You own the game on switch and already have the dlc so pay nothing unless you want to pay $10 or have the switch online subscription for the switch 2 edition if you want the enhancements. For a total of $0-10 depending on your choice
You own the game but dont have the dlc so pay $20 for that and then $10 for the switch 2 version unless you have the subscription for a total of $20-30 depending on your choice.
You dont own the game so you buy the switch 2 version for $70 and the dlc for $20 for a total of $90.
This is not the same as the $90 game lie thats being told, but it is painted that way. To get clicks.
Paying $70 for a game and then paying more for an expansion is nothing even close to new. For example, Destiny 2 is free but if you want the DLC its gonna cost you between $150 and $270 depending on when you buy it as there are sometimes deals on.
Breath of the Wild is 8 years old at this point. Asking $70 for that is pretty egregious in my opinion. Maybe for TotK that’d be more acceptable but for BotW I think it’s a very steep price. Especially given that it’s common that rereleases usually include dlcs by default.
I’d expected $60 for the full package, not $90, given that the amount of development work was likely pretty low (the game was finished years ago after all). So 50% higher than expected.
The SM64+Sunshine+Galaxy bundle game was $30, for comparison. That’s three full games that they needed to put in effort for to run on the Switch.
Absolutely fair. An 8 year old game should not cost $90 all in.
I dont dispute that. I just think the article is misleading as there is a lot of talk about $90 switch 2 games, which turned out not to be true, and it creates anger that is misplaced. Even if the reality isn’t far from that lie.
I do, however, think it’s an interesting thought experiment to come at it from another angle.
Imagine the article was “8 year old AAA game and DLC at a huge discount” and the article said things like:
breath of the wild was ahead of its time on release
the graphics still look great thanks to the cell shading and art style
unique gameplay elements and a modern feeling combat system
vast open world with expansive storyline
on par with modern games
currently only $50 on this deal, a bargain considering everything you get for that price
From this point of view i think you would agree that anyone would argue its worth more than $50 and that its a great deal despite being 8 years old.
Nintendo games should definitely come down in price over time, but the point is its just so easy to spin something however you want if you use the right words.
Title is a bit misleading
There are a few scenarios here.
You own the game on switch and already have the dlc so pay nothing unless you want to pay $10 or have the switch online subscription for the switch 2 edition if you want the enhancements. For a total of $0-10 depending on your choice
You own the game but dont have the dlc so pay $20 for that and then $10 for the switch 2 version unless you have the subscription for a total of $20-30 depending on your choice.
You dont own the game so you buy the switch 2 version for $70 and the dlc for $20 for a total of $90.
This is not the same as the $90 game lie thats being told, but it is painted that way. To get clicks.
Paying $70 for a game and then paying more for an expansion is nothing even close to new. For example, Destiny 2 is free but if you want the DLC its gonna cost you between $150 and $270 depending on when you buy it as there are sometimes deals on.
Breath of the Wild is 8 years old at this point. Asking $70 for that is pretty egregious in my opinion. Maybe for TotK that’d be more acceptable but for BotW I think it’s a very steep price. Especially given that it’s common that rereleases usually include dlcs by default.
I’d expected $60 for the full package, not $90, given that the amount of development work was likely pretty low (the game was finished years ago after all). So 50% higher than expected.
The SM64+Sunshine+Galaxy bundle game was $30, for comparison. That’s three full games that they needed to put in effort for to run on the Switch.
Absolutely fair. An 8 year old game should not cost $90 all in.
I dont dispute that. I just think the article is misleading as there is a lot of talk about $90 switch 2 games, which turned out not to be true, and it creates anger that is misplaced. Even if the reality isn’t far from that lie.
I do, however, think it’s an interesting thought experiment to come at it from another angle.
Imagine the article was “8 year old AAA game and DLC at a huge discount” and the article said things like:
From this point of view i think you would agree that anyone would argue its worth more than $50 and that its a great deal despite being 8 years old.
Nintendo games should definitely come down in price over time, but the point is its just so easy to spin something however you want if you use the right words.