Support NeoGAF

[Draugoth]

---

Nintendo of America president Doug Bowser has said the company expects The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom to justify its $70 price tag.

The company announced last month that the upcoming game costs $69.99, marking the first time it has charged more than $59.99 for a standard edition of a digital Switch title.

In a recent interview, Nintendo’s US boss was asked how the platform holder reached its decision to price Tears of the Kingdom at $70:

We look at what the game has to offer,” Bowser told Associated Press.

“I think fans will find this is an incredibly full, deeply immersive experience. The price point reflects the type of experience that fans can expect when it comes to playing this particular game.”

After the game’s price was announced, a Nintendo spokesperson suggested $70 won’t necessarily be the new norm for first-party Switch software, stating that the company determines the suggested retail price of its products “on a case-by-case basis”.

This isn’t a price point that we’ll necessarily have on all our titles. It’s actually a fairly common pricing model either here or in Europe or other parts of the world, where the pricing may vary depending on the game itself.”

 

[McGILLAZ]

I'm salty about this because it was able to be pre-ordered at 59.99 - changing the price tag before release is really shitty, regardless of the game. Also, don't trust anyone named Bowser by default. Obviously.

 

[IFireflyl]

​

After the game’s price was announced, a Nintendo spokesperson suggested $70 won’t necessarily be the new norm for first-party Switch software, stating that the company determines the suggested retail price of its products “on a case-by-case basis”.​

100% bullshit.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Let's face it, $70 is very reasonable. You know what's not reasonable? Governments and corporates not upping the wages accordingly with the inflation.

 

[feynoob]

Let's face it, $70 is very reasonable. You know what's not reasonable? Governments and corporates not upping the wages accordingly with the inflation.

16$ is the 10$ now.
The economy is messed up badly.

 

[RoboFu]

Oh I would gladly pay $70 for Zelda, hell I paid $80 for OOT back in the day . I mean I’ve paid $70 for some ps5 and Xbox games that are no where near as good.

 

[Punished Miku]

We'll see. They definitely haven't in any of the trailers so far.

I only pre-ordered it because it was $50 with the voucher deal. Zelda doesn't usually disappoint, but I can only judge with my own eyeballs.

 

[Nautilus]

100% bullshit.

This is corporate talk for: "If it works, all of our biggest games will be 70 dollars.If it fails, everything stays the same".

 

[kiphalfton]

Calling it now. Twice as many recycled shrines.

 

[Mr Hyde]

They could at least throw in the bike right at the start as a gesture of good will. Would do for some nice and easy going traversal.

 

[blacktout]

Pretty standard PR speak. What else could he have said?

That's not to say that I don't think the game will be worth $70. It's just that this quote gives us no valuable information.

 

[Dr. Wilkinson]

100% bullshit.

A lot of N64 games were $60, and they were like, maybe 10% of the scope/ size/ complexity of the games being made nowadays. People love to whine, but, videogames are an enthusiast hobby. And it's not like $10 more will hurt demand, let's be honest. Worth pointing out too, that $60 US in 1999 is worth $108 in 2023, so from any angle, as others have stated when this topic has come up in the past, *games have never been cheaper than they are right now*.

PS5 controllers retail for $75 standard, I mean, so what, a 250+ hour top-tier immersive open-world game that was in development for over 5 years can't cost $70? What core argument is being made, that it's not worth it? Balderdash.

 

[Big Baller]

Yes, because its features 4K HDR 60hz and raytracing

 

[Umbasaborne]

70 dollars for a switch game is unacceptable. Not when its going to be 5-6 years behind other 70 dollar games technologically

 

[Pejo]

As much as it pains me to say, I'm holding off buying this at launch. $70 for a fucking Switch game is just a no from me. Also, I suspect it will be cross gen with Switch 2, and since it's Nintendo you know their account system won't transfer purchases and games over to the new version, on top of the Switch 2 "backwards compatibility" rumors.

If Nintendo wants to start charging like the big boys, they need to fix their account system and stop tying purchases down to hardware.

 

[Magic Carpet]

The Nintendo Switch is the only time I've regretted going all digital. I would really like to trade it and the games in.

