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.

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).

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.

No, not all. It’s a an option. Basically yubikey DRM

Like even the game carts have a few choices for storage. For example, Pokemon pearl and diamond remake were notorious to go with the smaller storage carts where half the game is only downloadable

Lmao that’s a completely seperate issue between you and your employer. Has nothing to do with the value of the dollar.

Has inflation kept up with wages? No. Have prices gone up anyways? Hell yes. Only thing you can find under $1 anymore is Arizona Tea, and even that isn’t a guarantee.

But yes, complain that a luxury item has gone up in cost. You know, something not necessary. So no one needs to make sure “people can afford it”. The ones who can buy, will buy, and the numbers show overwhelmingly that they do.

Ummm Nintendo has a digital platform, so not sure what you’re on about that one.

And in regards to indie studios: then buy their games and stop complaining, duh. Like, if you know there’s all these amazing and cheap alternatives, why are you bitching about what Nintendo charges? No one’s forcing you. Go play something else. It’s really that easy.

Nintendo, love em or hate them, is like Disney. They want to curate a very specific image. Look up the invention of the Nintendo Seal of Approval and why that was such a big thing. Nintendo wants to be very specific thing and frankly doesn’t give a shit if you like it. If you dont, then you’re not their target audience. It’s really that simple. Their not catering to everyone, they’re catering to a specific group. If they want to charge a certain amount but you know it’ll be quality cus it’s Nintendo, then what’s the harm?