So the resolution on the switch can't ever go higher than 720?

I didn't know that - thank you.

edit: Actually I probably did know that, it just didn't occur to me.  Makes a lot of sense.

I am the target group for this, and there is no way in hell I'm buying this for $60. When the $10 difference is a $10 increase on a 4 year old game from a previous system saying $10 bucks is irrelevant kind of misses the point don't you think. This should be discounted from its original price, not the same as its original price, and instead they went with the crazy move to actually increase its price four years and one console onwards.

You're saying Super Mario Bros gets great sales on eshops, okay cuz it costs a few bucks. If they released Super Mario Bros for $60 it would sell zero copies.

It's great that they are bringing the game to the Switch. If the price were the same as when it came out that'd be very annoying, but increasing the price of an old game is just outrageous. I'm only one person, but they lost a sale right here due to stupid business practices.

Okay, then just don't buy it. Speak with your wallet. That's the most powerful instrument you can use.

It doesn't matter if it's a port or not. It's the consumer's perception that matters. If it's a new game to you, then it makes no difference if it had already been released on another patform. Why don't you just buy it on the Wii U instead if you think that 60 bucks is too much? You happen to own a Wii U if I don't mistake you for someone else?

Yes that is exactly what I will do - speak with my wallet by not buying it.

And no I don't have a Wii U (skipped this whole generation until the Switch resparked my interest). And it does matter that its an old game. I've never played it before but I know Nintendo already made their money on it because it came out 4 years ago, so my consumer perception is no way in hell would I pay the price it came out for now on their next system four years later, let alone even MORE than its original price. Things are supposed to go down in price over time, not up! (outside of rare collectibles, which this game is of course not).

If it came out at $40 which would have been reasonable I would have considered getting it. $50 no. $60 just makes me mad at Nintendo being greedy jerks.

If Nintendo released Super Mario 64 on the Switch for $70 ($10 more than original) would that make sense? If they release Wind Waker HD (they better I need this game!) for $60 would that make sense? If they released Super Mario Galaxy for $60 would that make sense? No, it wouldn't.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

bonzobanana said: 

I thought their was at least some elements to the wii u that can beat the Switch in portable mode. The higher memory bandwidth of the 32MB of edram, higher gflops of the gpu and the simple fact the Switch relies on heavier compression due to lack of storage plus needs to consider battery runtime which often motivates the developer to run at lower performance levels. The Switch portable version of this game is running sub 720P despite the portable screen being 720p. So no it certainly isn't a fact that the Switch in portable should outperform the wii u especially for a mainly 2D platformer like this.

Really?  When I first played the game at release, I thought they were trying to make it too pretty.  Seeing every strand of hair on DK in HD in the cutscenes was almost offputting in my opinion.  I don't need for a mascot character in a platformer to look like an actual real live ape to enjoy said platformer.

I do agree that jacking up the price for the Switch remaster is a mistake though.  Already having it on Wii U, I'm going to pass on this one.

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.