Support NeoGAF

[linkboy]

vote with the wallet and don't buy.

if they don't release sequels because their game bombed, it's their fault for doing this price BS.

All they'll say is that we aren't able to sell our games on the Switch and drop support.

 

[nelchaar]

Portable tax.

Vita games cost the same as their PS4 counterparts (and sometimes even cheaper), and a lot of times you get cross-buy even.

So no, it's not a "portable tax". It's a bullshit "Nintendo" tax.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

Portable tax.

The exact opposite of the mobile discount.

 

[TheSpoiler]

I was joking.

 

[Dark Cloud]

This is hardly a solution
What if every developer out there starts charging more for the Switch version of their games compared to other platforms? Will you "wait" for price drops on every single one of them? Good luck.

That's my solution. Thanks for worrying about me though. 😂

 

[Ibuki]

All I can say is I would have bought Isaac, but I'm not paying 40 for a flash game.

Good thing the only Flash game by that name costs $5.

 

[HotHamBoy]

Portable tax.

Portable versions tend to be cheaper.

Look at PS4 and Vita multiplats like Digimon, Dariusbust, Musous, Senran Kagura and Odin Sphere, etc.

 

[AgeEighty]

Nintendo really, really needs to change their policy on this, and enact pricing regulations. They might take a hit on cartridge costs, but this is the kind of problem that can hamstring a console's success, which would be a far, far worse problem for them.

 

[frankie_baby]

Cartridge costs for switch and disc costs for 4/bone are presumably included in the "licence fee" and in a world where has been heroes can be sold for 20 bucks i just cant imagine the switch fee being much higher at all than 4/bone, its just companies trying to cash in switch's newness

 

[NeonBlack]

This is hardly a solution
What if every developer out there starts charging more for the Switch version of their games compared to other platforms? Will you "wait" for price drops on every single one of them? Good luck.

Or just buy it on other platforms

 

[rekameohs]

All I can say is I would have bought Isaac, but I'm not paying 40 for a flash game.

Rebirth is a huge update to the flash game, Afterbirth is a huge update to Rebirth, and Afterbirth+ is a sizable update to Afterbirth, but whatever.

 

[mothball]

Random thought bought I wonder if the "Atlus tax" will increase on Switch games because of this.

No chance Atlus' big games will be less than $60. Seems to be the standard price point given the current and upcoming big games.

 

[leburn98]

What does this "portable tax" thing mean? 3DS/Vita games use carts and they never cost more than the home consoles counterpart.

They are capitalizing on the poor lineup of the Switch. This "tax" is hopefully going to disappear by the end of the year, when more games come out.

I think when people mention portable tax they are referring to the fact that the Switch is both a home console and a handheld and are therefore getting two versions of a game for a fee.

I don't necessarily buy the portable tax just yet, we've seen publishers like Square Enix in the past try to sell a year old RotTR to PS4 gamers for $50-60 when the XB1 edition could be had for under $30.

We need to see games that are day and date, like-for-like before we can pass judgment.

 

[Jaded Alyx]

Monster Boy devs are looking to have a physical version of their game released for Switch, and said the price will be the same as the digital version. Not $10 extra or anything like that.

 

[HotHamBoy]

vote with the wallet and don't buy.

if they don't release sequels because their game bombed, it's their fault for doing this price BS.

It's lose-lose.

Not buying Switch games just ensures no third party support.

 

[CaviarMeths]

Vita games cost the same as their PS4 counterparts (and sometimes even cheaper), and a lot of times you get cross-buy even.

So no, it's not a "portable tax". It's a bullshit "Nintendo" tax.

3DS games cost the same as their Wii U counterparts (and sometimes even cheaper). Games that were multiplat on 3DS and Vita were priced the same too.

So no, it's not a "Nintendo tax". It's a bullshit "taking advantage of early adopters thirsty for games to play" tax.

