So what are our thoughts on Pokemon FireRed and LeafGreen coming bacc?

[sworddude]

The mostly positive reaction to Winds and Waves make no sense to me. It still looks like garbage despite being a Switch 2 exclusive. The waves in the trailer look fine but the ground textures still look like garbage. Those starters though.. wow. They are really out of ideas. I'd say starters started falling off around gen 5 with gen 9 being particularly bad but now they aren't even trying.

Weird choice to show very little gameplay of Pokémon Champions which is finally releasing for free on the original Switch in April.

I personally love the Pomeranian starter, so long as it doesn't evolve into Macho Man Randy Savage like Litten in Pokémon moon.   They keep making cute animals evovle into humanoid wierdos that walk like humans.

[bikingjahuty]

but unless they're over $100 loose, I'd say you might as well just get the physical cart and skip the digital copy.

so unironicly they are over a 100$ each for loose carts and not even from retro stores that put a markup on em, actual market value

Well id that's the case than I really don't have a problem with this. Unfortunately, accessibility becomes an issue over time as games age. This includes price, and despite Fire Red/Leaf Green being good games, they're nowhere near good enough to justify that sort of money. I feel like the entire Pokemon brand has become a bit of a Ponzi scheme in the last year or so and I'm not surprised the games have become part of that. If I didn't already own both games and I wasn't comfortable with emulating, then yeah, I'd fork over $20, or even $40 for both games just so I could avoid paying $100+ for a single loose cart + a GBA system assuming I didn't own one.

[bikingjahuty]

The mostly positive reaction to Winds and Waves make no sense to me. It still looks like garbage despite being a Switch 2 exclusive. The waves in the trailer look fine but the ground textures still look like garbage. Those starters though.. wow. They are really out of ideas. I'd say starters started falling off around gen 5 with gen 9 being particularly bad but now they aren't even trying.

Weird choice to show very little gameplay of Pokémon Champions which is finally releasing for free on the original Switch in April.

I've come to terms with that fact that Pokemon isn't a franchise for me anymore. It's sad when the last few generations make Sun and Moon look like a masterpiece despite Sun and Moon being the first Pokemon generation I just couldn't get into. I tried getting into Sword and Shield, and couldn't be bothered anymore just a few hours in. I still enjoy 6th gen and prior, but the new Pokemon games are just bland, soulless, and seemingly cater to toddlers and adult fanboys who've made their childhood nostalgia for Pokemon their personality. New Pokemon design has been crap for over a decade, and going down hill well before that. The formulaic gameplay has overstayed its welcome and somehow become even more watered down. I could go on and on, but new Pokemon does not appeal to me whatsoever. I'm at least happy I can still enjoy Red Version or Ruby, but it's undeniable that seeing Pokemon where it is now has made me a fraction of the Pokemon fan I used to be.

[ssj4yamgeta]

The mostly positive reaction to Winds and Waves make no sense to me. It still looks like garbage despite being a Switch 2 exclusive. The waves in the trailer look fine but the ground textures still look like garbage. Those starters though.. wow. They are really out of ideas. I'd say starters started falling off around gen 5 with gen 9 being particularly bad but now they aren't even trying.

To me, the water and human characters do look significantly better. Where it fails are the namesake pokemon, which Gamefreak insists on putting no effort into anymore. Would it have been too much to ask the AAA developer to put just a little bit of fuzz on Pikachu to make it look like a creature instead of a plastic blob? That's got to be my biggest problem with the 3D pokemon designs: They all look like injection-molded plastic toys instead of living creatures. They look like they're made out of the same material as rubber duckies and squeaky toys. And I agree about the starters. This is the third time there's been a gecko starter, and the second time it's been a water type. The grass-type bird (second one in the past 4 generations, by the way) looks like an Angry Birds reject. The most appealing one is the fire dog, but even that one is just Temu Growlithe.

