(rant) How Much Is The Highest You Would Pay For A Digital Or Modern Game.

[hoshichiri]

It varies, depending on the game- but I don't usually buy collector's edition & would be loathe to spend over the standard $60 without a good reason. As for digital, right now my max seems to be around $20 if I really want the game- considering I can get physical copies of many games I want for that price, it seems silly to spend that amount on a digital copy.

My big 'overspending' moment, is if a game i bought digitally gets a physical release. despite already owning it, I almost always get the hard copy too- the only exception I can think of is Donut County. I enjoyed the game, but thought it was way too short & not worth the $13 I did pay for it- so spending another $30 seems like a bad idea. I'm still tempted, though.

[gameover]

The most I ever spent was $40 CAD on a digital copy of wolfenstein 2 for switch -- I felt like such a sucker at the time although I got a lot of hours out of it in the end so I don't regret it.

I think the most I've ever spent on a digital title for PC was ~$30, but I only purchase DRM-free titles. Last physical PC title I bought was Skyrim (~$60-70) only to discover the install CD was basically just an installer for Steam. I was extremely annoyed and never bought another.

To answer your question, I think $40 CAD is my celiing for digital titles, but I usually refuse to spend more than about $20. That said, I could see myself dropping $50 on doom eternal when it sales if I can't get a physical around the same $

[Warmsignal]

Games have actually gotten cheaper over the years

money is worth way less than it was back than not to mention that there where games especially rpg's with save memory wich costed close or over 100$. wich is even more $ by today standard inflation. money had more value back than.

The only exceptions to modern games being more expensive than back in the day are expensive dlc or lootboxes wich would increase the price well over 100 sometimes over 200$. but most games for 60 retail occasionally with the small 25$ or less dlc are cheaper than back in the day no questions asked.

Money may be worth less, but production costs have also decreased while prices have not fluctuated much at all. Everyone said that discs would make games cheaper, it didn't. Solid state memory is becoming cheaper by the year, yet Switch games are typically more than their PS4 counterparts. Nintendo goes from charging $20 for a Selects copy of Tropical Freeze, back to a $50 price grab when porting it to Switch. Bandwidth is not all that expensive either in terms of one time downloads, yet they still charge the classic MSPR rate of $60 per download. Steam runs some really fantastic deals sometimes, but it seems like the console marketplaces don't.

Game publishers have always been afraid of selling their software too cheaply, for fears of not making back and profiting from sales. IMO, $60 is and has always been, a prohibitive price target. Not many people are willing to just throw down $60 for something that might amuse them or a few days to a week. Games being $60 is the primary reason I only ever got about 4 or 5 games per year as a kid. It's a lot money, dacades ago and today. I think they scare off many would-be buyers by not pricing them lower and producing a higher amount of copies like most other media.

[sworddude]

Games have actually gotten cheaper over the years

money is worth way less than it was back than not to mention that there where games especially rpg's with save memory wich costed close or over 100$. wich is even more $ by today standard inflation. money had more value back than.

The only exceptions to modern games being more expensive than back in the day are expensive dlc or lootboxes wich would increase the price well over 100 sometimes over 200$. but most games for 60 retail occasionally with the small 25$ or less dlc are cheaper than back in the day no questions asked.

Money may be worth less, but production costs have also decreased while prices have not fluctuated much at all. Everyone said that discs would make games cheaper, it didn't. Solid state memory is becoming cheaper by the year, yet Switch games are typically more than their PS4 counterparts. Nintendo goes from charging $20 for a Selects copy of Tropical Freeze, back to a $50 price grab when porting it to Switch. Bandwidth is not all that expensive either in terms of one time downloads, yet they still charge the classic MSPR rate of $60 per download. Steam runs some really fantastic deals sometimes, but it seems like the console marketplaces don't.

Game publishers have always been afraid of selling their software too cheaply, for fears of not making back and profiting from sales. IMO, $60 is and has always been, a prohibitive price target. Not many people are willing to just throw down $60 for something that might amuse them or a few days to a week. Games being $60 is the primary reason I only ever got about 4 or 5 games per year as a kid. It's a lot money, dacades ago and today. I think they scare off many would-be buyers by not pricing them lower and producing a higher amount of copies like most other media.

tropical freeze was released on wii u. it's only understandable that they wanted a 2nd chance for their hard work and charge near 60$ on switch. the wii u failed badly I can see why they wanted to see them sales on switch. also considering that it has 2 million sales compared to the wii u 2 million plenty of new people bought it. double the amount after all not that many people bought a wii u that game could have easily come out on switch only.

it seemss to me that many wii u owners are complaining about ports and having almost no exclusives left from a business perspective this was the correct thing to do.

