Why are you making foolish arguments when you can't even accept what the reviewers say about those LABO-games? You should instead tell why those games are better than what the reviewers and I think. It seems you can't do that. It doesn't make my, and the reviewers, arguments baseless just because I am not a fan of "gimmick/non-gaming" -focus. And I think that several Nintendo games are worth more than majority of other games.

And then there is the 80 dollar price tag. The games didn't cost a lot to develop and the cardboard is cheap, so there is a huge amount of extra in the price. Would you defend this product if it was published by Activision/EA (or any other company)? I don't think so. So can you make better arguments than calling someone biased?  

Well first, you ARE biased so not sure why that has to be swept under the rug when it comes to your critique of the product. 2nd, how do you know how much the games actually cost to develop? You do realize the cardboard is built to interact with the software and the joycons. I'm pretty sure that took time to develop (time=money), they didnt just pull it out of their arse. 

Until you can provide actual factual proof that Nintendo is inflating the cost of LABO by the exorbitant amount you're suggesting, your whole point is pretty much moot. "Oh I was in the same room as someone playing it" is not satisfactory enough, and nothing more than pure anecdotal madness.

Well I base my claim about the cheap development costs on what I can see/what others have said about it. For example, creating that one environment for that fishing-game was most likely really cheap. And why would it cost much to make the cardbord to interact with the software? It's pretty basic stuff and shouldn't require many coders to do it. So why I must have the "burden of proof"? That's as logical as if I would insist you to prove that Knack was cheaper to develop than God of War (2018).

And could you answer the questions I made, so you wouldn't seem so "biased" yourself: Tell why those games are better than what the reviewers and I think? Would you defend this product if it was published by Activision/EA (or any other company)?

Well I base my claim about the cheap development costs on what I can see/what others have said about it. For example, creating that one environment for that fishing-game was most likely really cheap. And why would it cost much to make the cardbord to interact with the software? It's pretty basic stuff and shouldn't require many coders to do it. So why I must have the "burden of proof"? That's as logical as if I would insist you to prove that Knack was cheaper to develop than God of War (2018).

And could you answer the questions I made, so you wouldn't seem so "biased" yourself: Tell why those games are better than what the reviewers and I think? Would you defend this product if it was published by Activision/EA (or any other company)?

Because reviewers said it was better than you think. You keep ignoring that they have given it an overall good rating.

Some people think the price of Labo is too high because the development costs must have been quite low. But there are two major flaws with this logic:

1) We don't know how high the development costs are. Simple as that. Guessing and comparing to other titles won't work here because Labo is not comparable at all.

2) It doesn't even matter how high they have been in the end, because the only thing that matters is the price and the perceived value the consumer expects from a purchase. If the perceived value doesn't match the price tag, then you simply don't buy it. End of story. If you think that the price is okay and you will enjoy many hours with it, you buy it.

Production costs have nothing to do in this thinking process because the consumer should never be the one who needs to iron out how little a developer can handle money. The consumer should never feel the need to help the developer recoup on the production costs. The consumer shouldn't care if the oh so poor developer spent oh so many work into this game and it cost oh so many big piles of money. Because if we applied this method of thinking to other games, we would see that Destiny, FFXV or Duke Nukem Forever must had a price of several hundreds of $. But they don't. Strange, isn't it?

Back to Labo: yes, there is a correlation between the price and the sales volume. Everybody understands that. Labo sells, but it doesn't set the world on fire. If the price was lower, it could sell more units, obviously. But all I'm saying is that if you really want to lament on the price, then lament on the content and not on the production values. And even then, the content and the value you get out of it is completely up to you. It gives you the tools, you just need to use them by yourself.