Hey guys, to those who've played the game or felt like have seen enough of it through trailers and gameplay videos, what would you think would be a reasonable price for this game?

For quite a while, one of the biggest controversies regarding some Nintendo games is the pricing, where many feel certain games are overpriced for the value they give. And many people are questioning the 70$ price of Mario Tennis Fever as well, which seems quite high for just a simpler Tennis game on a series that's notorious for not having alot of content. However, do you believe it's worth the 70$ or less?

I'm also a bit on the fence this game, thankfully it would only cost about 50$ for me since I was given a 20$ gift card, but I'm still unsure if it'll be worth even 50$. For the most part I have enjoyed Mario Sports games in the past, but its a pretty steep price.

What do you guys think?

I've honestly never bought into the idea that certain genres/series aren't allowed to be full price.

$70 is the industry standard; if that's more than people are willing to pay, then it won't sell. Ultimately the market decides what's acceptable.

I don't like Mario Tennis, but I voted for $70 for the same reason

Whatever the market dictates.

If it's $70, then it should be $70. Simple as that.

And like @curl-6 said, I also don't buy the idea that certain genres/series shouldn't be full price.
Though my reasoning may be slightly different, I see from a business standpoint.

If I'm Nintendo, and I can reasonably justify charging $70 across the board for all my games, whether they be a 3D platformer or sports spinoff, and STILL sell the same amount of copies, if not more, than what I was selling when I was charging $60 for those same games - resulting in much higher revenue and profit margins. Ohohoho, you can bet your ass I'm gonna do it!

Some games will sell significantly more than others at $70, and that's fine. Not every game can be in that Mario Kart/Pokemon/3D Mario/Animal Crossing/Open World Zelda/Smash Bros tier, nor do they have to be. And I don't subscribe to the idea of certain games like Mario Tennis or Mario Party or WarioWare, for example, being at $50, $40, or lower, just because they're lower budget. They may sell more copies doing that, but then that opens the door for people to go "Well those games are at this price, why can't Mario Kart or Smash Bros be at that price? I'm not buying!" And then you lose out on more many because you give up say... 10 copies of mainline Animal Crossing or Smash Bros at $70-80, to sell an extra 15 copies of Mario Tennis or Pokemon Snap at $40-50.

While many may not like Nintendo's pricing model, it IS the smart way to do business. Not just the full MSRP prices across the board, but also rarely, if ever, dropping the price. Is it consumer-friendly? No, no it isn't. But history shows that as long as the quality is there, people will be willing to pay that premium to enjoy that product. And after 40+ years and so many legendary, timeless classics, too many to count, Nintendo has earned that benefit of the doubt. It's why they're still going stronger than ever, with no end in sight AND no layoffs (unlike SOME companies). It's why they're EXPANDING, despite what haters and grifters will say. Because they don't just talk the talk, they have the walk AND the accolades to back it up.

Not a penny over $60. $60 has long been the industry standard and the whole point of arguing for $70 to become the new standard is because realistic AAA games take like $100+ million to make these days. For a game like Mario Tennis that is obviously the furthest thing from reality so there is absolutely zero reason it should be priced above $60. Really of first party Nintendo franchises the only games that should even MAYBE be $70 are 3D Mario, Mario Kart, 3D Zelda, Smash, Xenoblade, and perhaps Metroid Prime.

Mario Tennis is laughable at a $70 price tag. I voted $60 but honestly $50 feels more realistically like the right price point considering all of the Switch 1's Nintendo Sports games were pretty lackluster so unless Nintendo is stepping up a huge amount with Mario Tennis Fever even $60 is a bit steep, but considering that's been the long time industry standard $60 would at least make sense to be a fully priced game.

$70 isn’t a complete standard. A number of big games have deviated from it. Astro Bot(60), Elden Ring(60), Expedition 33(50), Split Fiction(50), Resident Evil Village and RE 4(60), Pragmata(60), Alan Wake 2($60) etc. 

Typically my threshold for price weighs heavily toward content or potential for content. There's no justified reason a tennis game should cost more than $50.

The last two Mario Tennis games were low effort duds. I dont even think its possible to justify a $70 price point after laying such massive eggs twice in a row.

Standard doesn't mean universal, Nintendo's own games include Drag x Drive ($30) for example, but $70 has been the norm for high profile releases this gen.

Why are we talking about what the market dictates.?The question the op asked was what do YOU think it's worth lol.

If they're going to charge $70 for a Mario Sports game it needs to actually have a substantial singleplayer mode imo. Which Fever does not.

The OP asks what's "fair/justifiable", I'd say what people are willing to pay for it qualifies as such.

If $70 is too much, then it will sell poorly and Nintendo will have to adjust their pricing model.