There are plenty of games that would be well over $100 if we consider all DLC in the base cost...

If the base game is good, I'll buy it. If I want more, I'll buy the DLC. If not, I won't.

Please change the thread title. I clicked expecting to see or claim that the price for Legends Z-A would be $100 for the base game (although I'm glad that it's not). This practice has been going on for almost two decades now; let's not pretend like it's new just because Nintendo and GameFreak are late to the party.

I once said that I would gladly pay $100 for a new game if it was complete on disk and quality. The problem is Gamefreak hasn't been quality in over a decade.

Also tons of games have already broke the $100 mark if you add up all the microtransactions that are needed to make a game complete. MK11 used to cost $6440 for getting every skin and that's only if you had perfect luck in your drops.

Nintendo has definitely gotten greedy this gen but to call them the most anti-consumer company is nonsense. Plenty of companies charge over $500 for a single game when you include MTX. Plenty of companies release games in a physical format that is gimped by an always online restriction. Indiana Jones for example is nothing more than a 1MB stub on the disc that sends you to download the rest of the game. Steam claims to be pro-consumer, but still allows Denuvo and third-party launchers that threaten to revoke access to a game you bought.

The Mario Galaxy bundle pack for $80 is so wrong on so many levels. We need to all be honest and admit one of the reasons NS1 was such a success was because when the system launched the price was ok, it wasn't expensive and it wasn't cheap. A lot of the games were priced at $50-$60. And when compared to the PS5/XS it was cheaper (system) and the average game was overall cheaper by around $10. This was a nice pull for a lot of people. And if this Mario Galaxy Bundled was released at the launch of NS1 we all know it would have been priced at $50-$60. Not this $80, mind you this is a NS1 game and NOT a NS2.

Nintendo just keeps pushing and pushing the boundaries, they deserve whatever backlash is coming.

Cosmetics are not an unimportant part of the game. People say that it doesn't affect gameplay, but one of the ways I enjoy playing a game is changing how my character looks. So for me it does affect gameplay and needs to be included in the regular price. 

You could easily trade to complete a Poke'Dex—no need to buy both versions. 

Gonna leave this gem here

Do you think you are in the majority or minority on this? Do you think most people playing Pokémon care about some cosmetic features being missing from the base-game, especially given that in previous games there really wasn't much in way of customization of Pokemon outfits? In the context of Pokémon, cosmetics is pretty much a gimmick (which can be valuable for some niche of the fanbase, but not generally) in my opinion, and if creating more assets to appeal to people who enjoy them cost more then it makes sense to charge more. 

You could trade to complete the Pokedex. How "easily" that trading is, depends a lot on your circumstances, and regardless it is a lot easier to do so if you have multiple (different) versions of the game. 

This makes me happy I haven't bought a mainline pokemon game since the 3DS. The decline of value, the penny pinching and the overcharging for Pokemon games since Pokemon Go launched is unacceptable. Not to mention their legal shennannigans against Pocket Pair and their recent patent abuse.

Only Nintendo game I'm buying this fall is Kirby Air Riders.

Metroid Prime 4 was looking good...until they introduced yet another stupid motorcycle. Samus has a ship. Why can't I fly that? I'll wait for reviews on Prime 4. I'm tired of open world games with nothing to do (looking at you Mario Kart World)

1. Argumentum ad populum. 

2. It doesn't cost more to make a hat or other cosmetic.  Most cosmetic items take anywhere from 5 minutes to a couple hours. Full-on detailed skins that need their own 3D model take 100 hours. But even comparing the 100 hours to pay an artist, for a $10 cosmetic is ridiculous. Even if only 10,000 people buy that $10 cosmetic you've made $100,000. That's more than the artist makes in a year. Cosmetics in games are clearly rip-offs and anyone who thinks they aren't really must like the taste of boots. 

3. Your circumstances don't make trading significantly harder. A link cable was $10. Nintendo online is $1.66 a month. Are you telling me you have zero friends that play Poke'mon and are afraid to meet new people, and have no money?