[marvelvscapcom2]

but unless they're over $100 loose, I'd say you might as well just get the physical cart and skip the digital copy.

so unironicly they are over a 100$ each for loose carts and not even from retro stores that put a markup on em, actual market value

Well id that's the case than I really don't have a problem with this. Unfortunately, accessibility becomes an issue over time as games age. This includes price, and despite Fire Red/Leaf Green being good games, they're nowhere near good enough to justify that sort of money. I feel like the entire Pokemon brand has become a bit of a Ponzi scheme in the last year or so and I'm not surprised the games have become part of that. If I didn't already own both games and I wasn't comfortable with emulating, then yeah, I'd fork over $20, or even $40 for both games just so I could avoid paying $100+ for a single loose cart + a GBA system assuming I didn't own one.

Well with this logic, it's 300 dollars for earthbound. Another 100 for a super nintendo. Should they charge us 75 for the honor to play that port? It's about 20k dollar for stadium events. Nintendo and Bondai should rerelease that game and charge 1000 dollars on Eshop. It'd be a bargain because nintendo is running on the  "emulation is a sin and physical is expensive. So come to us and pay the piper" philosophy. Silent Hill 2 should have never been remastered. Just charge us 80 bucks to play the ps2 version again.  I can't accept that. I'm sorry.  It's extremely dangerous to gaming as a whole. That is giving them way too much upside at our expense. It's not the world we live in for any media. Digital versions of $20k comic books are like .99 cents. If that was the case the snes mini console should have been the price of a used car. All the expensive games it had on it. That's just marketing trickery and they've pidgeon holed gamers with this logic for too long.  They sold us a free item for 40 bucks.  They sold us a digital access key to 2 old GBA games that we dont even own forever for the same amount of money as a physical copy of Reanimal.  A 2026 new entry on home console. Let that sink in.  I am at a loss for words.


The cart being 150+ is because its a physical relic from 20 years ago that people grew up with. A item to curate that isnt printed anymore and has historical significance. I'd rather pay 150 for a bag of chips than 40 for a bag of air. 
The two items arent in the same world.  Nintendo themselves give us digital access to like 300+ games for 7 dollars a month plus other perks.  So the price doesnt make sense even off their own logic.  Why not add it to the gba part of nintendo online?    Which makes me think this is a gamefreak idea. Not a Nintendo one. Because Nintendo has actually been fair with their classics for a while now imo.   I give them that.  And it's one of my favorite things about them. If we dont draw the line here. I'll be paying 20 to play punchout on my switch. 

[2ko]

I'm confused about the outrage I've been seeing online. It's like people forgot game companies have been releasing old games on digital store front fro the past 20-years or something. I remember seeing games like Pokemon Snap and Ocarina of Time on the Virtual Console back in 2007 for like $12, which is practically $20 adjusted for inflation. I have no idea what Fire Red and Leaf Green go for these days physically, but unless they're over $100 loose, I'd say you might as well just get the physical cart and skip the digital copy. On top of that, I can't imagine it's very hard to find the roms for either of these, which seems to be a more and more common route people are taking with older games.

Me too. Maybe it's because I played a lot of Wii in my elementary/junior high days, but I remember paying 1000 Wii Points for Ocarina of Time lol I don't know why suddenly now people are super upset about it. Though tbf I feel $10 would have been way more reasonable. That's what Sony charges for PS classics I think.

As to why you would want these over emulating, its really for people who just don't know about emulating (such as 12 year old me who bought Ocarina of Time for like $10) or hardcore fans who want to use Pokemon home features (which are coming). It's kinda a waste of money for anyone else tbh. If you are a collector you probably have the game already, and if not just emulate it (or buy one of those retro handheds for like $50 that let you emulate like all the retro consoles. They are pretty sweet)

[dhaabi]

but unless they're over $100 loose, I'd say you might as well just get the physical cart and skip the digital copy.

so unironicly they are over a 100$ each for loose carts and not even from retro stores that put a markup on em, actual market value

Well id that's the case than I really don't have a problem with this. Unfortunately, accessibility becomes an issue over time as games age. This includes price, and despite Fire Red/Leaf Green being good games, they're nowhere near good enough to justify that sort of money. I feel like the entire Pokemon brand has become a bit of a Ponzi scheme in the last year or so and I'm not surprised the games have become part of that. If I didn't already own both games and I wasn't comfortable with emulating, then yeah, I'd fork over $20, or even $40 for both games just so I could avoid paying $100+ for a single loose cart + a GBA system assuming I didn't own one.

