DF: Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze - Switch vs Wii U

[DonFerrari]

zorg1000 said:

DonFerrari said:

On this... Nintendo fanbase defends that they keep the 60usd even 4 years after release to keep the value of the game... while every other customer is pleased with cuts and paying less. Some twist logic.

Stop generalizing millions of people into a single entity. There are multiple people in the "Nintendo fanbase" in this thread alone who are saying it shouldnt be $60.

And when we have threads discussing the price of Nintendo games staying the same several years after release what most of the people there do? Defend the pricing strategy of Nintendo. When those said games keep selling at a good pace years after release, what does that say? That the fanbase accept the strategy as well.

Since I didn't say every Nintendo fan defend, you are seeing generalization because you want to see it.

Funny enough I didn't see you, GoOnKid or anyone else discussing the notion of Miyamotoo that the price is totally valid because it's 2 games in 1.

GoOnKid said:

DonFerrari said:

On this... Nintendo fanbase defends that they keep the 60usd even 4 years after release to keep the value of the game... while every other customer is pleased with cuts and paying less. Some twist logic.

Will you ever stop generalizing the entire fanbase? There are countless posters in this very thread who are unhappy with the price.

I don't even know you for your assumption of "ever stop". But the answer for you is above. And being unhappy with the price but still buying say a lot.

GoOnKid said:

So, to make this clear even for DonFerrari, I am not defending the price.

With this out of the way, the Nintendo Switch already surpassed the install base of the Wii U. Therefore, under the false asumption that every Wii U owner already has a Switch at this point, this game is new to every new customer. Therefore, a price like this can be justified even for a game that is already four years old. Skyrim is 60 as well, remember? How old is Skyrim?

Staying with Skyrim as an example, the age of a game is irrelevant, anyways. What matters is if people are interested in buying it for the asked price or if they are not. Skyrim still sold pretty okay as far as we know and people like to have it on the Switch. Super Mario Bros. is still one of the most sold games on whatever form of Eshop it appears. That's the true magic that happens here. Whether DKCTF has a difference of 10 bucks or not is more or less irrelevant in the big picture.

And if you already have it on the Wii U, there is absolutley no reason to buy it again. You are not the target group, unless you want to play it on the go. Nintendo doesn't expect you to buy it again because it has a higher resolution. A few more pixels don't improve the game, seriously.

Not defending the price but say it is justified? Yes, yes, sure.... At launch PS4 Sony stated that about 40% of the userbase consisted of people that didn't own a PS3 so for your justification all the ports, collections and remasters would be justified at 60 usd right? Still several/most were sub 60 (as replied by someone earlier TLOU got cut very fast due to customers complaining) and no game got a price increase from porting from PS3 to PS4 even if they had DLCs added.

Skyrim that have been put in almost all systems under the sun being ported for 60usd is basically a rip-off and customers shouldn't entice more thinks like this (or like they did with USFII).

Miyamotoo said:

DonFerrari said:

You are confusion value with price and cost. But please entertain me on how a game that you buy once and can play in 3 platforms have "less" value than a game you buy once can only play in one device but the device itself plays in more options?? So should PC games be more expensive since ever you could buy on Steam and play in multiple HW and/or use a notebook to play on the go, or on the power outlet or plugged to the TV? And since we are at it, should the games on Wii and WiiU cost less than in PS360 and X1PS4 because they had lower performance? Or should the games on Switch cost more than on X1PS4 because you can play on the go and docked? Or should games on X1PS4 cost more because you can also play them on X1X and PS4Pro?

Nope, no one here would be able to explain the difference between the HH and the Console mode of DK, because they don't exist. It's a single game that you can play docked or on the go.

Nope, not talking nonsense, If it wasn't you, it was someone with the very same discourse about "simple" vs "complex", "2D" vs "3D", etc. More demanding game is related to how much of the processing power the games drains from the system, it may seem like being 3D, fast paced, photorealistic should be more demanding, but that doesn't make it be the case everytime. I believe this discussion was made on a Doom Switch thread where someone was defending that a game running at sub-720p and 30fps was more demanding than a game at 1080p60fps on the same HW, which is obvious, because if the first wasn't utilizing all the resources then it would have space for more res or frames... but the other person was talking about the other game genre, collor pallete, etc saying it was more demanding (which is the confusion between perception and reality).

You may say otherwise, but all you have done in your post is defend them.

No, I was talking about value not about price and cost. You dont make any sense, bu pls tell me what is game that you can buy only once and play on 3 different platforms, and how that exactly has anything when we comparing game playing on Wii U comparing to Switch!? I was talking about Wii U compared to Switch games, even PS4/XB1, not to PC/Android platforms wich are quite difrent compared to console platforms. Game that could be played in full handheld and full home console mode definatly has higher value than game that could be played just in handheld or just in home console mode, Hyrule Wariors for Switch definatly has higher value compared to only 3DS version of game compared to Wii U version of game, but that doesnt mean that game need to have higher price point. If you have hard time to understand that than problem is with you. Performance of games never effect price point, if that is a case PC game actualy wouldnt be cheaper than PS4/XB1 versions of games.

Lol, but thats a difrence, you can play one same game in full handheld mode or full home console mode, thats main concept of Switch.

Its simple DKTF 2D platform game cant be more demanding than 3D action game like Bayonetta 2 or racing game like MK8D.

I relly dont care what you think, you can take what I wrote whatever you want, I just saying whats their point of view, I dont agree that game that on Wii U was $50 need to be $60 on Switch.

If you buy "99 Vidas o Jogo" on any PS platform you will have access to it on PS3, PS4 and PSVita as far as I heard from the creators. The point of multiple platforms was your defense of having more value because you can play on the go or on the TV, which isn't particular to the game itself.

So you accept that perfomance of the game doesn't affect the price (but for some reason you ignored if it affects value or not), but then again pretends it make Switch games more valuable... waiting for your definition on Notebooks.

Keep with your perception of the world all you want, if a game is running at a lower resolution and frame than another one at the same system, it's more taxing to the system than the other one unless you can prove it runs at lower processing demands, which you can't since you don't have access to the debugging or any other form to measure how much of the system is being used.