 

[Chukhopops]

Probably the only 70 dollar game I will buy in the near future, since it will be years before there’s any price drop.

Everything else isn’t worth the full price considering how quickly it falls off (imo).

 

[Dr. Wilkinson]

Pretty standard PR speak. What else could he have said?

That's not to say that I don't think the game will be worth $70. It's just that this quote gives us no valuable information.

That hallmarks of a good corporate exec. Say as much as possible without really saying anything at all.

 

[IFireflyl]

A lot of N64 games were $60, and they were like, maybe 10% of the scope/ size/ complexity of the games being made nowadays. People love to whine, but, videogames are an enthusiast hobby. And it's not like $10 more will hurt demand, let's be honest. Worth pointing out too, that $60 US in 1999 is worth $108 in 2023, so from any angle, as others have stated when this topic has come up in the past, *games have never been cheaper*.

PS5 controllers retail for $75 standard, I mean, so what, a 250+ hour top-tier immersive open-world game that was in development for over 5 years can't cost $70? What core argument is being made, that it's not worth it? Balderdash.

I'm not saying it is unreasonable. I'm saying they are being dishonest about it. Just say that the market has changed, and inflation impacts Nintendo. That isn't untrue. Instead, they are playing a song-and-dance to make it seem like they're not just chasing the money. We're not stupid. They shouldn't treat us like we are.

 

[scydrex]

Not even some ps5 and xbox series games justify the $70 price tag like Callisto. Forsaken is a mediocre game plus $70 and the game sold poorly. I don't care if the games is good or bad. To me is the cost of production of the game or the budget justify the price tag. Gow ragnarok for example i brought it for $70 and to me it was justified. Elden Ring for $60 and even if it was $70 would have gladly pay that. I don't buy games at full price anymore. Only a few exceptions. If the price tag depends of how good it's the game then an excellent indie game justify a price tag of $60 or $70? For example? To me no.

 

[Polygonal_Sprite]

£42 Digital in the UK using the official two game voucher deal for anyone unaware.

 

[H4ze]

What else would they say?

 

[DenchDeckard]

£42 Digital in the UK using the official two game voucher deal for anyone unaware.

This is what I did. Turned out I had over £4 in points so it came to £80 for two vouchers. Pre ordered TOTK...Noice!

Hopefully advance wars turns out amazing with a great online mode and I might get that, if not Ill just hold out until something else comes along.

 

[Gojiira]

Sorry but no, Elden Ring,the game of the generation, released at 40 on PS5. There’s honestly no excuse for any game to release at 70 let alone Zelda.

 

[ironmang]

A lot of N64 games were $60, and they were like, maybe 10% of the scope/ size/ complexity of the games being made nowadays. People love to whine, but, videogames are an enthusiast hobby. And it's not like $10 more will hurt demand, let's be honest. Worth pointing out too, that $60 US in 1999 is worth $108 in 2023, so from any angle, as others have stated when this topic has come up in the past, *games have never been cheaper*.

PS5 controllers retail for $75 standard, I mean, so what, a 250+ hour top-tier immersive open-world game that was in development for over 5 years can't cost $70? What core argument is being made, that it's not worth it? Balderdash.

The problem with Nintendo games is you'll be paying $70 for years.

Are video games still an "enthusiast hobby"? It's pretty mainstream now and they money it already generates reflects that.

 

[cdthree]

Nintendo puts out top-notch games, no doubt about it. If Nintendo can't see the economic collapse happening right now and multiple other things causing uncertainties with their customers, good luck with that. I'm sure it will sell great regardless, tbh. If Nintendo's new plan going forward is to raise their already premium prices even more, I think they are delusional and in for a massive correction. Games are a luxury, not a necessity.

 

[Davevil]

 

[SlimySnake]

I think its funny that for almost a decade now, rising development costs have been blamed on fancier graphics, high production values i.e., cinematics and extremely detailed open worlds that take forever for artists to draw and designers to populate.

