There's a very particular design ethos that I can't really put my finger on which seems to unite all of Nintendo's first-party titles. Nintendo games simply wouldn't be made by Xbox or Sony, and Xbox/Sony's games simply wouldn't be made by Nintendo. Wish I could articulate it better.
Anyway, I don't really think $80 is an excessive amount to charge for well-crafted video games. There's nothing inherently wrong with companies charging the price consumers are willing to pay for quality, just like no one is surprised those obsessively handcrafted Japanese steak knives are much more expensive than mass-produced knives off Amazon. I understand why gamers are upset, because having more money is better than having less money (obviously). But realistically games are very inexpensive even at this price point. A strict playthrough of DK Bananza that avoids most sidecontent apparently clocks in at 20 hrs, which seems pretty dense, and given everyone's apparent impression of high quality I assume that's correct (though I haven't played it myself). Even at $4/hr, which is high by video game standards, you're still vastly outperforming pretty much everything in the entertainment sector on cost other than streaming television.
The problem, obviously, is that not all games are high quality, and AAA games (like from Sony or Xbox) like to crowd at the same price. But the solution seems to be the same as it always has been -- make fewer, better games, and then charge the price that they are actually worth.
I think the issue that drives people to frustration with it is exactly that it's being applied from what looks like a place of security - Nintendo is unlikely to lose many sales over a shift of base price, because their 'floor' of sales is relatively high and stable, at least for major first party releases, and especially when the console is so fresh that there's not much to play on it. Meanwhile, indie and AA games have to struggle to find the correct price point, one that enough players actually will shell out for without sitting back with arms crossed waiting for a sale that drives it under the 20 dollar mark. The sense of unfairness is that it looks like setting this new standard is an extortionary move, taking advantage of every wanna-be reviewer and influencer, every desperate parent, who are all already dealing with economic stresses across the board.
Whether it matches with an expectation of value is beyond the point - games used to be much more expensive in the 80s and 90s, especially taking inflation into account, but the world has changed, distribution in particular has changed, and people who were already getting frustrated at 'special editions' that inflated a game's release price with the vague implication of access to future content ['season passes'] are justifiably upset when the same adjustment is made and all they actually get in return is a fake cartridge that gives them a license to play a downloaded game.
That's just my impression, though. I won't have any excuse to be upset myself until I have to play Metroid Prime 4.
We can criticise Nintendo till the cows come home. They still have more money than god and whilst some of their practices are annoying like their recent control over who gets dev kits. Again they have money. They know what they are doing.
There's a very particular design ethos that I can't really put my finger on which seems to unite all of Nintendo's first-party titles. Nintendo games simply wouldn't be made by Xbox or Sony, and Xbox/Sony's games simply wouldn't be made by Nintendo. Wish I could articulate it better.
Anyway, I don't really think $80 is an excessive amount to charge for well-crafted video games. There's nothing inherently wrong with companies charging the price consumers are willing to pay for quality, just like no one is surprised those obsessively handcrafted Japanese steak knives are much more expensive than mass-produced knives off Amazon. I understand why gamers are upset, because having more money is better than having less money (obviously). But realistically games are very inexpensive even at this price point. A strict playthrough of DK Bananza that avoids most sidecontent apparently clocks in at 20 hrs, which seems pretty dense, and given everyone's apparent impression of high quality I assume that's correct (though I haven't played it myself). Even at $4/hr, which is high by video game standards, you're still vastly outperforming pretty much everything in the entertainment sector on cost other than streaming television.
The problem, obviously, is that not all games are high quality, and AAA games (like from Sony or Xbox) like to crowd at the same price. But the solution seems to be the same as it always has been -- make fewer, better games, and then charge the price that they are actually worth.
I think the issue that drives people to frustration with it is exactly that it's being applied from what looks like a place of security - Nintendo is unlikely to lose many sales over a shift of base price, because their 'floor' of sales is relatively high and stable, at least for major first party releases, and especially when the console is so fresh that there's not much to play on it. Meanwhile, indie and AA games have to struggle to find the correct price point, one that enough players actually will shell out for without sitting back with arms crossed waiting for a sale that drives it under the 20 dollar mark. The sense of unfairness is that it looks like setting this new standard is an extortionary move, taking advantage of every wanna-be reviewer and influencer, every desperate parent, who are all already dealing with economic stresses across the board.
Whether it matches with an expectation of value is beyond the point - games used to be much more expensive in the 80s and 90s, especially taking inflation into account, but the world has changed, distribution in particular has changed, and people who were already getting frustrated at 'special editions' that inflated a game's release price with the vague implication of access to future content ['season passes'] are justifiably upset when the same adjustment is made and all they actually get in return is a fake cartridge that gives them a license to play a downloaded game.
That's just my impression, though. I won't have any excuse to be upset myself until I have to play Metroid Prime 4.
We can criticise Nintendo till the cows come home. They still have more money than god and whilst some of their practices are annoying like their recent control over who gets dev kits. Again they have money. They know what they are doing.