It's official: Nintendo is now charging $69.99 for first-party games

Nintendo has officially confirmed that its new first-party Switch games will cost $69.99 starting with The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom.

Nintendo did not make an announcement that directly addresses the price increase and it is unknown whether or not all future first-party Nintendo games will cost $69.99.

[XiNatsuDragnel]

Oh boy this sucks.

[VenomUK]

People judge value for money differently.

Some people are happy to pay $70 for Redfall. Some people are happy to pay $70 for Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom. Are any of these games worth the price of entry? YOU decide.

[Army_of_Darkness]

Psssh... Paying current gen prices for last gen software! Ninty gamers better lube up for this one 🤣🤣

[Tacoboto]

What's really gonna suck is when the Switch 2 releases and Nintendo shows us their version of upgrading - another full $70 with no cross-saves

[DrRobotnik]

Yep

[GotGame818]

TLOU PS3, TLOU Remastered for PS4, and then TLOU remake PS5, Sony released TLOU 3 times, in 9 years! Talk about milking it!

[MADGameR]

If Nintendo fans want a change, then don't buy those $70 games. Watch the sales fail and then Nintendo will see that the Nintendo fans don't like the $70 price tag. But let's face the reality, that'll never happen because Nintendo fans will always support their games nomatter what the cost. That is why they will always get away with these business practices. You don't like the price? Well you're just one person.......try stopping the other millions of Nintendrones that will pay $70 for PS3-era graphics like games. LOL Goodluck!

[ZycoFox]

That means an even longer wait for them to drop in price then, since Nintendo games hold their price as it is.

So when's the next system coming out? It's way overdue..

[jambola]

The switch only came out 6 years ago
How is it overdue?

[NecrumOddBoy]

It’s 6 years old and 4 generations behind.

[stloony]

They were already behind the times when it came out 6 years ago.

Thankfully the quality of Nintendo's 1st party games are still enough to warrant their support.

[Exvalos]

It was outdated 6 years ago, you clearly can see what the steam deck is doing, nintendo needs to be ar least ps4 level At this point

[Smitty2020]

Because it struggles to run games

[Neonridr]

I love how the 2nd sentence literally contradicts the first. Way to go journalism.

[Nyxus]

Nintendo said to Game Informer that this isn't a trend for all games going forward.

On if this is the trend for Nintendo titles going forward:
"No. We determine the suggested retail price for any Nintendo product on a case-by-case basis."

https://www.gameinformer.co...

[Neonridr]

this article literally says that 1st party titles will cost $70 from now on, then the next sentence says "we don't know if all future titles will cost this much".

Why not just say Zelda 2 costs $70.

just a strange article all around.

[badz149]

@Neonridr

FOR NOW! Zelda will start it and they know people will buy it regardless, thus, it's safe to assume that all Nintendo's 1st party titles going forward will launch at $70, knowing Nintendo!

[neutralgamer1992]

Because do you really expect Nintendo to charge less? This is the same company that over charges for everything so given the option we can assume they will do the same now

[jambola]

Lol didn't even realize that
Wow

[gerbintosh]

Journalism? Regurgitating facts from other articles found online is not journalism. No interviews, no research, no journalism

[GotGame818]

This isn't true, and my link will show that. Nintendo said Zelda's price won't be the new normal. They will price games "on a case by case basis". If it were true Metroid Prime Remastered wouldn't be $39.99.

https://n4g.com/news/253549...

[Traecy]

Popular first party Switch games will now be $70. LOL!

[TeamIcoFan]

Behold!
Inflation at work!

[jambola]

Yeah it's kind of weird how up on arms people are
I remember 60 being the normal around 2010 when I goty PS3, so it seems like a normal increase

[LOGICWINS]

The price isn't the issue as much as the lack of justification for said price.

If it was $70 for a 1440p/60fps version of TOTK with HDR on updated hardware, then the $70 wouldn't be an issue for most people.

Despite inflation, Sony and Microsoft are still giving you better resolution/performance for the same price as Ninty's 800p/25fps games....that's a BIG problem IMO.

