Submitted 1 year ago by parmesan@lemmy.world to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
Not defending Dementia Donny and either way I’m not shelling out $80 for a game ever, just wondering if this is really a result of the tariffs. I understand the console price being high due to them but I don’t see how it would affect the price of games that are essentially going to be 100% digital
Games have been around the $50-$70 mark my entire life.
It’s a sad reality, but I expect prices of major mainstream games to go up, regardless of tariffs.
Frankly, I don’t even really mind if they’re not riddled with micro transactions, and there’s a solid selection of indie and older games that cost less to choose from.
Distribution cost of games has gone down to almost zero since then.
The price was announced first… So it’s not related.
Adjusted for inflation though, and $80 is the normal price it’s been for 40 years.
I just don’t know why people are shocked Nintendo is doing this, they’ve always been one of the first companies to increase prices.
40 years ago they didn’t sell them by millions with each copy cost being a few cents. It’s price gouging simple as.
I mean, this just isn’t true, though. You’re not wrong in pointing out that the scope of sales has changed, but so has the scope of development, as well as consumer expectation. I suspect if you compare the number of man hours spent on a title today vs an NES game, it’s not even a comparable discussion. And then there’s the matter of post-release support.
To be clear, I don’t think a $30 price hike for physical copies is at all sensible, but the arguments being presented both for and against it are incredibly poorly thought out. Everyone presents a single facet of videogame development today compared to years ago and then acts like it’s a “gotcha” that proves their point. The entire ecosystem of game development and consumption has changed so drastically, that any discussion comparing the adjusted for inflation price of games then vs now is just pointless. Art and entertainment are art and entertainment, and it’s impossible to create a de-facto value statement for them, because consumer subjectivity, bias, and valuation is too wide to make objective statements about.
Imo, the real criticism of the matter is that +50% cost during a time of economic upheaval, when the buying power of the middle class is approaching the weakest it’s been in a long time, is going to be received poorly, and probably result in a loss of Western sales. It’s a massive leap, in a single generation, at the worst possible time, regardless of what inflation adjustments tell us.
Nothing to do with tariffs, just a reflection of higher development cost and, and that’s perfectly fine to an extent, the very core principle of capitalism.
Let’s please not discuss if capitalism is good.
Brings up the “merits” of capitalism, but refuses to discuss the “merits” of capitalism.
It’s just the way it is.
Yeah, it’s because have this mentality that it’s this way.
Btw: capitalism is a plague on society and has done nothing but ruin the things we (consumers) hold dear, because capitalism stifles innovation and wrings whatever blood from a turnip it can.
We are here to discuss Nintendo’s prices, not the economical system itself. This would derail the conversation too much.
If you want to go down the rabbit hole, I suggest you open a new thread. However, keep in mind that the majority of Lemmy users will likely agree, given that this is a bit of a leftist echo chamber. And to make sure we’re on the same page: we ARE on the same page. Capitalism isn’t what we want, yet, it is what we currently have (and will have when Mario Cart will release for Switch 2).
That would only be true if you ignore every other part of the price calculation. For example because the numbers of sold consoles are much higher than in the past, more people are buying the games, leading to more income for the game development cost, leading to the same prize.
See? By ignoring every other influencing factor I can also argue the complete opposite of you.
Yeah, that’s a basic supply and demand curve… Guess what happens when demand is high? There’s no reason to lower prices if you have high enough supply(digital copies are infinite). Your argument is completely invalid. If anything, it’s proof to them that they CAN charge more and SHOULD.
We all know that defining a price for a product across markets, regions, continents is more complex than “development cost”, “inflation”, “greed”, or “NiNtEnDo”.
Factually, it has nothing to do with tariffs, and definitely has to do with cost and capitalism. Feel free to add what’s missing, but please be complete, as someone will likely argue differently because of something you forgot.
MacAttak8@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Considering they are delaying pre orders due to the tariffs I do not think tariffs are the reason the price is so high. I think Nintendo is trying to set a new standard for game prices. If these games still sell at $80 then I wouldn’t be surprised to see GTA 6 release for $100. The whole gaming market will likely follow.
umbrella@lemmy.ml 11 months ago
amorpheus@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Or be a patient gamer and get it on a sale.
Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
The whole AAAAAAAA gaming market… I still see the Indy devs not caving to this bullshit. I only support indy devs now. The AAAAAAAAA pricks are useless, overpriced failures imo