 If we dont draw the line here. I'll be paying 20 to play punchout on my switch.

Isn't that business model exactly what Nintendo adopted with the Wii Shop—giving consumer the option to "buy" the games being offered outright? Obviously there are people who are fine with spending money for digital access, however temporary or not that may be, to play games they don't otherwise have easy access to play. Are these old games actually worth the value they're being priced at? For some people, they very much are, and that's most evident with how both versions of these games have been the best-selling games on the eShop since their release.

While I don't personally prefer either this payment method or the subscription-based model when compared to buying tangible products with access that often can't be revoked, the former at least guarantees a (presumably) longer means of access instead of spending money on what's essentially an indefinite rental service.

[marvelvscapcom2]

but unless they're over $100 loose, I'd say you might as well just get the physical cart and skip the digital copy.

so unironicly they are over a 100$ each for loose carts and not even from retro stores that put a markup on em, actual market value

Well id that's the case than I really don't have a problem with this. Unfortunately, accessibility becomes an issue over time as games age. This includes price, and despite Fire Red/Leaf Green being good games, they're nowhere near good enough to justify that sort of money. I feel like the entire Pokemon brand has become a bit of a Ponzi scheme in the last year or so and I'm not surprised the games have become part of that. If I didn't already own both games and I wasn't comfortable with emulating, then yeah, I'd fork over $20, or even $40 for both games just so I could avoid paying $100+ for a single loose cart + a GBA system assuming I didn't own one.

 If we dont draw the line here. I'll be paying 20 to play punchout on my switch.

Isn't that business model exactly what Nintendo adopted with the Wii Shop—giving consumer the option to "buy" the games being offered outright? Obviously there are people who are fine with spending money for digital access, however temporary or not that may be, to play games they don't otherwise have easy access to play. Are these old games actually worth the value they're being priced at? For some people, they very much are, and that's most evident with how both versions of these games have been the best-selling games on the eShop since their release.

While I don't personally prefer either this payment method or the subscription-based model when compared to buying tangible products with access that often can't be revoked, the former at least guarantees a (presumably) longer means of access instead of spending money on what's essentially an indefinite rental service.

but unless they're over $100 loose, I'd say you might as well just get the physical cart and skip the digital copy.

so unironicly they are over a 100$ each for loose carts and not even from retro stores that put a markup on em, actual market value

Well id that's the case than I really don't have a problem with this. Unfortunately, accessibility becomes an issue over time as games age. This includes price, and despite Fire Red/Leaf Green being good games, they're nowhere near good enough to justify that sort of money. I feel like the entire Pokemon brand has become a bit of a Ponzi scheme in the last year or so and I'm not surprised the games have become part of that. If I didn't already own both games and I wasn't comfortable with emulating, then yeah, I'd fork over $20, or even $40 for both games just so I could avoid paying $100+ for a single loose cart + a GBA system assuming I didn't own one.

 If we dont draw the line here. I'll be paying 20 to play punchout on my switch.

Isn't that business model exactly what Nintendo adopted with the Wii Shop—giving consumer the option to "buy" the games being offered outright? Obviously there are people who are fine with spending money for digital access, however temporary or not that may be, to play games they don't otherwise have easy access to play. Are these old games actually worth the value they're being priced at? For some people, they very much are, and that's most evident with how both versions of these games have been the best-selling games on the eShop since their release.

While I don't personally prefer either this payment method or the subscription-based model when compared to buying tangible products with access that often can't be revoked, the former at least guarantees a (presumably) longer means of access instead of spending money on what's essentially an indefinite rental service.