The wii u was lackluster console aside from smash bros and mario kart 8. there where some other good titles as chronicles x and them zelda 3d hd's where nice but it had the most lacluster mario 3d game in the entire series even if it was better advertised it would not have done well also not even a unique zelda game. botw does not count imo not to mention that the wii u version lacks stuff.

how do discs not decrease prices of games? looking at xbox one and ps4.

Titles like dragon quest XI and many other ps4 games drop in price kinda fast. few of the non indi games stay above 30$ usually in the 20's or lower.

They say that switch carts are a bit more expensive to make than ps4 discs as nintendo's counter point. besides people still buy it since the switch is the best handheld console out there atm. and ps4 games cannot be played in handheld mode. so for some people switch games count for both tv and handheld games so quite some people who prefer a switch release for this reason alone.

besides why complain about the 60$ price tag while for pretty much all new released games it is a bit or allot more. 20+ or way more $ in dlc or worse micro trans actions wich even some nintendo games have atm. few games have no dlc anymore. the best case is like 20ish $ for them bigger titles. your going to be lucky if a triple aaa game is complete for just 60$. dlc and sometimes even micro transactions increase the price. let's be honest the dlc of botw should have been in the base game but even with nintendo dlc is like almost 100% a thing. many things that came out in dlc where canceled from the base game. i get it is great value compared to other games even with extra dlc costs but still that would not have happened in the past.

dlc and micro transactions make games way more pricy than 60$ I wish new games where just 60$ in wich you can unlock all the stuff by gameplay. where going to be lucky if we get a mario or zelda game on release with a 60$ price tag withouth any dlc it's not happening anymore.

in terms of download only even if switch carts are more pricy to make than discs the production value of even switch games is less than 10$ if not just a couple of $. also people who buy a digital copy are lazy and pay for the comfort. they know their audience to well they will not get more profits by lowering the price for downloads only since not that much more people would buy them. it would not compensate for the losses.

Download always seems to be 5 to 10$ more than a physical copy when a game is brand new in the case of nintendo but i can;t blame them since the audience  for digital only is either lazy or pay for comfort and want to play the game as early as possible. i don't get why people complain while digital only on consoles is for the lazy audience. This isn't steam on pc it's a totally different market in wich for example nintendo has exclusives wich are not sold on any platform aside from their own. Also on consoles the companies decide what the market is while on pc you have many competitors as the reason for the many sales. not to mention that indi games on switch are also in the low price range al be it not with crazy sales sometimes just a couple $ or 1$ like steam isn't it normal that their big titles are 60$

also speaking of digital of the switch games sales almost 40% was digital in 2018. so their doing just fine. why lower the prices it will probably hurt the profits allot more even if slightly more people would go digital.

People speak with their wallet. the increase of pretty much everything being a collectors edition having dlc and the rise of micro transactions in console games speak volumes about how much the majority of people are willing to spend on games. 60$ is nothing if where looking at it that way considering it is usually more pricy than that.

[tripredacus]

Typically, my number was $5 unless it is something I really want and then maybe $10. However, I had come to the realisation about this time last year, that I can't be buying all these cheap digital games. I even stopped doing the humblebundle. I just don't have the time to play all of them. Unlike physical games, where I can eventually play them, digital games still have a limited shelf life.

How long will it take for me to play even half of the purchased but unplayed digital games? How long before the platform I had purchased them on decides to sunset my OS? Don't think it would ever happen, well Steam is actively blocking users on Windows XP systems. People bought games to play through that platform, and one day there was an update and they couldn't even log in or launch some games. That made people develop hacked clients and crack their installs. Where does that time come from?

I have only paid full price on two digital games so far.
1. The first was the Necromancer add-on for Diablo III. I already had the base game and expansion in physical.
2. The first base game was Black Ops 4, only the cheapest option. It was $60. Ended up being a good decision to not get the DLC.
3. Then I buy the Borderlands 3 with the season pass, because I know that I will use it. It was $100.

And even since my decision to stop buying all the cheap digital games, I haven't made any inroads to my digital library. It doesn't help that I am playing games that have no real end. Games that I can't just beat and be done with.