 

[The1Ski]

What he said. I sort of see it as a premium to be able to play literally anywhere, or for some people, who only have time away from home.

This is insane to me. With this logic, e-books should be more expensive since you DON'T have a physical book to carry around.

 

[rekameohs]

I wonder if something like Ace Attorney will stay $30 on Switch or if it will see a raise due to the competing games. Something like Pokémon / Monster Hunter will totally bump up to $60, but I'm curious about the smaller titles.

 

[EDarkness]

All they'll say is that we aren't able to sell our games on the Switch and drop support.

Maybe so, but letting them know WHY it happened helps, too. Still, vote with your wallet.

 

[TheSpoiler]

This is insane to me. With this logic, e-books should be more expensive since you DON'T have a physical book to carry around.

They should charge more per device that I'm able to read my eBook on.

 

[fernoca]

More like "continues"...

What sucks are the excuses. A console and a handheld game in one...that in the other platforms is an old game, but is new on Switch...pfft...

 

[joshcam19]

Vita comes included with a PS4?

Luckily I had one before PS4 even came out.

 

[Zeeman]

Wait, this isn't actually more expensive, is it? The game plus adventure pass is $40 on Steam, the same price as this complete edition, unless I'm missing something

 

[protonium]

.

 

[unrealist]

I am sure Nintendo can do something about this..

On the other hand, this seems to be turning into a Nintendo bashing thread again.. Binding of Issac a flash game? Sure its roots definitely originated from one.. but it just ridiculous to call it a flash game now.. and I am sure you can remote play in the plane or wherever u wanted to.

 

[fernoca]

Wait, this isn't actually more expensive, is it? The game plus adventure pass is $40 on Steam, the same price as this complete edition, unless I'm missing something

Will retail for $29.99 on all platforms, but $39.99 on Switch.

 

[frankie_baby]

Well one other thing to take away from this is that story mode is releasing end of june, could we see regular minecraft before then then?

 

[LewieP]

Well, Dark Souls II right off the top of my head. The base game was easily obtainable for around $20 when the XB1 / PS4 version with all DLC launched at $50.

Dark Souls 2 did not launch at $20.

 

[Jack The Nipper]

Maybe they consider lower sales plus the cart. I don't think they are doing it just to do it

 

[joshcam19]

Not to defend the portable tax argument cause it's dumb, but stop pretending that remote play does what the Switch does. You know it's not even close.

It was really meant to be a joke. But it is funny that people continue to make excuses for the premiums that they have to pay for Switch games and accessories.

 

[MattKeil]

Portable tax.

In the sense that this is what using cartridges results in, sure.

 

[The Dear Leader]

I'm having a hard time imagining what a TellTale game will perform like on the Switch.

 

[ultrazilla]

But is *it* really Nintendo deciding to do it or are the publishers passing it on?

FDG has said on Twitter that if they do a physical release of Monster Boy on Switch it will be the same price across all platforms.

Vote for a physical Switch release for Monster Boy here:

https://twitter.com/FDG_Games

Reply from FDG when a fan says it won't be worth it if the Switch is $10 more.....

FDG Entertainment‏ @FDG_Games

@2_Old_4_Gaming @GameAtelier Identical prices across all consoles

 

[OrbitalBeard]

Dark Souls 2 did not launch at $20.

You are really reaching with this argument. Complete Editions of older titles launching with no "vanilla" version on a new platform is a completely standard practice. There's a reason no one but you is talking about this.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

When they showed the reveal video I thought to myself how the market they're going for is used to very cheap mobile games and how game pricing would be a challenge. I didn't expect console games to be even more expensive on the Switch.

 

[MaverickHunterX]

really long, but awesome posts

I getcha boss. Your first point kinda reminds me of the N64 days, where you'd get sub-par ports that were more expensive and worse in quality in comparison (the Tony Hawk trilogy comes to mind), but with that said, in those days, such titles still sold reasonably and even remained high in the rental charts. I think during the GameCube years, with the advent of online gaming (and Ninty fighting tooth and nail against it, save for PSO), more consumers refrained for purchasing "Nintendo versions" of third party games, rather choosing to do so on other consoles.