Using sales as a justification to a companies morality never works. There is no limit to how much someone's nostalgia is worth to them. So why not charge 100? People will still buy it at that price. I guarantee it. You do make a major point and I dont disagree with you. Nintendo is not to blame. This is capitalism and green paper will always be the game. Of course.  Blind consumerism is the death of gaming as a whole. Gamers as a collective don't care about their hobby anymore.  Things that used to cause unrest and tank console launches like always online gaming, signed waivers that limit ownership of the hardware itself, forced updates, hardware issues, micro transactions and pay to play, bugs, and digital keys in physical cases are now just accepted as norm.  The ones who do complain are often drowned out by influencers with expendable income. Mario Kart World was the best seller priced at 80 dollars for a literal Kart Racer. Doesn't mean it was a fair price. Nintendo has now started selling digital access keys as physical format. Still not right. How about taking Tears of the kingdom. Repackaging it. And charging last gens price for it? Something that was never a thing until we allowed it to be a thing.  Weaponizing nostalgia, demonizing emulation and marketing fomo doesn't mean consumers didn't get duped.  Now 70 dollars is industry standard. Gee wonder who started that. It's a slippery slope when you give an inch and they take a yard.   So of course it is the best seller.  So was crack in the 90s.  Online gambling is also all the hype.  People buy dumb stuff at dumb prices all the time. Myself included.  But the issue with that is.  You dont get a Switch if you buy 200 million Wii Us.  Innovation comes when we rebel.


People will pay 20k dollars for a T shirt that a company paid 20 cents to stitch using borderline slave labor. Or buy a 6 dollar bottle of water that is filtered tap water because it says "smart" on the bottle. Business models being accepted do not mean they are right. The whole "clearly people are buying it" is not a justification that the company is operating akin to fair industry practices.

 But what is not acceptable is paying next to nothing to port 2 free roms and charging 40 dollars for it. Check costs versus cost basis versus Reanimal and see which had more overhead. You cant tell me you believe that the games are worth in 2026 what Reanimal is. It's offensive to indie devs slaving over projects with less backing charging less and selling less while giving more.  You can't tell me you think its the good price for a rom. Which is why you said "to some people" lol. Well them people are wrong. Unhealthy logic can be wrong. And it's why the hobby is dying.  Why switch 2 prices have stagnated, why Xbox is on the verge of becoming an AI slop steam box and why PS6 is postponed for 3 more years. Because those people arent the core consumer base for Nintendo. Lets not pretend what the consumers have supported with money has at all worked recently or that they are supporting it at all. With sales tanking left and right.  The consumers who will buy this are either so well off they dont care. So brand loyal they are conned into not knowing the other ways.  Or just fiscally irresponsible. Either way. It doesnt mean that its fairly priced. It's just not. But that wasnt even my argument anyway.  My main point is counter Nintendo rhetoric. 

  I'm just saying on the more important note.  We cant compare digital games to physical prices as a measuring stick. And comparing apples and oranges is not justifcation for Nintendo to just run the gauntlet. It's priced less than the physical cart because its not the physical cart and never will be. It's not an alternative to the physical cart. Its an alternative to emulation. And it's priced hienous at that rate.  That's why when people say it's priced 40 because its cheaper than 300 to buy the originals.  We have to pause really fast because thats a very dangerous game to play with the IPs.  We would have to hold the same energy and pay 75 for earthbound and 200 for Flintstone surprise at dinosaur peak ports. And pay 30 grand for a NES classic.  Fair is fair.  What about stadium events? That's gotta be $1,325 to play digitally. That's all I was saying.  People claim they buy this because they cant afford the carts which I understand. But that doesnt mean it should be an arm and a leg because the carts are. Comparative pricing is scary business.


If the customers said.  We arent paying 20.  It'd be 10 tomorrow.  And it'd set a bar and we'd all benefit from that.


I do notice how as a community we are the first to shit on big retro shops like dk oldies for upselling old games. Never do we say "hey people are buying it" there is a whole thread on this site shaming DK Oldies. Entire channels dedicated to it. But Nintendo can do the same thing. Nintendo will never put any effort into releasing older games as long as the fandom keeps thinking bread crumbs are a buffet. Can't mention it, though. Asking for more, like voice acting, stable framerates, and more content, new textures, counts as complaining too much.  Or better yet someone will claim you're "poor" if you dont want to pay 40 dollars for free roms.


Here are other companies doing it better.


Rare (microsoft) released a compilation that included Banjo Kazooie, Conkers bad fur day, viva piniata and all their other wonders for 40 USD. It had tons of previous gen games, fresh UI, new goals and awesome concept art. Similar story with Halo master chief collection.


All the playstation classics even off subscription platform such as a resident evil directors cut and dino crisis are sub $10 each.  Are far larger games. Some ported from PS3 even.