[Cartagia]

I’ve repurchased several games I have on Steam on my Switch for this exact reason (Bastion, Crypt of the Necrodancer).  I’m never going to find enough time sitting at my computer to play these games, but for another $3-4 I may find the time on my Switch.

[seether]

Regular full price ($60/£50) if I am dying to play it, which only happens for one or two releases a year.

Probably will pay full price for Pokemon Sword this fall.

[sworddude]

If nintendo ever does decide to lower digital prices by a sizable chunk. It could have a bad impact on their profits since a ton of the causal crowd their biggest market just needs to play the game wether it;s digital or physical it does not make a difference. your just giving free money away.

Way less physical copies would be sold since pretty much all go for digital making the physical copies either expensive or closer to limited run. doesn't sound like a good thing to me. or maybe because it is a triple A title with tons of sales there won't even be a physical copy since majority goes digital anyway. and no way that nintendo would allow a small company like limited run games to produce physical copies of a mario or zelda game wich would be horrible since spending 100+$ on a physical copy doesnt seem like a fun time when it is in their hands and miss out.

I've read that Nintendo keep the download prices high because otherwise vendors might have trouble moving their physical copies since again casual crows just needs to play the game cheapest options win or comfort wich the download only gives. If download only prices are lowered you get comfort and the best price. physical copies need to be shipped out or you need to go to a store it's quite a hassle for most.

[Warmsignal]

tropical freeze was released on wii u. it's only understandable that they wanted a 2nd chance for their hard work and charge near 60$ on switch. the wii u failed badly I can see why they wanted to see them sales on switch. also considering that it has 2 million sales compared to the wii u 2 million plenty of new people bought it. double the amount after all not that many people bought a wii u that game could have easily come out on switch only.

it seemss to me that many wii u owners are complaining about ports and having almost no exclusives left from a business perspective this was the correct thing to do.

I don't know, I've heard so much from former Wii U owners who bought a Switch talking about re-buying all of the Wii U re-releases, and clammoring on about wanting the remaining exclusives ported over just so they can buy it again and get rid of their Wii U. Probably the majority of these sales come from second time buyers. They're double dipping in typical Nintendo fashion as they know their fan base will keep buying repackaged products. To be fair, everyone is doing that nowadays as everyone is out of ideas, out of recourses, and afraid to take risks.

The wii u was lackluster console aside from smash bros and mario kart 8. there where some other good titles as chronicles x and them zelda 3d hd's where nice but it had the most lacluster mario 3d game in the entire series even if it was better advertised it would not have done well also not even a unique zelda game. botw does not count imo not to mention that the wii u version lacks stuff.

Lackluster? I think not. Forget third party riffraff, Nintendo's own publishing put out a very strong line-up of games for that console, even if there were a few repackaged titles. Wii U doesn't have quantity, but it has quality. Proving once again, you don't need horsepower to make great games. I would never in a million years, consider re-buying the same content on Switch as what I already have on a perfectly fine console.

how do discs not decrease prices of games? looking at xbox one and ps4.

Titles like dragon quest XI and many other ps4 games drop in price kinda fast. few of the non indi games stay above 30$ usually in the 20's or lower.

That's at a retail level. The publisher has already been paid. The MSRP is $60 because the store pays like $50 - $55 per unit, leaving room for a tiny retail profit margin. If the game doesn't sell or has little potential to sell at that price, the store marks it down and takes a loss, or tries to break even on the product. It's a problem, and wonder any store wants to invest in these games at all.

besides why complain about the 60$ price tag while for pretty much all new released games it is a bit or allot more. 20+ or way more $ in dlc or worse micro trans actions wich even some nintendo games have atm. few games have no dlc anymore. the best case is like 20ish $ for them bigger titles. your going to be lucky if a triple aaa game is complete for just 60$

That's why I just accept the launch edition of a game for what it is. I'd never pay for the additional content, unless it's already included with complete package release in a physical form.

[sworddude]

Quote by sword dude
The wii u was lackluster console aside from smash bros and mario kart 8. there where some other good titles as chronicles x and them zelda 3d hd's where nice but it had the most lacluster mario 3d game in the entire series even if it was better advertised it would not have done well also not even a unique zelda game. botw does not count imo not to mention that the wii u version lacks stuff.

