Lol much cheaper? A nintendo game from 25 years ago will be resold for $70 today. You can buy Doom on the switch for about $60 and it might catch 30fps you can buy the same game for playstation or xbox for like $15. Have you ever priced their used games for switch? They are laughably expensive
Yes and at $300 to $400 for a Deck and roughly the exact same price for a new switch Im saying that the cost is greater long term for Nintendo when you buy their overpriced games that dont even run at full fps. You essentially are paying the same price (maybe what like $100 less if you get the cheaper switch) for a tablet. If you were going to just buy both and set them on the shelf and never buy a game to play on them then maybe I would understand where you are coming from but you have to buy games to play on these or else why would uou buy one? Therefore the cost of the games should also be taken into account when considering the overall price of the system.
They were cheaper options at the time of their release. Nintendo games from the past have only increased in price because of the popularity of the brand that attracts collectors. You are correct about the long-term expenses being cheaper overall but the average person only looks at the price for the console itself and that is about as far as their long-term thinking goes. Fps does not matter as much to the more casual gamer that Nintendo attracts.
The perceived cheapness is what gives Nintendo the advantage.
Lol much cheaper? A nintendo game from 25 years ago will be resold for $70 today. You can buy Doom on the switch for about $60 and it might catch 30fps you can buy the same game for playstation or xbox for like $15. Have you ever priced their used games for switch? They are laughably expensive
I think she’s talking about the consoles themselves.
Yes and at $300 to $400 for a Deck and roughly the exact same price for a new switch Im saying that the cost is greater long term for Nintendo when you buy their overpriced games that dont even run at full fps. You essentially are paying the same price (maybe what like $100 less if you get the cheaper switch) for a tablet. If you were going to just buy both and set them on the shelf and never buy a game to play on them then maybe I would understand where you are coming from but you have to buy games to play on these or else why would uou buy one? Therefore the cost of the games should also be taken into account when considering the overall price of the system.
They were cheaper options at the time of their release. Nintendo games from the past have only increased in price because of the popularity of the brand that attracts collectors. You are correct about the long-term expenses being cheaper overall but the average person only looks at the price for the console itself and that is about as far as their long-term thinking goes. Fps does not matter as much to the more casual gamer that Nintendo attracts.
The perceived cheapness is what gives Nintendo the advantage.