Nintendo Switch Catch-All 2.0

Speaking of game pricing, retail outlets already have pre-orders up for the Link's Awakening remake pricing it at $60. Naturally, there's been some backlash.

As someone who wants to see people who work in the game industry thrive and be able to reliably survive with a stable job, income, retirements and benefits, I will pay the $60 price for the games I really want, without balking.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Nintendo to revive Scalebound?

Based on the Nintendo-Platinum love affair I sure hope the answer is yes!

That's not a 2013 Wii U game.

If someone asked me which thread Garion was gonna get sh*t-talked the most in, the Switch thread would not have been my guess.

Nintendo thread is srs business.

Zoso1701 wrote:

As someone who wants to see people who work in the game industry thrive and be able to reliably survive with a stable job, income, retirements and benefits, I will pay the $60 price for the games I really want, without balking.

You mean the 2 people who worked on it? God bless 'em.

Huh?

DSGamer wrote:

Huh?

I know, right? It only takes 1 person to make a platformer.

mrtomaytohead wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Huh?

I know, right? It only takes 1 person to make a platformer.

Technically, two people duct-taped together.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
mrtomaytohead wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Huh?

I know, right? It only takes 1 person to make a platformer.

Technically, two people duct-taped together.

One to do the coding, the other one to post negative reviews after playing it for all of 5 minutes.

Zoso1701 wrote:

As someone who wants to see people who work in the game industry thrive and be able to reliably survive with a stable job, income, retirements and benefits, I will pay the $60 price for the games I really want, without balking.

My comment belongs more in the game dev business thread, but sadly your voting dollars do nothing for the hard working game dev when you're buying a game from a big company. Activision/Blizzard proved that recently, though they're hardly unique.

If you're talking a small game from a team under 50 though you're doing much more for an individual.

Despite the news of recent layoffs by executive jerks so they can justify their next Ferrari, the talented folks they shed will land on their feet. Basically no one works for the same place more than a few years in the game industry (with a few exceptions)

Mario Maker 2 new elements from trailer and promo art: https://www.reddit.com/r/MarioMaker/...

There's...a lot of new stuff. It's funny too because I saw people saying "what could they possi my add?" before the announcement. Uh, sure.

Blind_Evil wrote:

Which is funny because kids are the polar opposite of cheap!

Yup

ccesarano wrote:

Speaking of game pricing, retail outlets already have pre-orders up for the Link's Awakening remake pricing it at $60. Naturally, there's been some backlash.

Huh? Brad Shoemaker of Giant Bomb.com

I bet that is a place marker pricing. I love the game to death so I would buy it in a heartbeat though.

I can't really think of a good reason for it to not be $60.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I can't really think of a good reason for it to not be $60.

I'm sure the rationale is that $60 is too much for a GBA game, which is silly when you look at how drastic the changes are.

RE2 is a remake of a PS2 game, and I have seen very few complaints about price since it launched.

You're a generation later on both counts. Link's Awakening was GameBoy and GameBoy Color, and RE2 was PlayStation 1. However, the point still stands, though I've seen people complaining that the lack of the "zapping" system in the RE2 remake "feels lesser". I disagree, naturally, but you're also correct in that people's perceptions are still skewed. RE2 has motion-capture, fancier graphics, and full voice-acting, but Link's Awakening has simple character models with text dialogue.

Honestly, when you consider the tech inside of the games and the clear gap of budget, it does become a bit more difficult to argue in favor of the higher price tag. In truth when I saw it, my expectation was for it to be priced like a 3DS game. If I wanted to I could make a comparison to Hollywood, and how a smaller-budget romantic comedy still sells tickets and Blu-Rays for the same price as a special effects extravaganza like a Marvel movie. No one complains about spending as much on a film that clearly had a smaller budget. But films also release at half the cost of video games. When you're talking as much as $60, people start getting a bit more picky about that sort of thing.

As has been mentioned, that you can get a lot of indie games that are in the style of Nintendo's classic titles for a fraction of the price muddies the waters as well. Yes, Link's Awakening and Yoshi's Crafted World clearly have more expertise and care put into their aesthetic and play style. But does that put them at the same level of "premium" as Resident Evil 2, or even Breath of the Wild?

Nintendo's philosophy is that games don't lose their value over time, and that it is harmful to the medium to suggest that just because a game is old means it is worth less. In a lot of ways I agree. At the same time, part of what determines market prices is what consumers perceive in terms of value, and even if those perceptions are often ignorant of the actual process – especially in terms of video games – it's stubborn and foolish of a company to say "This is a premium experience and that's that".

Meanwhile, my two favorite games last year were an indie and a AA game, the former priced around $15 new and the latter a full $60. That Iconoclasts was a better game that I played through three times (and bought twice so technically cost me, personally, $30) starts bringing in questions of whether value is based on the resources that went into the game or the enjoyment you get out of it.