Zelda is literally using flat textures in its open world. we all know it wont have hours of cinematics like TLOU or GOW because the first one didnt. The game seems to be using PS3 quality assets at best. And yet the development took 6 long years. Just as long as it took them to reboot Zelda from 2011 to 2017. This a straight sequel that seems to be using the same map, reusing the same enemies, and mechanics and yet it took just as long as the original?

Maybe, just maybe, the graphics arent the reason why games are taking so long to make. Maybe there is something else at play here. We dont even know how big the Zelda team over at Nintendo really is. Of course, since the game took 6 years to make, Nintendo is going to charge whatever they want to get their money back. Looking at how well GOW and Hogwarts sold at $70, it would be silly not to.

 

[CuteFaceJay]

Let's face it, $70 is very reasonable. You know what's not reasonable? Governments and corporates not upping the wages accordingly with the inflation.

Gonna get to the point where luxury items are the norm again.

The amount of people I know that didn't grow up with all the gadgets and fancy games systems is pretty high. Now in an age where those folks have jobs a lot of them don't have kids so they've been spending silly money on what was considered luxury back in the day.

I feel like I do take for granted the amount of entertainment systems I own looking at how much was spent. Thinking my parents would have had a hard time trying to keep up.

Heck back then N64 games would cost around £100 in the 90's.

 

[Dr. Wilkinson]

The problem with Nintendo games is you'll be paying $70 for years.

Are video games still an "enthusiast hobby"? It's pretty mainstream now and they money it already generates reflects that.

Enthusiast hobby does not = niche. Just means it's... a hobby, and, it's...expensive.

 

[SeraphJan]

The moment they decide to release the game on an outdated hardware, I'm out, I was expecting they would release the new Zelda on Switch successor. I'm not paying 70$ for low budget games, even indie games look better than this.

But if there is market, its always justifiable as long as fans keep paying it.

 

[Dr. Wilkinson]

The moment they decide to release the game on an outdated hardware, I'm out, I was expecting they would release the new Zelda on Switch successor. I'm not paying 70$ for low budget games, even indie games look better than this.

But if there is market, its always justifiable as long as fans keep paying it.

Lmao! ToTK is “low budget”? Gtfo

 

[Fake]

Please understand?

 

[Catphish]

Nintendo of America president Bowser​

Seems unwise...

 

[Dr. Wilkinson]

Yup, a game that would be right at home in PS3/360 library is totally worth $70USD/$90CAD in 2023.

Huh? So the only thing that matters in a game is what it looks like? What an odd reality you live in.

 

[SeraphJan]

Lmao! ToTK is “low budget”? Gtfo

Low quality texture, minimalist design, asset flip, unpopulated world, how is it not?

Pay 70$ if you like, I rather play indie game for innovative game design

Edit: I didn't know this comment had a side of effect of triggering irrational fanboism, its quite entertaining, keep paying and keep encouraging the companies greed and their low budget, its your wallet, GameCube era Nintendo (and the all generation before it) where they actually cared about production value might never come back thanks to you guys

 

[anthony2690]

Mr Bowser, Mario strikers/golf/tennis doesn't even justify it's lower price tag.

Why should I trust you?

 

[jaysius]

Huh? So the only thing that matters in a game is what it looks like? What an odd reality you live in.

The art book leaked, they're recycling the same dozen or less enemies and recoloring them AGAIN.

This will barely be a sequel.

 

[Hobbygaming]

Let's face it, $70 is very reasonable. You know what's not reasonable? Governments and corporates not upping the wages accordingly with the inflation.

Even the price of hookers has gone up...
umm my friend told me

 

[Raven117]

Let's face it, $70 is very reasonable. You know what's not reasonable? Governments and corporates not upping the wages accordingly with the inflation.

Ummm....do we need to have a talk about how economics works?

 

[Pelta88]

Gamers will pay for quality.

Somehow over the past two years, this staple of our industry got distorted on social media and gaming forums. But this simple fact remains a constant in business... Consumers will pay for quality. Anyone who argues different is being disingenuous.

 

[AV]

People really will bitch about $10 extra for a game they're gonna spend 100+ hours in.

You can't even get a takeaway for $10.