Lackluster? I think not. Forget third party riffraff, Nintendo's own publishing put out a very strong line-up of games for that console, even if there were a few repackaged titles. Wii U doesn't have quantity, but it has quality. Proving once again, you don't need horsepower to make great games. I would never in a million years, consider re-buying the same content on Switch as what I already have on a perfectly fine console.

let me explain myself with the wii u being a lackluster console

Wii U

- Nintendo land was by far not as iconic as wii sports

- does not have a a single unique main zelda game. BOTW is in my opinion the unique zelda for the switch not the wii u wich was inferior ofcourse since it has less specs  not to mention the wii u was dead when the switch came out since botw was the release game for that console.
instead we got 2 remakes of windwaker and twilight princess in wich you cannot even use a gamecube controller  the map on the wii u pad for windwaker was nice but otherwise kinda horrible that we could not even use a gamecube controller.

- Xenoblade chronicles X was good but the music was horrible the story was meh and the characters where forgettable. xenoblade chronicles was way better with memorable characters great music and a good story wich xenoblade X did not have.

- Wii u had the most lackluster 3d mario in mario 3d world. That was quite the quality loss. any mario 3d game is supposed to be excellent but i disagree mario 3d world was just good it was more of a 2d mario. mario 3d world does not deserve to be in the main 3d mario game series. Also what where they thinking with them cat suits it doesnt't look cool did they really think that kids would love them cat suits .  the multiplayers is the only good thing but the sacrifice was to much.

- ruined the fire emblem franchise with the abomination of fire emblem tokyo mirage being a persona esk game. and let's be honest new fire emblem games have that persona school vibe on the switch now aswell 
- kirby rainbow curse as the only kirby game being very mediocre

- mario bros U was lackluster. the wii had the excuse with increased grapics from the ds release and actually bringing quite some new stuff to the table but in the wii u version there was almost nothing new and just more of the same.

- starfox zero was mediocre

- very small library mostly filled with trash. there are only a handfull of hidden 3rd party good games such as fast racing neo wich isnt that good.

- Series such as mario tennis ultra and mario party 10 wich followed in mario party 9 shoes being quite bad games.

The positives

yoshi wooly world
mario kart 8 having better grapics but the gameplay is less fun than mario kart wii thanks to making the game more family friendly. most lackluster rainbow road in the series aside from the 2d mario karts.
smash 4 being a different entry a different game experience than smash ultimate in terms of game mechanics.
mario maker
pokken tournament
splatoon not my stuff but it was for many a reason to buy a wii u
pikmin 3

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Wii

- has a unique zelda game zelda skyward sword wich imo had the best characters in the zelda series. It's not the best zelda game but it's a unique one.

- Not 1 but 2 main mario 3d games in galaxy 1 and 2. considered by many to be the best mario 3d games both being quite different and each having stuff wich the other games did not have. not one being inferior that's quite an accomplishment imo.

- Xenoblade chronicles wich was the rpg to play at the time not to mention 2 other excellent rpg's pandora's tower and the last story

- the final good classic fire emblem game in the series  radiant dawn

- 2 excellent main kirby games in kirby's adventure and kirby epic yarn

- mario kart wii the most competitive skillbased mario kart. so many advanced movement options offroad etc that have been removed in mario kart 8 (deluxe).

- wii sports was a revolution for many bringing in even casual people to consoles

- big library with quite some hidden gems

- smash bros brawl is the most realistic looking smash game and it had the best music out of the whole series. also the only smash game with decent single player content subspace and boss rush. no other smash game came close in these regards.

The WIIU was super lackluster compared to wii and obviously since almost everything is ported to switch wich aside from ports has actually many good games also way less impressive than the switch.

there are very few games even when you ignore ports wich made the wii u a very good console. the switch fixed the probems that the wii u has aside from gettin the ports. having atm 2 but getting 3 unique zelda games having an excellent 3d mario game once again, a good mario party a good mario tennis. a main kirby game tons of hidden gems of 3rd parties etc etc. there is a reason why the wii u was a failed console the library was small and the quality for a ton of games was lacking.


There are imo four things every good nintendo console should have if were looking at the bare bones big titles wich hold the system together.

a good mario kart wich the wii u has
a good smash game wich the wii u has
however not a single new zelda game
and a very subpar mario 3d game

The wii u fails in 2 departments wich is pretty bad but than again it was a failed console with a bit less time.