For the second - I really hope that my post didn't come off as "entitled gamer," rather than trying to figure out why Nintendo wouldn't set out to stop one of the reasons Wii U lost their third party support- because people didn't want to pay for shoddy ports with missing features. And this was someone whose guilty pleasure was playing COD on Wii U with split screen support.

The sad thing is that you are right about the Minecraft at $60 point - heck, we're seeing the $20 versions slowly being replaced by $30 "favorites" packs. And at this rate, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Switch version at $40. But it still seems like a lose-lose. If such a thing succeeds, it only means that more companies are going to jump on the "switch tax" bandwagon, and hopefully don't go into the GC/Wii/Wii U trend of bad ports.

If it fails, then, it'll be like last-gen, where these companies point at the terrible sales and say, "See, this is why we don't wanna make Switch games..." and a total repeat of the Wii U generation.

I don't see how this is outrageous. Plenty of games release on new platforms in "Definitive Edition" or "Game of the Year Edition" or "Complete Edition" forms. I can rattle off a bunch of examples, like The Last of Us Remastered, Dishonored: Definitive Edition, Dark Souls II: Scholar of the First Sin, Skyrim: Special Edition, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, etc. This isn't anything new.

As for the topic of this thread, the "Switch tax" exists because it's a new platform with a hungry install base and limited options. That's it. If the install base continues to grow and more software options become available, this issue will go away.

True. But almost all of the above had SOME improvement over its previous edition, making it worthwhile to fans and newcomers. It's not the exact thing with a tiny difference (like Arkham City)

 

[jroc74]

Portable tax.

Its a BS tax.

What he said. I sort of see it as a premium to be able to play literally anywhere, or for some people, who only have time away from home.

No. Its this:

It's only happening because Nintendo allows it.

Sony and Microsoft have policies in place to prevent developers and publishers from charging more for identical games on similar platforms, in order to prevent their customers from getting screwed over.

It appears that preventing their customers from getting screwed over is not a priority for Nintendo.

I still think it's outrageous that Nintendo are letting Binding of Isaac force you to buy all the DLC, whereas it's $15 standalone on all other platforms it's released for.

There is your justification OP.

Yup, this is gonna to into an excuse, justification. And its BS.

I can play remote play on Vita for free...

Exactly.

I hope to god MS and Sony dont start charging extra for remote play and Play Anywhere,
or Sony charging even extra for PS Now especially since its getting PS4 games added to it. I mean doesnt MS offer PC versions of some games free as like a bundle? I might have that backwards but still the point stands...

At the same time.....yall that want the Switch to be a success might have to support this. I mean ppl did support paying for online last gen and this gen....

Me? It was gonna be an exclusive machine anyway. Pretty much like the XBO is. (except for 360 B/C. Such a good feature they added after the fact)

And like stated earlier...the Switch tax started with Rime...

 

[OrbitalBeard]

True. But almost all of the above had SOME improvement over its previous edition, making it worthwhile to fans and newcomers. It's not the exact thing with a tiny difference (like Arkham City)

Some of them do, some of them don't. But regardless, that's not really the point.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Hm.

Not that I was going to get this, anyway, but I'm not going to get any games that cost more on the Switch for no reason.

 

[leng jai]

The two versions of one game reasoning doesn't even make sense anyway. We already paid a premium for underpowered hardware mainly for the benefit of being able to play the games portably.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

The two versions of one game reasoning doesn't even make sense anyway. We already paid a premium for underpowered hardware mainly for the benefit of being able to play the games portably.

Yeah, I agree. It's a horrible argument.

 

[LewieP]

You are really reaching with this argument. Complete Editions of older titles launching with no "vanilla" version on a new platform is a completely standard practice. There's a reason no one but you is talking about this.