Personally, I'd say $40 is probably the best price point Nintendo could apply to Link's Awakening with the least amount of grumbling from the market. At $60, I see far more people waiting for a sale, but considering it's Zelda and it is a remake of one of the more favored games of the franchise (one might say "secret best", second only to Majora's Mask?), it's going to sell regardless.

I think, with Yoshi's Crafted World, it's far more about people's perception of it being a side-scroller. Even then, anyone that likes platformers – especially ones made by Nintendo – $60 isn't going to be much trouble. The people most likely to complain are the people least likely to bother with a platformer anyway.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I can't really think of a good reason for it to not be $60.

It's a really old portable game and the remake seems to only add cutscenes and a new graphical overhaul. Maybe there was a trove of new playable content announced and I missed it? Very possible.

They can price it however they want, but I think it's also very reasonable that people are confused (I don't think "upset" applies here). $40 just seems more "right".

Link's Awakening was my very first RPG and I still think it's one of the best Zelda games ever. I've played through it dozens of times. And even I will probably wait for a sale.

Dyni wrote:

RE2 is a remake of a PS2 game, and I have seen very few complaints about price since it launched.

However good it is (and it looks awesome), I still think $60 is asking too much. Count me among the few.

I'm just a consumer who feels these two games are priced too highly for what they are. I'll just not buy them at full price and continue living my life. I think it's kinda weird for people to act like small complaints about a game's price are invalid/unreasonable.

Free wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

I can't really think of a good reason for it to not be $60.

It's a really old portable game and the remake seems to only add cutscenes and a new graphical overhaul. Maybe there was a trove of new playable content announced and I missed it? Very possible.

They can price it however they want, but I think it's also very reasonable that people are confused (I don't think "upset" applies here). $40 just seems more "right".

Wait. Does this mean you literally think two people worked on it?

Free wrote:

It's a really old portable game and the remake seems to only add cutscenes and a new graphical overhaul.

Uuuuhhh... Talk about a gross over-simplification. This makes it sound like it's running on old code with a new skin. Hell, even actual reskins, like the Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary Edition on Xbox 360 had new, fresh code required in order to make it run properly on the new system, and that was a reskin.

This is a brand new code base requiring more complex physics and lighting technology just for the game's visual aesthetic, let alone in how it controls. It is, by all intents and purposes, a brand new game. To say that it's nothing more because it's a remake is... to put it kindly, willfully ignorant.

To put it another way, just because someone decides they're going to paint the Mona Lisa instead of a brand new original painting doesn't mean it requires less work, effort, or skill.

Dyni wrote:

RE2 is a remake of a PS2 game, and I have seen very few complaints about price since it launched.

However good it is (and it looks awesome), I still think $60 is asking too much. Count me among the few.

I'm just a consumer who feels these two games are priced too highly for what they are.

This is honestly even more absurd. Even in my own contemplation on price points I made note that RE2 had all kinds of additional production costs that Link's Awakening did not possess. It sounds like the perspective of someone fooled by the copy-paste assets and cheap A.I. of a Bethesda or Ubisoft open-world game and assuming all that matters is size and scale. Might I remind that the original Resident Evil 2 was technically built inside of a year (whole development time was two years, but the first version of the game took roughly a year, was almost complete, and then completely scrapped to start fresh on the version we received). The remake took three whole years to create the content we had.

I can understand not wanting to pay $60 for Link's Awakening, though I find your reasoning flawed. To suggest even RE2 is not worth $60 is complete ignorance of the reality of what goes into a game's development, or too many values on the superficial elements than actual quality of mechanics and polish.

A game with "AAA" budget and production does not get downgraded to a discount price tag simply because it used an older game a foundation.

I think that the remake of RE2 is kinda new game though. They didn't just up the resolution, they ported everything to the RE4+ engine. No more fixed camera angles, better resolution and textures, basically everything would have needed to be re-made.

It's RE7's engine, actually, which is Capcom's successor to MT Framework. So they no doubt made improvements to the engine during the development of RE2, but otherwise it shares no code with any of the RE games developed prior. It doesn't even control the same as RE7 due to being third-person instead of first.

ccesarano wrote:

You're a generation later on both counts. Link's Awakening was GameBoy and GameBoy Color, and RE2 was PlayStation 1. However, the point still stands, though I've seen people complaining that the lack of the "zapping" system in the RE2 remake "feels lesser". I disagree, naturally, but you're also correct in that people's perceptions are still skewed. RE2 has motion-capture, fancier graphics, and full voice-acting, but Link's Awakening has simple character models with text dialogue...

Oops, I wasn't sure about the platform for Link's Awakening, but I knew RE2 was a PS1 game. Doh!

Fair points on the rest. Come to think of it, I ended up skipping Monster Hunter Gen U last year because it released at $60 instead of the $40 I was expecting. After paying $40 for previous handheld MH titles and $60 for a hugely upgraded MH World, that just felt like a tough pill to swallow. I'm still getting used to dropping $60 on what are largely handheld titles for myself.

