By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Bandorr said:
DonFerrari said:

Nintendo is getting up with the times. And perhaps they just wanted to make a quick port with minor improvements as a lot of cross gen do.

I'd even have been fine with it being $50. Which even then is fairly absurd. Charging full price for a 4 year old game with no new content, and few changes.

But to charge MORE than they did before? Perhaps the cartridge is to blame. Another Cartridge fee/tax at work?

The game is great though, and better loading times is always nice. But at that price, oof mega pass.

I have to agree with you, even more because MS and Sony usually go for a 40 USD for a lot of the remasters/packages/remake or at least doesn't make it more pricey than the original... but who knows the cost structure or projections from Nintendo, perhaps at 40 or less they thought the profit would be lower.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."