If it is a standard practice then I'm sure you'll be able to cite some examples of the launch price more than doubling across different platforms.

 

[ArchedThunder]

Wait, what content are Street Fighter and Lego City missing?

 

[OrbitalBeard]

If it is a standard practice then I'm sure you'll be able to cite some examples of the launch price more than doubling across different platforms.

Oh my god. If you were talking about VANILLA Isaac doubling in price, you'd have a point. I'm talking to a brick wall.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

Why would there be a "portable" tax when the system is hybrid and the game is just ported to the system. It's not like devs are creating too versions or different control schemes. It's a completely bullshit argument

 

[Stumpokapow]

For the second - I really hope that my post didn't come off as "entitled gamer,"

Just to clarify -- I wasn't responding directly to your post, more the general concept of people being charged extra for the same game. I'm not judging anyone for being upset, and I don't think there's anything wrong with being upset

 

[The_Endgamer]

Super Bomberman went up this week by over 38% to $89AUD so this is small by that measure.

Realistically, this is probably one of the ways Nintendo is aiming to get 3rd parties on board. Total autonomy for the publisher to price their goods.

 

[jroc74]

The two versions of one game reasoning doesn't even make sense anyway. We already paid a premium for underpowered hardware mainly for the benefit of being able to play the games portably.

Yeah, I agree. It's a horrible argument.

Especially when Sony has cross buy and didnt Nintendo start doing that recently too?

Now the excuse is the portability tax? Cmon ppl....this is BS.

Especially if these games arent cross buy.

I think MS started something like cross buy with PC/XBO games. I'm too lazy to search for the exact way MS is doing it, lol.

Why would there be a "portable" tax when the system is hybrid and the game is just ported to the system. It's not like devs are creating too versions or different control schemes. It's a completely bullshit argument

Thank you....

 

[eighty(one)]

The pricing increase is ridiculous, we never saw it on Vita or DS3DS. They remained $3040 (except for that Atlus tax). Carts have always cost more than discs, but previously we didn't see an increase for retail pricing. If publishers can't justify the price on physical releases, then just do digital. By doing physical and jacking up the price with the price parity they screw everyone over.

... I have a feeling publishers intentionally want to do physical releases to use cart prices as an excuse to jack up prices for both physical and digital versions. Pretty fucked up.

Then again, Switch is a home console, that is also portable.

I don't expect Vita/3DS pricing. I wouldn't balk at $40...

...However, in the case of 3DS (removing Nintendo IP) other than MH...some Square RPGs and Atlus games - 3DS didn't have strong support or prolonged western support. Part of that attributes to devs don't put high effort/profit return on $40.00.

Why bother when devs could make PS4/XB1 games and charge $60? What incentive is there to put effort and development for the same game at $40? Especially, if release date parity eventually comes along.

I want Switch to succeed and if the games come, for the standard $60 pricing, I'll bite.

Why?

I'm paying $60 for a console game, I can play anywhere.

Or could think of it like a $40 console game and getting the vita/3DS version for $10-$20 more included.

 

[jroc74]

Then again, Switch is a home console, that is also portable.

I don't expect Vita/3DS pricing. I wouldn't balk at $40...

...However, in the case of 3DS (removing Nintendo IP) other than MH...some Square RPGs and Atlus games - 3DS didn't have strong support or prolonged western support. Part of that attributes to devs don't put high effort/profit return on $40.00.

Why bother when devs could make PS4/XB1 games and charge $60? What incentive is there to put effort and development for the same game at $40? Especially, if release date parity eventually comes along.

I want Switch to succeed and if the games come, for the standard $60 pricing, I'll bite.

Why?

I'm paying $60 for a console game, I can play anywhere.

Or could think of it like a $40 console game and getting the vita/3DS version for $10-$20 more included.

This, this thread and the Rime thread is another thing some of us talked about before the Switch launched as a possible hurdle. Pricing.