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
Show Posts
.jpg){kind=tracking}
.jpg){kind=tracking}
.jpg){kind=tracking}
.jpg){kind=tracking}