Free wrote:
Dyni wrote:

RE2 is a remake of a PS2 game, and I have seen very few complaints about price since it launched.

However good it is (and it looks awesome), I still think $60 is asking too much. Count me among the few.

I'm just a consumer who feels these two games are priced too highly for what they are. I'll just not buy them at full price and continue living my life. I think it's kinda weird for people to act like small complaints about a game's price are invalid/unreasonable.

Just speaking for RE2, it is far and away the best remake of a game I've ever played. I think the "remake" moniker sells it short in a big way. Nothing about the game is recognizable aside from the basic setting. The insane production values are obvious, but it plays completely differently from the first game with loads of incredibly smart updates to gameplay and QoL changes that bring it up to modern standards and beyond. I feel more than happy with it as a $60 purchase.

To your point, I don't agree about these two games, but I feel similarly though about a lot of other games. Heck, there are at least a dozen 3DS and WiiU games that I would gladly pick up for $15-20, but not $30+. Nintendo isn't going to discount them, so I'm not going to play them.

garion333 wrote:

Nintendo to revive Scalebound?

Based on the Nintendo-Platinum love affair I sure hope the answer is yes!

The former lead producer on Scalebound says this probably isn't a thing. Granted, he's not with the company anymore, but you think he'd be in a position to have at least heard something.

Edit: Wrong Switch thread...

Not having to pay for the game design and the time spent iterating on that design does count for something even if they rebuilt the rest from inspirations of the old version. That’s not to say that a $60 price is unfair, but my impression of many games is that this process takes time and money to do to make a game fun to play.

I finally fired up the Yoshi demo and really enjoyed it. Having now owned all the Yoshi games, oddly enough, I can say the tricks and wrinkles they added to this version are outstanding and definitely what some of the handheld iterations were missing. Seems like the team behind Wooly and Crafted World have a passion that earlier versions were missing. Or it's got more budget.

I am disappointed in the overall look and feel. I saw that this is the first Nintendo-developed game to use UE4 and I believe it shines through. The depth effects have that slight jank and aliasing to them that I believe is endemic to the engine. Not sure on that one, but while most of the game has an incredibly clean look there are bits here and there that stick out to me, which is an annoying nitpick but also a shame. The physics on objects after you hit them with eggs can be Bethesda-esque. It gives the game more of a feeling of being barely held together with string and tape that is appropriate for the theme, but not so much for a polished Nintendo product imho.

garion333 wrote:

Seems like the team behind Wooly and Crafted World have a passion that earlier versions were missing. Or it's got more budget. ;)

That might just be a difference in development houses. Woolly World and Crafted World were made by Good-Feel, the team behind Kirby's Epic Yarn. Yoshi's Island DS was made by Artoon, and Yoshi's New Island was made by Artoon's successor studio, Arzest.

Along those lines, I'll be curious to see who's developing Link's Awakening. I wouldn't be surprised if it's Grezzo.

DSGamer wrote:

Wait. Does this mean you literally think two people worked on it?

bruh, come on. no.

ccesarano wrote:

This is a brand new code base requiring more complex physics and lighting technology just for the game's visual aesthetic, let alone in how it controls. It is, by all intents and purposes, a brand new game. To say that it's nothing more because it's a remake is... to put it kindly, willfully ignorant.

ya got me, I've gone out of my way to be ignorant to the specifics of game design. jus gib me controller and gabe, plz.

or....all of that is also required of every game made, remake or not. none of that is incremental budget. they saved money on story, level design, balance, and all sorts of stuff that the original game had to budget in. is it worth $20 off a $60 game? i don't know and neither do you. but to insinuate that no other game has those things is...willfully ignorant.

ccesarano wrote:

To put it another way, just because someone decides they're going to paint the Mona Lisa instead of a brand new original painting doesn't mean it requires less work, effort, or skill.

maybe don't put it another way if that's the way you're gonna put it. lol

ccesarano wrote:

To suggest even RE2 is not worth $60 is complete ignorance of the reality of what goes into a game's development, or too many values on the superficial elements than actual quality of mechanics and polish.

once again, literally every game has to do those things and they also have to spend money on story, game/level design, etc. and they're all competing for my $60. I'm happy that people out there spent $60 and are happy with that purchase, that's awesome. A smile on Dyni's face is priceless to me.

but to pretend that it's unreasonable that someone else might find the game's value to be less than $60 is just silly. especially when there are people out there spending $60 on Crackdown 3 AS WE SPEAK! there's your national emergency right there.

they saved money on story, level design, balance, and all sorts of stuff that the original game had to budget in.

I can't respond to this without it becoming an entire tangent. So I'm just going to sigh, shake my head, and walk away.

Out of curiosity, did you play the Secret of Mana remake on PS4? Did you play it side by side to the SNES version? Superficially, yes, they basically rebuilt the game perfectly. Story, level-design... but not balance. Oddly enough, the mechanics don't feel the same. Hrm. It's almost like... rebuilding a game from the ground up presents new challenges...