Tams
Member
Only because you have no fun friends.
We had a hoot with 1 2 Switch.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Do you think Nintendo first-party game are worth their price?
- Thread starter NomenNescio
- Start date
- Opinion
Only because you have no fun friends.
We had a hoot with 1 2 Switch.
March Climber
Member
We did too…at launch for about 2 hours. Then two Mario Party games, Arms, 3DWorld, NSMBU Deluxe, Smash, MK8 Deluxe, all came out in the following years. And this is not even counting the fun third party stuff like Overcooked.
Where does that leave 1-2 Switch? Either buried in someone’s closet somewhere or left on a store shelf for costing 4x what it should cost.
The only way they would have justified the price tag is if they had added mini games for free post-release, regularly on a rotation for months. Or if they had added a user creation mode like Mario Maker.
DevilMayFlyForAWhiteGuy
Member
The thing with Nintendo is they generally have a game for everyone, so even if you don’t care for 90% of their other games those one or two games will get you. I’ll always buy Metroid and Zelda games (TotK was disappointing to me though so I’ll probably skip another open world one), and they come out every 3+ years or so. So it’s like “sure it’s been a while I’ll get it day one.”
Compare that to like AssCreed or COD or something. “Oh another ones out this year; does it look very different or interesting than the last 20? Nah? Guess I’ll wait for a sale or skip it outright. Nintendo at least usually tries something new with their series and when they do “return to the roots” of a series like Zelda or Metroid it’s after a downtime or an experimental game.
If anything they haven’t done anything wildly different; it’s other companies that have devalued their games by making endless sequels within a year of each other, or turned shit into GAAS that are doomed to fail.
Compare that to like AssCreed or COD or something. “Oh another ones out this year; does it look very different or interesting than the last 20? Nah? Guess I’ll wait for a sale or skip it outright. Nintendo at least usually tries something new with their series and when they do “return to the roots” of a series like Zelda or Metroid it’s after a downtime or an experimental game.
If anything they haven’t done anything wildly different; it’s other companies that have devalued their games by making endless sequels within a year of each other, or turned shit into GAAS that are doomed to fail.
BlackTron
Member
Came here to say this.
I think even Mario Wonder is worth $60 (OP specifically mentions 2D block hitting). But stuff like Mario Sports has become invisible to me mostly because their quality has taken a hit, Strikers and Golf are nowhere near as good as their old versions. But other games would just never be worth that much, like 1-2 Switch.
I probably would have folded for Super Mario Party at $30, but just didn't like it enough for 60. I had no issue with MP Superstars at 60 because I just liked it better (it's more like a 64 version). It didn't feel like a bad value as its loaded with mini-games and they're all available to play from a giant selection menu from the start. It makes family members willing to join MP who previously maxed out at Tetris so that's worth 60 to me lol
Robb
Gold Member
Agreed. Doesn’t really matter if it’s 2D/3D etc. to me either. Same with Metroid Dread. They’re packed with content, clever designs, tight controls, creativity, new/cool ideas/gameplay mechanics, replayability etc. etc.
I just feel like you can really tell when Nintendo has their best people on a project. I’d pay $60 (and more) for those any day of the week.
But then there’s stuff like Super Mario Party, for example, which only contained 4(!) boards (less than even the first game in the entire series), which were also smaller than the boards in past games iirc. Etc.
The difference is night and day.
simpatico
Member
Yeah man, if Nintendo wants to charge $60 for a game they need more
and they absolutely have to stop making their stuff
No one takes us seriously because of Nintendo. Gaming is a most sophisticated art form, but if people keep buying Nintendo stuff, women are less likely to find out of how urbane The Last of Us Part II, God of War 2018 and Gears of War are. So how stupid are they GAF? Do they have what it takes to make a Third Person Cinematic Character Action Game with DLSS or what?
and they absolutely have to stop making their stuff
No one takes us seriously because of Nintendo. Gaming is a most sophisticated art form, but if people keep buying Nintendo stuff, women are less likely to find out of how urbane The Last of Us Part II, God of War 2018 and Gears of War are. So how stupid are they GAF? Do they have what it takes to make a Third Person Cinematic Character Action Game with DLSS or what?
Last edited:
SeraphJan
Member
It depend on what you are comparing against, and what your value of price is based on.
For the former, if you are comparing against other form of entertainment, yes it worth the price, however if you are comparing against other big budget titles, its not.
For the latter, I find that price based off "time played" is a terrible metric, I value my time more than money, my metric is more like "least amount of time that brings out the most amount of quality memories".