[Warmsignal]

- does not have a a single unique main zelda game. BOTW is in my opinion the unique zelda for the switch not the wii u wich was inferior ofcourse since it has less specs  not to mention the wii u was dead when the switch came out since botw was the release game for that console.
instead we got 2 remakes of windwaker and twilight princess in wich you cannot even use a gamecube controller  the map on the wii u pad for windwaker was nice but otherwise kinda horrible that we could not even use a gamecube controller.

I strongly disagree with this logic. Especially since "Zelda Wii U" was in development for the Wii U before Nintendo even realized they would retire Wii U and launch a successor console. The game was in development for several years and originally had Wii U game pad features planned that were removed from the game. It so happened that development didn't finish up until around the same time they would launch the Switch.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2014/06/10/e3-2014-the-legend-of-zelda-for-wii-u-first-details

To reach the conclusion that there was no proper Zelda entry on the Wii U, that's just incorrect. BoTW was a Wii U title, the Switch version came to fruition because of it. Not unlike the way Twilight Princess came to fruition on the Wii because the game was already in development for GameCube. The existence of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe doesn't mean there was no unique Mario Kart title on Wii U. What it means, is that Nintendo has been too comfy with that cash flow, resting on their laurels to actually develop a new Mario Kart entry for the Switch 3 years in. Also, Nintendo "enhancing" any of the games they later ported over to Switch, doesn't make the Wii U lackluster as a console. At least not any more than any remastered edition game, makes the original game lackluster.

- Wii u had the most lackluster 3d mario in mario 3d world. That was quite the quality loss. any mario 3d game is supposed to be excellent but i disagree mario 3d world was just good it was more of a 2d mario. mario 3d world does not deserve to be in the main 3d mario game series. Also what where they thinking with them cat suits it doesnt't look cool did they really think that kids would love them cat suits .  the multiplayers is the only good thing but the sacrifice was to much.

I think there is validity in saying it's a weak game, but many people actually raved over it. Opinion is divided on the game. I personally don't think it was so hot, but my opinion on Odyssey is not much better. I wasn't too thrilled with that one, either. Again, opinion is kinda divided on whether the entire series is basically reached a new low standard in quality compared to the classic titles. That doesn't really surprise me, Miyamoto doesn't produce them anymore.

- kirby rainbow curse as the only kirby game being very mediocre

I won't concede this point, but just wanted to point out that Canvas Curse for DS is basically the same idea. Despite some of the mixed opinion on the game, critically it averaged pretty high according to Metacritic.

- mario bros U was lackluster. the wii had the excuse with increased grapics from the ds release and actually bringing quite some new stuff to the table but in the wii u version there was almost nothing new and just more of the same.

So more of a good thing, but this time actually in HD equals a bad thing? I'm not with you on that one. From a technical standpoint, if you want to talk graphics NSMBU is the best one in the series.

- very small library mostly filled with trash. there are only a handfull of hidden 3rd party good games such as fast racing neo wich isnt that good.

Mostly filled with trash? Strongly disagree. The Wii U library is small, only 150+ games. It has some of the smallest ratio of quality to shovelware of any console. Compare it to the Wii with literally hundreds of shovelware titles and low quality made games, and Switch now slowly but surely accumulating more of them as the system becomes more profitable and therefor appealing in the eyes of shovelware peddlers. You can dislike the games it has to offer, but to dispute the amount of quality to cash-grab junk offered on the platform, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

- Series such as mario tennis ultra and mario party 10 wich followed in mario party 9 shoes being quite bad games.

Mario Party? Again, another series that reached a new low quite a long time ago and continues to flounder with Super Mario Party from much of what I've heard on the game.


It's not my argument that Wii U is Nintendo's best console ever, it's just that Wii U was not lackluster on Nintendo's part - they put plenty of effort behind it. But it's definitely my contention that Wii U cannot be made lackluster simply because Nintendo chooses to repackage all of the games onto Switch. That's some wonky logic. I already have all of those games, I will not be re-buying those same games again just because they added some features or levels. There's plenty of unique titles on Switch after all.

[sworddude]

I'm not convincing anyone to rebuy titles on the switch since they are basicly the same but slightly touched up and some extra features. Nintendo put these ports out for people who never played the game. If older collectors who owned them wii u titles decide to double dip that's their choice. Many people that I know did not double dip It's kinda hard to estimate how many people who bought the switch ports actually owned the wii u copies.

Besides my arguments where based on the wii u if we would ignore the switch ports and even than it is lackluster. some games in my arguments have switch ports after all but but they are created on wii u first.

