Free with Nintendo online hehe :p

Genuinely though, a cute little local multiplayer that hasn't exploded in scope/graphics should not be $70

My only defence of Nintendo here is the current market conditions, meaning profiting from software is important to offset what's happening with the Ram situation. Maybe this would of been a cheaper title if release last summer

$70 is way too high. I would buy at $40. I will buy way less Nintendo games this generation because of the pricing.

Someone nailed it, it doesn't have a robust single player campaign, it is a pick up and play here and there.  $70 isnt for that kind of game.

I hope the S2 is less successful than the S1, only because Nintendo is getting a little big for their britches.  

The unfortunate thing about Nintendo is that they don't really engage with very flexible pricing regardless of sales. There are old games that have sold less than 100k in the last year but you won't find them on sale below $40 which is a shame. There are plenty of games I'd give a go if there were properly discounted once their sales fell off.

Personally not interested in it (I like my tennis games as close as possible to real thing), but from my POV, $40-50 would be way more realistic for such game.

Then again, given that Mario Tennis Aces sold more than 4.5 million copies (with launch price being $60, standard of that era), I guess they would be insane not to charge full price.

I think the words “fair/justifiable” aren’t doing this thread any favors— if Nintendo wants to charge $70USD for their product, then so be it. Nobody is entitled to the luxuries of the global north. This is Nintendo’s product and they have arrived at an exchange offer they deem suitable. If you find the tag reasonable, then you have every right to take them at their offer. Otherwise, you can simply move along.

So, in that sense, is it “fair play”/“morally justifiable” for Nintendo to charge so highly for MTFever? I mean…we’re talking about video games lol. Not milk and apples. Yes, there’s nothing wrong with this.

HOWEVER, reading the OP, it seems you’re asking whether one finds the game (personally) worth the $70USD price tag. For me: I purchased the game for $70USD, so I did indeed fine the title worthy of the tag. I haven’t played it enough to truly say whether I’m getting $70USD of fun out of it, though from all that I have played so far, I’d say it is definitely worthy of the extra $10USD over Tennis Aces on the basis of presentation alone: the cutscenes and in-game graphics are absolutely stunning! It is clear this game was not made nearly as cost effective as Aces. This in addition to the featuring potentially the best Mario sports gameplay loop in series’ history, and you have a winner.

That said: If you don’t wanna spend $70USD, you can easily pick up this game used for $60USD at GameStop OR $40-50USD on FaceBook Marketplace in a few weeks. At these prices, I’d definitely say you should give the game a shot (no pun intended).

(1.) The used market will have it available for $40USD within a few days/weeks. Same goes for all first-party Nintendo Switch 2 games.

(2.) Switch 2 hasn’t proven to be nearly as profitable for Nintendo as Switch 1, despite record-breaking sales figures. This really isn’t a case of “Nintendo is getting a little big for their britches” especially not when the alternative is $500-1,000USD hardware, similarly priced software, and far more expensive online service and accessory products. If you want S2 less successful than S1, you don’t need to come up with some nonsense justification— just say it with your full chest that you don’t want S2 to be as successful.

Nintendo is getting arrogant, that is just a fact.  Their games prices are too high for many titles.  Prime 4 has a boring desert with no music, unless you have a $40 amiibo, then it has music.  Mario 3D All Stars lacked Galaxy 2, which is absurd.  Mario 3D All Stars was a limited digital release, which again is absurd.  Classic games can't be purchased but are locked behind a subscription service, games I have already bought should be carried over and I should be able to purchase them.  Their classic games are lazy, the fan community does more with emulation.  Nintendo has gotten very arrogant.

A company being knocked backed bit is good for consumers.  The ps4 was brilliant, largely because Sony got knocked with the ps3.  So, there is no nonsense, it is reality.  

The Prime 4 music amiibo in particular is crazy to me, and made worse that people will blindly support and argue Nintendo isn't being anti-consumer, despite they clearly are.  

Edit

Also let us not mischaracterize what people are saying.  I never said I didn't want the S2 to not be successful, I said I want it to be less successful than the S1, there is a major difference.  If a company doesn't have to work hard for our money, they will do anti-consumer things.  See Nvidia for details.  

This is a fallacy, Nintendo doesn't lower their prices no matter how badly their games sell

Answering the thread:

Sporty and party games are usually pretty bad, so maybe… $20?

This IP, which I specifically played on the N64, always felt quite boring to me, so I probably wouldn’t play it even if it were given away for free