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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

One game!? :D 

Thats a fact its not point if I will accept that or not. Again, I didnt talk about price I was talking about value, and fact is that game that could be played in full handheld mode and full home console mode has greater value than game that could be played only in handheld or only in home console mode.

Yeah, because whats are priorites with games (for instance in this case could be battery save), how good port is, how good development team is, how much time they have for development and optimisation, fact that when you porting game that was specifically made for totally different hardware won't give best results when you porting to totally different platform, point how much they are pushing hardware...dont effect at all on how some game will look and run on some system, right!? :D You relly dont know what are you talking about.

You asked for a game that did this, now that you were given an example you dismiss it? Classic.

VALUE is subjective and opinion, it won`t ever be fact... seems like you have been avoiding your economy classes. And the game itself is the same, the HW is the one that makes it being playable in both situations. Still WiiU you could play on the TV or on the gamepad, did that raise the value of all WiiU games? You also ignored Notebooks as gaming machines that have been doing it before... PS4 games I can play full HH and full console mode as well, can even play full console mode in a different state than my PS4 is hooked.

How can I say that even simpler to you, you may fault the quality of the port or development all you want. The end result is that a game that can only run at sub720p and drops below 30fps is more demanding to the system than a 1080p60fps on the same system. And since you don`t have access to the code, debug or any other revelant information than your 'impression of what is more demanding' you have no ground to say "it is more demanding because of its genre".

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.

Remasters on other systems cost $40.

I don't mind the price though, wasn't interested anyways. Xenoblade Chronicles X is a different story.

I don't remember The Last of Us being $40 when it released on PS4