In comparison to the other Nintendo consoles, wii u is at the very bottom. unless we ofcourse want to count virtual boy aswell than sure I agree wii u not at the bottom.

also to name on example of a switch port having value for both parties mario kart 8 deluxe at 60$. in the wii u era you had to buy all the dlc wich includes 16 tracks and some characters in the switch port everything is included. there where 2 dlc packs for mario kart 8

a normal mario kart games has 32 tracks. mario kart 8 if you bought all dlc had 48.

That alone does not make it to bad of a port for 60$ considering the amount of content you get extra since otherwise you had to buy 2 dlc packs in the wii u version. not to mention A decent entire battle mode added. dlc almost added 50% game in mario kart 8 kinda crazy.

Kinda good value for a port in the case of mario kart 8 deluxe. for most ports this is obviously not the case but mario kart they where kinda generous considering the total price of the older game including dlc and no less other features.

most people would have rather had a new mario kart but that's one of the lesser ports for double dipping. otherwise most ports are meant for people who never played them and are perfectly acceptable than.

- kirby rainbow curse as the only kirby game being very mediocre

I won't concede this point, but just wanted to point out that Canvas Curse for DS is basically the same idea. Despite some of the mixed opinion on the game, critically it averaged pretty high according to Metacritic.

- very small library mostly filled with trash. there are only a handfull of hidden 3rd party good games such as fast racing neo wich isnt that good.

Mostly filled with trash? Strongly disagree. The Wii U library is small, only 150+ games. It has some of the smallest ratio of quality to shovelware of any console. Compare it to the Wii with literally hundreds of shovelware titles and low quality made games, and Switch now slowly but surely accumulating more of them as the system becomes more profitable and therefor appealing in the eyes of shovelware peddlers. You can dislike the games it has to offer, but to dispute the amount of quality to cash-grab junk offered on the platform, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

kirby canvas curse is more of a side game while most consoles have a full on kirby game. kirby's epic yarn and kriby's adventure where two main games in different styles on the wii. that's quite a downgrade for this series on the wii u. also on the ds that title was more of a side mini game compared to kirby squeek attack and kirby super star wich where the main meat and potatoes. Kirby canvas curse on ds was more of a tech demo to show of what the ds can do in terms of touch screen

it might have the better ratio than wii and like pretty much every other nintendo console but if the good hidden gems of 3rd parties are more or less than a dozen let alone having very excellent hidden gems in term of titles it's kinda hard to defend it. wii had quite the amount. that's my only point obviously it is easy to get a good ratio with such a small library but imo trash titles can be ignored and where looking at good stuff there is not much on wii u quite a small list.

what's an excellent 3rd party hidden gem on wii u name me one

devils third, fast racing neo  wonderfull 101. those are not excellent hidden gems they are good but nothing like some of the games released on other nintendo consoles not to mention so much less good 3rd party titles.

[Warmsignal]

I'm not convincing anyone to rebuy titles on the switch since they are basicly the same but slightly touched up and some extra features. Nintendo put these ports out for people who never played the game. If older collectors who owned them wii u titles decide to double dip that's their choice. Many people that I know did not double dip It's kinda hard to estimate how many people who bought the switch ports actually owned the wii u copies.

If Reddit's Wii U sub is any indication of what the GP thinks, tons of people are selling off their Wii U systems and games in favor of re-buying them on Switch. I'm not convinced that all that many Nintendo die hards actually skipped out on the Wii U. I think that largely everybody else did - including the GP, casuals, and many non-Nintendo hardcores.

In comparison to the other Nintendo consoles, wii u is at the very bottom. unless we ofcourse want to count virtual boy aswell than sure I agree wii u not at the bottom.

Surely the Wii U is better than Virtual Boy, and the entire line of Game Boy systems. I think there's a case to be made that it's better than GameCube as well, as I'm a Nintendo fan but not a much of a GameCube fan. Many people you could ask would place it above the divisive N64, although I personally wouldn't. Still, ranking lower on the scale of Nintendo consoles is not necessarily a bad thing as the majority of them have been innovative, unique, and well supported.

also to name on example of a switch port having value for both parties mario kart 8 deluxe at 60$. in the wii u era you had to buy all the dlc wich includes 16 tracks and some characters in the switch port everything is included. there where 2 dlc packs for mario kart 8

I'm simply not of the mindset that I need additional content added to a game. That's all fluff and fan service to me.

it might have the better ratio than wii and like pretty much every other nintendo console but if the good hidden gems of 3rd parties are more or less than a dozen let alone having very excellent hidden gems in term of titles it's kinda hard to defend it. wii had quite the amount. that's my only point obviously it is easy to get a good ratio with such a small library but imo trash titles can be ignored and where looking at good stuff there is not much on wii u quite a small list.

what's an excellent 3rd party hidden gem on wii u name me one

devils third, fast racing neo  wonderfull 101. those are not excellent hidden gems they are good but nothing like some of the games released on other nintendo consoles not to mention so much less good 3rd party titles.