 

[sandbood]

I think its funny that for almost a decade now, rising development costs have been blamed on fancier graphics, high production values i.e., cinematics and extremely detailed open worlds that take forever for artists to draw and designers to populate.

Zelda is literally using flat textures in its open world. we all know it wont have hours of cinematics like TLOU or GOW because the first one didnt. The game seems to be using PS3 quality assets at best. And yet the development took 6 long years. Just as long as it took them to reboot Zelda from 2011 to 2017. This a straight sequel that seems to be using the same map, reusing the same enemies, and mechanics and yet it took just as long as the original?

Maybe, just maybe, the graphics arent the reason why games are taking so long to make. Maybe there is something else at play here. We dont even know how big the Zelda team over at Nintendo really is. Of course, since the game took 6 years to make, Nintendo is going to charge whatever they want to get their money back. Looking at how well GOW and Hogwarts sold at $70, it would be silly not to.

At least post uncompressed screenshots that are not screencaptures from YouTube. I think the game looks fine on the system that it is currently running on(~393 GFLOPS) especially an open world game with an insane physics system.

 

[ironmang]

Enthusiast hobby does not = niche. Just means it's... a hobby, and, it's...expensive.

Guess we have different meanings for it. When I think enthusiast I think of like 40k or model trains. Not something that billions of people do like play video games.

 

[SlimySnake]

At least post uncompressed screenshots that are not screencaptures from YouTube. I think the game looks fine on the system that it is currently running on(~393 GFLOPS) especially an open world game with an insane physics system.

You can literally see the flat textures in your uncompressed PNG shots. There is absolutely nothing here that should be compared with other modern $70 last gen games like GOW, Hogwarts and Horizon.

All im saying is that the $70 cost is not because of the graphics or level of detail. It's for some other equally bs reason.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Gonna get to the point where luxury items are the norm again.

The amount of people I know that didn't grow up with all the gadgets and fancy games systems is pretty high. Now in an age where those folks have jobs a lot of them don't have kids so they've been spending silly money on what was considered luxury back in the day.

I feel like I do take for granted the amount of entertainment systems I own looking at how much was spent. Thinking my parents would have had a hard time trying to keep up.

Heck back then N64 games would cost around £100 in the 90's.

Who would've thought back in our days that kids would have tablets as a norm. Crazy times we're living, but at the same time governments and corporates are making way more crazier numbers than ever before.

 

[Banjo64]

Ordered for £48 @ Shopto. Money well spent.

 

[sandbood]

You can literally see the flat textures in your uncompressed PNG shots. There is absolutely nothing here that should be compared with other modern $70 last gen games like GOW, Hogwarts and Horizon.

All im saying is that the $70 cost is not because of the graphics or level of detail. It's for some other equally bs reason.

Which morons are comparing a game on the 393 GFLOPS system to games on the 11 TFLOPS system? Of course, it's not going to look like PS5 games because of power differences alone, but it looks fine on the system it is running on.

Take a look at the physics system in TOTK/BOTW and show me one open world game on PS5 that has the same level of complexity as TOTK/BOTW.

 

[Nautilus]

As much as it pains me to say, I'm holding off buying this at launch. $70 for a fucking Switch game is just a no from me. Also, I suspect it will be cross gen with Switch 2, and since it's Nintendo you know their account system won't transfer purchases and games over to the new version, on top of the Switch 2 "backwards compatibility" rumors.

If Nintendo wants to start charging like the big boys, they need to fix their account system and stop tying purchases down to hardware.

Regardless of how you feel about 70 dollars, one of the few devs out there that could charge 70 dollars and get away with it is Nintendo, given the pedigree and quality of their games.

 

[Banjo64]

You can literally see the flat textures in your uncompressed PNG shots. There is absolutely nothing here that should be compared with other modern $70 last gen games like GOW, Hogwarts and Horizon.

All im saying is that the $70 cost is not because of the graphics or level of detail. It's for some other equally bs reason.

What like gameplay and fun?

You’ve got companies like SE charging £69.99 for flaming hot garbage like Forspoken, EA charging the same for FIFA and Madden.

The absolute last thing I will do is complain if companies like Nintendo want to charge the same for some of the best games in the industry.