To explain the latter, for example, some game you might be addicted due to its mechanic (which was built with addiction in mind), but after you've done playing you might find yourself wasted huge amount of time doing repetitive game loop. Meanwhile some game might be considered more linear, but with huge budget put into the handcrafted content, as for someone like me who lacks time instead of money (at least in the sense of buying video games), I find these game are much more valuable.
To give a bit of context, in I prefer game such as Bioshock, Resident Evil, Last of Us Silent Hill, Metal Gear Solid, Uncharted, Sekiro, Bloodborne, The Last Guardian, Shadow of the Colossus, ICO, GoW (both God of War and Gears of War), Alan Wake etc. as you can see I'm not a fan of open world games or games that relies on total playtime. The games I prefer requires the least of amount of time but reward you with life time worth of quality memories (meaning the memories consist of variety of themes, stories, and atmosphere which are all handcrafted with huge budgets, instead of just memories of repetitive play loops when it becomes too much, balance is the key here).
These are just personal preference and personal perspective, everyone is different.
For the former, if you are comparing against other form of entertainment, yes it worth the price, however if you are comparing against other big budget titles, its not.
For the latter, I find that price based off "time played" is a terrible metric, I value my time more than money, my metric is more like "least amount of time that brings out the most amount of quality memories".
To explain the latter, for example, some game you might be addicted due to its mechanic (which was built with addiction in mind), but after you've done playing you might find yourself wasted huge amount of time doing repetitive game loop. Meanwhile some game might be considered more linear, but with huge budget put into the handcrafted content, as for someone like me who lacks time instead of money (at least in the sense of buying video games), I find these game are much more valuable.
To give a bit of context, in I prefer game such as Bioshock, Resident Evil, Last of Us Silent Hill, Metal Gear Solid, Uncharted, Sekiro, Bloodborne, The Last Guardian, Shadow of the Colossus, ICO, GoW (both God of War and Gears of War), Alan Wake etc. as you can see I'm not a fan of open world games or games that relies on total playtime. The games I prefer requires the least of amount of time but reward you with life time worth of quality memories (meaning the memories consist of variety of themes, stories, and atmosphere which are all handcrafted with huge budgets, instead of just memories of repetitive play loops when it becomes too much, balance is the key here).
These are just personal preference and personal perspective, everyone is different.
Last edited:
Usually i buy one Switch game per year (always a Nintendo game), i don't think there are that many Nintendo games worth the cost. Some games i am interested in, but not more than dozens of other games with lower prices.
For some people Nintendo games are everything, for them i guess price is not a problem.
For some people Nintendo games are everything, for them i guess price is not a problem.
NeoIkaruGAF
Gold Member
Amen.
Full price for Super Mario RPG or Luigi’s Mansion 2 remake is excessive imo, and I’m definitely waiting for a sale for such games.
Wario etc, same thing. My friend bought the latest Wario Ware and we beat the campaign in the span of an evening. Yeah, there’s some unlockable content and it’s a lot of fun, but this should be a €40 game tops.
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
I don't know where to begin with this...
1) Capitalism. Nintendo rarely discounts games because they're 10-30+ million sellers and people buy them for $60 for the duration of the console lifespan, so why would they just leave money on the table?
2) They discount their first-party games more than twice a year. And the usual discount is 33% off, which is ~$20 discount, not $10. If you miss any sales on a first-party game you want, it's because you failed to get it when it was discounted. That's on you, bro
3) This notion you have that Nintendo games because they're colorful or because some might be "2D" means they shouldn't be full price? I don't get the logic in any way. These games cost millions & millions of dollars to create & release, and they spend years making them. Why should they sell them cheaper than the competition? Nintendo's quality is usually considered best-in-the-world save for like, Naughty Dog. So, really odd take you have on this.
And again, if people didn't buy them for $60, they wouldn't sell them for $60.
1) Capitalism. Nintendo rarely discounts games because they're 10-30+ million sellers and people buy them for $60 for the duration of the console lifespan, so why would they just leave money on the table?
2) They discount their first-party games more than twice a year. And the usual discount is 33% off, which is ~$20 discount, not $10. If you miss any sales on a first-party game you want, it's because you failed to get it when it was discounted. That's on you, bro
3) This notion you have that Nintendo games because they're colorful or because some might be "2D" means they shouldn't be full price? I don't get the logic in any way. These games cost millions & millions of dollars to create & release, and they spend years making them. Why should they sell them cheaper than the competition? Nintendo's quality is usually considered best-in-the-world save for like, Naughty Dog. So, really odd take you have on this.
And again, if people didn't buy them for $60, they wouldn't sell them for $60.