I've never really heard of a console being knocked for the lack of under the radar titles present. Of course there will not be a high quantity being only 150+ in total. How hidden could they be?

If you consider those to be hidden, then there is also Tank Tank Tank, Shantea 1/2 Genie Hero, Giana Sisters Twisted Dreams, Legend of Kay Anniversary and the recently de-platformed online DuckTales Remastered.

[sworddude]

In comparison to the other Nintendo consoles, wii u is at the very bottom. unless we ofcourse want to count virtual boy aswell than sure I agree wii u not at the bottom.

Surely the Wii U is better than Virtual Boy, and the entire line of Game Boy systems. I think there's a case to be made that it's better than GameCube as well, as I'm a Nintendo fan but not a much of a GameCube fan. Many people you could ask would place it above the divisive N64, although I personally wouldn't. Still, ranking lower on the scale of Nintendo consoles is not necessarily a bad thing as the majority of them have been innovative, unique, and well supported.

Gameplay wise sure gameboy(color) aint that great. sure as hell doesn't beat the gba though

But better than the N64 or gamecube line now that's a bit far fetched in my opinion

N64 had revolutionary titles for it's time mario 64 ocarina of time starfox 64 I'm not going to explain those. sure new people will put wii u above n64 because they dont like the grapics but such people usually don;t care that much about older games so kinda an unfair comparison.

Gamecube has some of the more memorable titles it wasn't lacking in any of it's first party games unlike wii u wich even struggles at that department.

Windwaker and especially twilight princess are some of the best 3d zelda games arguably better than botw if you like more story and especially epic boss battles wich really where a dissapointment in breath of the wild. also mario sunshine was excellent 3d mario title unlike a certain wii u 3d mario

Gamecube is the era with the best mario sports games in especially mario smash football and power tennis one wich sadly never returned even on switch

also with titles such as smash bros melee and mario kart double dash and tons of excellent hidden gems. saying that the wii u is better than the cube that's ridiculous there is not a single thing that is better on the wii u aside from the grapics and online play .

Gamecube has excellent first and 3rd party titles arguably some of the best in nintendo's history in certain departments. everyone has their opinion but boy your sure love that wii u damm. I don;t see it as far as wii u titles go it doesn't come close let alone being actually better than the cube's library.

Quote sword dude
- Wii u had the most lackluster 3d mario in mario 3d world. That was quite the quality loss. any mario 3d game is supposed to be excellent but i disagree mario 3d world was just good it was more of a 2d mario. mario 3d world does not deserve to be in the main 3d mario game series. Also what where they thinking with them cat suits it doesnt't look cool did they really think that kids would love them cat suits .  the multiplayers is the only good thing but the sacrifice was to much.

I think there is validity in saying it's a weak game, but many people actually raved over it. Opinion is divided on the game. I personally don't think it was so hot, but my opinion on Odyssey is not much better. I wasn't too thrilled with that one, either. Again, opinion is kinda divided on whether the entire series is basically reached a new low standard in quality compared to the classic titles. That doesn't really surprise me, Miyamoto doesn't produce them anymore.

Miyamoto  actually had a ton of influence in mario odyssey so that ain't true he also worked on that title. I am however suprised that he also worked on mario 3d world on wii u I guess some years are better than others.

Not to mention good games will always have haters especially very well sold games. I'm not saying it's the best 3d mario game it's a few spots below that but it's kinda harsh to say that this isn't at least an excellent game.

One of the best selling 3d mario games ever and it brought a ton of people to proffesional speedrunning thanks to the suddle hints in game if i had to guess i can't say the same for mario 3d world. sure there are people that find it fun but mario 3d world did not give epic moments wich mario 3d games usually give when you play them.

[98dgreen]

What are you smoking, the gameboy line is far better than the Wii U.