Rockstar themselves. The titan of industry gave consumers 3 full fledged remasters of 3 of the best selling sandbox games of all time for $40 and the community complained about the price.


Oh. Most of those were on physical disc for that price. What was I thinking?  I dont even know what to compare it to. I suppose it's like me paying you an access fee to this website when I can use it for free myself.  Nintendo is emulating the games for you and charging you as a middle man.  And they get away with it by telling you that emulation is the devil.  While emulating.....



Also being the top seller On the nintendo eshop, that has no competition. Is not really a flex.  Mind you the console is extremely dry on exclusives 1 year in.




But if sales are evidence of gamers speaking their wishes to fruition then I'd also keep in mind Switch 2 was a collossal flop last holiday season.  And on pace to be a big miss.

"Nintendo Switch 2 sales slowed in late 2025/early 2026, with US holiday sales (Nov-Dec 2025) dropping ~35% compared to the original Switch’s 2017 launch, despite a strong initial release. (Due to resellers) While still breaking records early on, demand weakened due to a tough economic climate, lack of major first-party holiday titles, and higher, less competitive pricing. Which drove consumers away"   


And that's leaving out the part that Nintendo started the 70 dollar industry standard with TOTK. Nobody thought it was possible before hand.  They told the consumer it was because of pandemic, tarriffs, inflation. Whatever they'll buy. Lets speak on percentages. Nintendo during pandemic damn near doubled software sales. Their ROI increased 27 percent. And that factors pandemic issues and economy. They rose market cap 77 percent.  And had higher net.  Not less net. Not worse quaterlys. There is no governmental force hurting nintendos ROI.  This is analytically proveable and not opinion. They are for more profitable than most companies and also in an inflation resistant industry. Which is why Vinyl records, blu rays and dvds aren't 100 dollars either. Nobody pretends that these things inflate the way property and groceries do. The consumer base increases as well. Sales inflate as well to offset production costs. The reality is.  A video game was 60 dollars in 1976. Which was the price of like 3 months rent. It was a major rip off and for well off families.  The games havent inflated with our economy. They've finally caught up.  They were never a reflection of the economy to begin with...   so i'm done with all the excuses as to the "why"  the justifications as to the "how"  it's just marketing trickery.  Nintendo is price gouging like DK oldies because like you said with your reply


It sells and people are buying it up

They can

They will


It's not the world I grew up in with games so maybe im jaded. It all feels so copy and paste today. I'm over it all. 



But on a side note do you dislike the revolving door aspect of the subscriptions? Maybe i'm misreading that but I feel you have denounced the business model before. I guess it's different strokes for different folks.  But i'd much rather pay 15 dollars per month for a revolving door of thousands of fun games. Then pay 40 for 2 digital keys to 2 games. Playstation extra gives people on fixed income such a great avenue to play titles who may not otherwise be able to afford 70 USD or more to play games on monthly pay.  It's a very consumer friendly system and not much different (and cheaper actually) than blockbuster but like 20x larger and no late return fees. I know its not for everyone but I love the catelog.  I'm not saying they are saints. I know I dont own those games. I'm sure the profits are glorious for them. But its neat to me.  I dont get why you feel the 2 pokemon games offer more value or is a better option. Sure it gives you more time. But it also offers you maybe 0.00002 percent of the total content to play. Assuming you include all games.


Edit: Gamepass and Nintendo online are cool to me too. And I know they do a similar job.  I just mentioned PS because I use it most

[dhaabi]

But what is not acceptable is paying next to nothing to port 2 free roms and charging 40 dollars for it. Check costs versus cost basis versus Reanimal and see which had more overhead. You cant tell me you believe that the games are worth in 2026 what Reanimal is. It's offensive to indie devs slaving over projects with less backing charging less and selling less while giving more.  You can't tell me you think its the good price for a rom. Which is why you said "to some people" lol. Well them people are wrong.