Last edited:
Impotaku
Member
Erm Mario RPG isn’t a full price game it’s 39.99 I’d hardy call that excessive. Luigis mansion 3 is also same price. Although Luigi was 49.99 on release but another bonus of switch physical you don’t have to rely on Nintendo eshop pricing.
Last edited:
So the budget of those games are overprice too? What is the budget of those bloated games? For example Spiderman 2? Do they have a small budget and want to sell it for $70?
Last edited:
DownLikeBCPowder
Member
That's going to be the future of many more titles once publishers lock out physical sales.
They definitely are IMO. Are Three Houses, Odyssey, BotW/TotK not 60 dollar games? Sony has moved on to 70. Sure, there are some games that aren't worth 60, but the same could easily be said about some games on PS5/XBX that aren't worth 70. That said, I'd love to see the major publishers using more of a wider spread - like how Prime Remastered released for 40 USD, or ACMirage released at 50 USD. I think we should have more of a range in general.
Then wait a couple months and get them discounted at around 40 USD (physical), it happens. Maybe not too much lower if at all than that if it's a successful title and I guess you allegedly hate physical though, but it sounds like you don't really want to play them anyway.
I must be out of date, not sure what you're talking about here.
Depends on the game. TOTK, BOTW, Mario Odyssey, Pikmin 4, Metroid Dread, etc. are absolute bargains for the quality.
Some games like more recent Mario Partys, etc. no.
Your post doesn't really make any sense though....you buy games based on their production value? In my experience there's very little correlation between that and quality of a game. Ubisoft games have insane production value a lot of the time, you couldn't pay me to waste time playing Avatar.
Some games like more recent Mario Partys, etc. no.
Your post doesn't really make any sense though....you buy games based on their production value? In my experience there's very little correlation between that and quality of a game. Ubisoft games have insane production value a lot of the time, you couldn't pay me to waste time playing Avatar.
Last edited:
RoboFu
One of the green rats
Development budget doesn’t matter. If Nintendo’s game is way better than another $70 game then it’s worth $70.
A creative work isn’t the value of its parts. You don’t sell a painting based on the amount of paint used.
Shifty1897
Member
Eshop? No. Physical? Yes. They retain value.
Also I dispute the whole $60 isn't worth a Nintendo game attitude. If Nintendo games weren't worth $60, you and 20 million other gamers wouldn't be lining up to buy that shit every launch day. If making a Mario style 2D platformer was so easy, Sony and Microsoft would have made one better than Mario.
Also I dispute the whole $60 isn't worth a Nintendo game attitude. If Nintendo games weren't worth $60, you and 20 million other gamers wouldn't be lining up to buy that shit every launch day. If making a Mario style 2D platformer was so easy, Sony and Microsoft would have made one better than Mario.
Last edited:
Fbh
Member
Depends on the game.
I have no problem paying full price for stuff like Zelda, Xenoblade, mainline Mario games, Smash, etc.
But their B tier stuff like Pokemon and most of the sports games, as well as a lot of the stuff with just average production values like Metroid Dread, Links Awakening, etc aren't IMO.
That said the good thing about Nintendo games is that since they rarely if ever go on sale or drop in price they tend to maintain their resell value. If you buy used and then resell you can often get a game, beat it and sell it 1-2 months later for the same price you bought it for.
I have no problem paying full price for stuff like Zelda, Xenoblade, mainline Mario games, Smash, etc.
But their B tier stuff like Pokemon and most of the sports games, as well as a lot of the stuff with just average production values like Metroid Dread, Links Awakening, etc aren't IMO.
That said the good thing about Nintendo games is that since they rarely if ever go on sale or drop in price they tend to maintain their resell value. If you buy used and then resell you can often get a game, beat it and sell it 1-2 months later for the same price you bought it for.
NeoIkaruGAF
Gold Member
Oh, is it now?
I don’t care what price you can find online for a physical version. You can buy digital codes for less than MMSRP for PC and consoles day one, discounts for physical copies are the norm. But the MMSRP is €60, period.
VitoNotVito
Member
No.
MadchesterManc
Member
I suppose its down to each individual, for me I'll pay what I think something is worth irrespective of who the developer or publisher is. The last Ninty game I bought day one and paid full price for was the Skyward Sword remaster which was £49 I think. Would I have paid £70 for it? Nah, Wii version plays perfectly fine still.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Seeing as how I haven't bought a single one in years, the answer is no. The only thing I bought last year was Triangle Strategy and that was only because it came out on Switch before PC. I was very close to purchasing Pikmin 4. I still might.