to play on the new system.
I already have the DLC and with Nintendo membership, you get the rest for free if you already have the game, DLC not included.
Everybody RRRREEEEEEEEEE’s about Nintendo, but Kingdom come deliverance II released at $90 for the base game and I fucking LOVE Kingdom come deliverance, I wasn’t paying that shit. 2 months later, I got the gold edition or whatever for $80. (PS5) I am very happy with the purchase. Looking forward for the DLC lol.
I mean one of those is a new game, the other is an 8 year old game, I think that at that point complaining about it being 90$ is valid.
Complaining about Nintendo charging $90 for a Wii U game is absolutely valid
Good point. Its the first time I’ve paid that much. And I wouldn’t have done it if it wasn’t KCD2 lol.
What? KCD2 60 USD for the base game on release for PC and 70 USD for consoles (console tax).
https://steamdb.info/app/1771300/
If you paid 90 bucks for the base game, you definitely did it wrong.
I run a simple calculation in my mind, a movie costs~15$ and lasts for a few hours. If a game i’m buying has a good chance of beating that ratio, i’ll buy it.
Nintendo is still justifying my choice to never give another penny to Nintendo.
Same. I loved the Switch. My next gaming console will be the Steam Deck. Fuck Nintendo, it’s over.
I’ve owned every Nintendo console. It used to be that Nintendo = cheaper console, often cheaper base games compared to of the rest of the industry. Wii remained $50 after the other guys had moved to $60 and the Switch stayed at $60 after they moved to $70 (aside from their dirty little trick of TotK). Now their console is almost as expensive as a PS5 and they’re leapfrogging even the $70 standard to price their top-tier games at $80? Sheer greed and hubris. Maybe there are enough rabid Nintendo fans to support their pricing, but I won’t be one of them.
You can play Switch games on Steam Deck! At least I do. Some play even better than on Switch.
Unfortunately not Starlink: Battle for Atlas, which was one of the games I was hoping would have improved support implemented before Nintendo took down Yuzu and Ryujinx. There’s the Steam version, but being able to play as Fox makes it feel like the Star Fox game that the Switch is missing.
While I originally did get the game on my Switch, I’d much rather play it with the rest of my games on the Steam Deck.
Steam Deck is a handheld PC not a console. Also it runs a lot of Switch games better than Switch itself.
Consoles are wannabe PCs.
It’s a handheld PC with a very console-like OS.
It’s a console and a PC in one package! Or you feel like the other consoles don’t have an operating system in them?
Well, your phone has OS as well, does it count as a console? Also you can’t run PC software on a console, can you?
Nope, it doesn’t have a controller built-in and its main purpose isn’t gaming. You can’t run PS games on a Switch, does that somehow magically make either not a console?
The Steam Deck was designed from the ground up to give a console-like experience. The only real difference is it’s not a closed system, so you can use it as a PC as well if you want.
that’s gunna be a lot of sad kids on Christmas when the great depression 2 has settled in
Oof.
better framerates, higher resolutions, and HDR support
Interestingly you can get all that for free now. Yarr
Kinda expected when you pull an CEO from EA
Yeah, you can really see the AAA cooperate enshitification taking hold.
Wow, I had actually never heard that Doug Bowser was formerly at EA. Ooof
I get that it’s more fun to point out his name, I’m just surprised I hadn’t seen the comment made before.
Even EA isn’t this greedy.
If they owned Mario and Zelda, you can bet your britches they would be.
I mean, madden and the sims are at least as big of cash cows.
Hell EA is doing good now in some ways like open sourcing the command and conquer games. Maybe they got rid of their Shit executives to Ubisoft and Nintendo.
Yeah, they’ve been doing good work funding smaller teams too. Games like it takes two and split fiction are great lower budget experimental games.
I recently broke a decade plus boycott of EA products to purchase Split Fiction for full price. My friend asked me to play It Takes Two with him for free through friend pass and I was so impressed by it that I wanted to support the devs. Besides, the whole point of the boycott was to “vote with my wallet” and I want them to know that I want more games with that kind of quality made by teams that are (seemingly) happy to be doing what they do.
One of the issues I have with the new open-world style Zelda games is that they don’t have replay value. After finishing each once (which takes a lot of time), I can’t actually imagine wanting to go back and play them again. So yeah, Nintendo can charge what they want and it isn’t very appealing regardless. Increased resolution isn’t going to change the experience.
I replay OoT and MM at least once a year. I can see myself replaying these new Zelda games at some point and enjoying them, but I won’t likely pay $90 for the privilege.
Interestingly I’d say the complete opposite: BotW was my fave and I feel I could replay it in quite a different style (e.g. trying to beat it without any dungeons, trying to 100% it), whereas the others are all very linear and my only option is to play it again in the same way.
(Obviously I don’t need to pay any additional money to do either though!)
The others are certainly more linear, but you could also do things like the three heart challenge. Or emulate and play a randomized game.
I think you can do both of those with BotW too
Increased resolution probably wouldn’t make a difference, but keeping the framerate at a steady 30 (or even better 60) would make a noticeable difference. At least it did when I played it on PC
Honestly… Piss off with that Nintendo.