I'm just saying on the more important note.  We cant compare digital games to physical prices as a measuring stick. And comparing apples and oranges is not justifcation for Nintendo to just run the gauntlet. It's priced less than the physical cart because its not the physical cart and never will be. It's not an alternative to the physical cart. Its an alternative to emulation. And it's priced hienous at that rate.  That's why when people say it's priced 40 because its cheaper than 300 to buy the originals.  We have to pause really fast because thats a very dangerous game to play with the IPs.  We would have to hold the same energy and pay 75 for earthbound and 200 for Flintstone surprise at dinosaur peak ports. And pay 30 grand for a NES classic.  Fair is fair.  What about stadium events? That's gotta be $1,325 to play digitally. That's all I was saying.  People claim they buy this because they cant afford the carts which I understand. But that doesnt mean it should be an arm and a leg because the carts are. Comparative pricing is scary business.

If the customers said.  We arent paying 20.  It'd be 10 tomorrow.  And it'd set a bar and we'd all benefit from that.

First, you're comparing the price of one game to the price of two games which weakens your argument. Second, you mention how "[w]e can't compare digital games to physical prices," but you yourself are doing exactly that throughout your post. Regardless, it does not matter what you or I think Pokémon FireRed and Pokémon LeafGreen are worth, whether that be less or more. So yes, I said "some people" because by that same metric, "some people" also do not consider the asking price of the game you're contrasting Reanimal to be fair. The opposite can be said too—some people may find its retail price lower than they'd be willing to pay. If an item still has market demand, does it really matter when that product originally released? Nothing is stopping THQ from marketing Reanimal for whatever asking price they deem however many years later from now. If people choose to buy it at that price, THQ's expectations are met, and, presumably, paying consumers are content too. And if people don't, then THQ just won't gain the profits they're hoping to achieve. That's how the free market operates, and the exact same can be said of Nintendo with these Pokémon re-releases. As you said just now and how I've mentioned recently elsewhere already, consumers have collective power with the freedom to choose whether or not to engage in the market. And collectively in this instance, the majority have decided that yes, the games in question are worth the asking price.

Also, the scenarios you're presenting aren't real. Nobody is spending $75 for a digital port of Earthbound, much less $1,325 for Stadium Events. To the extent you're suggesting, neither Nintendo nor any other major publisher is pricing their legacy content that's being released for modern platforms in relation to whatever the secondary market currently values the physical product sold however many years ago. While what you're saying that these digital offerings are alternatives to emulation and piracy isn't untrue, that's oppositely the core reason why Nintendo chooses to conduct business practices like this—because they believe that those activities are infringing upon their licenses and are illegal. They're a large corporation hoping to make a profit, and they set out to achieve that goal in ways like offering an official and legal means to play their legacy content.

[marvelvscapcom2]

But what is not acceptable is paying next to nothing to port 2 free roms and charging 40 dollars for it. Check costs versus cost basis versus Reanimal and see which had more overhead. You cant tell me you believe that the games are worth in 2026 what Reanimal is. It's offensive to indie devs slaving over projects with less backing charging less and selling less while giving more.  You can't tell me you think its the good price for a rom. Which is why you said "to some people" lol. Well them people are wrong.

I'm just saying on the more important note.  We cant compare digital games to physical prices as a measuring stick. And comparing apples and oranges is not justifcation for Nintendo to just run the gauntlet. It's priced less than the physical cart because its not the physical cart and never will be. It's not an alternative to the physical cart. Its an alternative to emulation. And it's priced hienous at that rate.  That's why when people say it's priced 40 because its cheaper than 300 to buy the originals.  We have to pause really fast because thats a very dangerous game to play with the IPs.  We would have to hold the same energy and pay 75 for earthbound and 200 for Flintstone surprise at dinosaur peak ports. And pay 30 grand for a NES classic.  Fair is fair.  What about stadium events? That's gotta be $1,325 to play digitally. That's all I was saying.  People claim they buy this because they cant afford the carts which I understand. But that doesnt mean it should be an arm and a leg because the carts are. Comparative pricing is scary business.

If the customers said.  We arent paying 20.  It'd be 10 tomorrow.  And it'd set a bar and we'd all benefit from that.

