I don't agree because not many people buying it doesn't change that it's still an old game and the reason people didn't buy it was because Nintendo's mess up in marketing. If they want to repurpose the old game they should for the people who missed out but why should the people who miss out pay Red Dead Redemption 2 prices (even more) for something that came out years ago that had minimal dev costs on the switch because it was a premade game already. Not like Nintendo games are typically as large in scope as red dead anyway aside from Zelda. They aren't even graphical remasters. The DLCs cost nothing to make and are a scam on their own. It sounds like they are punishing you for them messing up. Like "We'll let you try the games you missed, but you're still paying 60 so we don't take a loss from Wii U". No other company does that. When other companies ask 60 it's for a remaster and even most remeasters are 40 now. But sorry if i'm misinterpreting what you mean 
I just think it should be 40 for all these Wii U ports, some don't even include DLC and some are even older. The Smash is a whole different game so it warrants 60 but DK Tropical Freeze for example is the same exact game. Even if someone didn't buy it, that doesn't mean he should have to pay current gen price for a previous gen game imo. It's more so the price and the way of doing it that i'm upset about, not so much the idea.
I agree that a price break would be nice on Nintendo's part and $40 is a reasonable sum to ask for the ports. Nintendo
did make their money on those games during the Wii U's lifespan. Most of those games sold millions of copies each, recouping the costs of development. That being said, Nintendo knows that they are tapping into a huge new audience on Switch who never played these games.
My own take is that a game thats lasts only 6 hours is worth $60. Where else can you get that kind of entertainment value? Going to the theater costs $20 a ticket or so now, unless you go to a matinee or an older theater. But to get the good, IMAX HD picture and sound (kinda like Switch games with HD graphics & sound), you are going to pay that $20. That's for a 2-hour movie. So a game with a relatively short play-time of 6 hours is pretty much on-par with the cost of seeing a movie in the theater. The difference is you get to keep the game and you will probably not be as swollen staying home playing it as you would be eating that salty-ass popcorn and a jumbo drink...
that cost enough that you could have bought a Switch game! LOL.
A similar comparison relating to paying $60 for a Switch port would be going to the theater to see a movie that is re-released. Such as Star Wars or any Disney film like Lion King. You are going to watch an old movie for the same ticket price as a brand-new release. Sometimes you pay extra if it's a big film because hey, they know they can nail you for those extra bucks! Most of the time, these films aren't even touched up (resolution bump on Switch), have remixed sound (HD sound on Switch) or have any extra features (new characters, previous DLC now included, etc. on Switch).
And I also look at the cost of a game versus the cost of doing other things. To me, I would rather spend that $60 on a game and buy a McDouble than go out and spend $30 or more on a meal that I'm just going to crap out the next morning. But that's just my personal "value proposition."
Show Posts
