What aspect are you suggesting is not true? 

Graphical benchmarks have a impact on the whole pipeline of development. Entire world interaction is re-written to enable an extra an milisecond in draw time to be used rendering graphics of a desired level at the desired framerate. Engine development in order to enable a certain level of graphical features also takes notable time. I'd say the interplay of graphics and programming shouldn't be understated. Lower graphical benchmarks affords for lower levels of optimisation which can afford speedier development times. 

Twitter is not a valid source of information. It's literally owned by the shadow president.

The "this is how Nintendo always does things! It will never change!" crowd seems flabbergasted at a bunch of different things.

I think the truth is their perception of Nintendo is like 20-25 years out of date. The whole "dirt cheap hardware! cheap games! Cuz it's for kids! Nothing fancy in the hardware at all!" stuff was in for a rude awakening.

Nintendo is in a different place in 2025, the vast majority of their buyer base are adults and they know that. "$300-$350 for the system and $50-$60 games forever!!!" was misguided, this is a different era for Nintendo too many people had blinders on. "Because Nintendo did this 10 or 20 years ago!" was not a valid setup for how everything in the future was going to go. 

That may be so, but Daniel Ahmad is a legitimate source.

It's also common sense. Digital goods can't be effected by tariffs. You can't tariff something that doesn't physically exist.

This isn't really comparable.

Sony's marketing for games when they showcased PS5 was deliberately misleading; they announced several titles only at that time, gave them no solid release dates and then gave vague messaging about 'these games are being developed for PS5'.

I remember people coming to these very forums and preaching 'you can just tell these games are undeniably games that could only exist on a PS5', only for the games to eventually be confirmed for PS4 in the months leading up to their actual release (which wasn't close to the PS5 launch window). And they looked great on PS4, because they were well optimised and made to scale across hardware, not just optimised for one specific hardware which many people believed and Sony were happy for them to spread that messaging.

Nintendo announced those games for Switch well in advance and now they will be releasing alongside Switch 2 with upgraded versions. The games that were announced today during the Switch 2 showcase-- Mario Kart World, Donkey Kong Bananza etc., are Switch 2 games. There's no mixed or vague messaging around them. No one is here questioning whether any of those games could release on the current Switch.

Not that I care at all about cross-gen releases or releasing more games on older systems, but deceptive marketing is something no one should support.

Isn't he the clickbait whore that this site always references? Who even is he? A games analyst? Like Pachter?

Also doesn't Nintendo tend to price their digital games at the same price as the physical version just to keep from pissing off brick and mortar retailers? Isn' that why digital games aren't cheaper on release day?

Finally, Switch 2 is a physical product. Hence the extra $50 pricetag.

It's perfectly reasonable to be surprised at $80 Nintendo games already though. The pace of the move is staggering. Less than two years ago all Nintendo Switch games were $60 or less. They only released one $70 less than two years ago and suddenly we're jumping to $80. I don't think anyone had the foresight that Nintendo would be charging $80 for physical games this soon, or that they'd be the first to do it. With only one $70 title it feels more like they jumped straight from $60 to $80.

They were one of the last to release a $70 title but now are already jumping into the $80 territory.

Your post isn't really relevant to what we're talking about lol which was people discounting cross-gen titles for next-gen consoles as not being of any value. I'm not sure why you're talking about how the games were revealed or deceptive marketing. Very strange left-turn. Think you just wanted to say your piece. xD

Physical games are the past, I think people just need to accept that. The $80 is basically a "fine we'll give you physical games but we're not eating the physical cost of the cart + retail margin for no charge any longer, you want that, you pay for it".

The games are $60-$70 ... $80 is just for a minority audience that for whatever reason needs to have physical games ... they can pay more for that.