First, you're comparing the price of one game to the price of two games which weakens your argument. Second, you mention how "[w]e can't compare digital games to physical prices," but you yourself are doing exactly that throughout your post. Regardless, it does not matter what you or I think Pokémon FireRed and Pokémon LeafGreen are worth, whether that be less or more. So yes, I said "some people" because by that same metric, "some people" also do not consider the asking price of the game you're contrasting Reanimal to be fair. The opposite can be said too—some people may find its retail price lower than they'd be willing to pay. If an item still has market demand, does it really matter when that product originally released? Nothing is stopping THQ from marketing Reanimal for whatever asking price they deem however many years later from now. If people choose to buy it at that price, THQ's expectations are met, and, presumably, paying consumers are content too. And if people don't, then THQ just won't gain the profits they're hoping to achieve. That's how the free market operates, and the exact same can be said of Nintendo with these Pokémon re-releases. As you said just now and how I've mentioned recently elsewhere already, consumers have collective power with the freedom to choose whether or not to engage in the market. And collectively in this instance, the majority have decided that yes, the games in question are worth the asking price.

Also, the scenarios you're presenting aren't real. Nobody is spending $75 for a digital port of Earthbound, much less $1,325 for Stadium Events. To the extent you're suggesting, neither Nintendo nor any other major publisher is pricing their legacy content that's being released for modern platforms in relation to whatever the secondary market currently values the physical product sold however many years ago. While what you're saying that these digital offerings are alternatives to emulation and piracy isn't untrue, that's oppositely the core reason why Nintendo chooses to conduct business practices like this—because they believe that those activities are infringing upon their licenses and are illegal. They're a large corporation hoping to make a profit, and they set out to achieve that goal in ways like offering an official and legal means to play their legacy content.

I think there is some disconnect happening in what i'm saying versus what you think i'm insinuating. Because I agree with everything you're saying for the most part. I am not saying anyone is paying $1,325 for any game. It is a hyperbolic response to the notion that because the physical carts of Fire Red and Lead Green are about 300 combined for both. Then 40 is beyond fair for the digital versions ported to switch.  So by that logic. And comparative pricing, a game that costs 15k dollars should be around $1,000 dollars to play via rom on switch.  That's what that equates to.  It's not a way media is measured and that is not the metric roms should be priced by.  So you actually just stated what I am saying word for word.The primary market isnt priced according to the secondary market so gamers shouldnt say that's what makes the price fair.   You agree so I don't really understand what the disagreement is about on that paragraph.  I didn't make the claim.  I'm just giving silly examples of how that would work. I dont assume Nintendo is actually doing that.

I'm also not comparing the price of a game at all. I'm comparing the price of a digital rom file, a digital access key of a 30 year old game in emulated state to an actual game released this year on physical format. It doesn't hurt my argument at all because in no world are they equal value on an intrinsic front. Its not even opinion at that point.  Digital games arent worth the same as physical because they aren't a owned product with resell value. Someone is entitled to their opinion that a bag of imagination is worth more than a bag of gold bricks. It's not though.   But lets be fair. Were talking pokemon gameboy games from the 2000s that can be played on a old Nokia phone. I assume under 100mb of file size. Even if it was 10 games versus 1. My argument doesnt weaken at all.  10 fleas don't equal 1 frog. Reanimal is a much larger and costly game in 2026 on a glorious disc for the consumer to own.  It's beautiful.


Someone can say they believe Reanimal is worth less than 40. That's fine. But reanimal does have present day costs to account for whatever they ask. It probably costs 2000 times more to create than it did to port over Pokemon leaf green on a fundamental level those things are not opinionated. Nintendos ROI is way higher because they mark up less for more.  Weather we are willing to pay it or not is a mute point. It is far more bullish in the market than anything Reanimals dev team is doing if we just compare Xs and Os.  Price to cost.  It's heavily overpriced based on market norm. Which is why the community lost its mind when it was announced.  They arent imagining it.



But like you said. It's a free market. Nintendo is behaving the way any business would. Sure it lacks charity but there is no kindness in green paper. It's a dog eat dog world and I understand the profit margins are glorious. I'd run their cimpany the same exact way. People eat off them profits.  We starve off them. It is up to us to sway the market in our favor as gamers or balance the scales.  But nobody is in agreement so the conformists end up winning. This is going on in a lot of markets and governments. The voice of the majority is divided and thus has no power.  I hope the gaming market in general heals because it all feels volatile right now.