[jznrpg]

Because their games cost much less to make as they are using almost PS3 tech. Sony spends 50-100 million to give high end games using very high end assets mocap voice actors etc . Most Nintendo games don’t even use voice acting , using lower end assets and largely don’t use mocap but charging as if their game cost 50-100 million to make. I totally see the issue with it .
If they had a console that wasn’t using left over Nvidia Shield parts for the same price since launch and had some actual power and gave us current generation graphics, voice acting etc it would be a justified price . But they don’t .

Nintendo is notorious for milking gamers with no sales high end prices but lowest end tech .
I love games like Xenoblade and Fire Emblem but they could be so much more if Nintendo wasn’t only thinking about the bottom line.
Hopefully they go all out with their next handheld console but I don’t much hope at all .
I would pay 500$ and I believe most Nintendo fans would too or possibly even more for a good console but they want to make money at launch with the console .

They should also be pumping out more games but they have been drip feeding them .
They even went with a lesser production cost with Fire Emblem this time than Three Houses because they are cheap . It’s a good game but not near Three Houses imo. Nintendo is about high margins low investment as possible and it sucks .

[JL2930]

800p? Screen is 720 native and anything that half way pushes the hardware runs at 480p or 360p. LOL.

[bangoskank]

I could totally understand a game like Final Fantasy XVI being $70 but I will never pay $70 for a Switch game. If consumers allow Nintendo to take advantage of them like this then it is their fault.

[Yui_Suzumiya]

I've paid $250 for a Switch game.. but it was the Collector's Edition of Clannad which was an LRG release.

[jznrpg]

I have Clannad for PS4 but maybe I’ll go buy the Switch one online . I know I’m going to pay out the a$$ but oh well. I don’t collect most Switch games though as it doesn’t run half as good as PS5 just on loading times . Only the exclusives I buy but Clannad is one of my favorite older anime’s so maybe I’ll get one

[TiredGamer]

Pay for what you want. Inflation and the gradually falling value of the dollar are processes that will always play into reality.

[bangoskank]

If this is inflation then why are ps4 games still $59.99. Are you trying to tell me that the development of this Zelda game cost more to make than God of War: Ragnorok or Horizon: Forbidden West. This is simply Nintendo jumping on a bandwagon they do not belong on and ripping off their fanbase. Them not lowering the price of five year-old games is also an indication of this. It's so blatant it's almost comical.

[TiredGamer]

The new generation is a more logical jumping off point to adjust costs. Inflation is a constant process, but gaming consumers would find it odd to have game prices increase by $2 each year.

The common man will better rationalize/understand that a PS5 game costs more than a PS4 game, even if the costs are spread across all platforms. Can also make the argument that higher sales volume will constitute the ability to accept a lower price to generate the same revenue.

[Mortar2142]

It's baffling how Sony and Microsoft suffers all backslash from this sort of decision but the community jumps to Nintendo's defense as if they are somehow pro consumers all of a sudden.

[LOGICWINS]

Not defending Nintendo, but I think we should at least wait until June/July to see if we
get new hardware.

I suspect that the $70 premium is likely due to there being a "free upgrade" when the Switch 2 comes out. MW2 Remake did this with the "Cross-Gen Bundle" for $70. There was no $60 option of Xbox One players. It was $70 with an included Series X upgrade. This could be the same scenario.

$70 for two versions of a game isn't a bad deal. It's a hell of a lot better than Sony charging three times for TLOU 1.

[Mortar2142]

@LOGICWINS
I find your argument valid but very unlikely. Nintendo is well known for offering awful discounts on games released back on 2016 so it would be too much out of character to offer a "free upgrade". They have never made a single pro consumer decision in the last decade as far as I can remember.

[georeo]

Oh they will. They probably would say “just take my money now”

[jambola]

I wouldn't mind as much if they lowered prices for older games
But I guess why would they when people buy anyway

[GotGame818]

Back in the days of Gamecube and Wii, Nintendo did lower prices on popular games. They would drop games that sold millions of copies to $19.99 and call them Nintendo Selects.

[iivGHOST]

Lol wow thats awful tbh

[SPEAKxTHExTRUTH]

You can thanks Sony for this trend. The same way you people like to blame MS for paying to play online you can credit Sony to being the 1st console manufacturer to charge $70. Sorry if this hurts some feelings but it’s the truth…

[Elda]

Charging $70 for AAA games on current-gen consoles was inevitable knowing AAA games started costing $60 in 2005, that's 15 years at $60 for 2 console generations. Charging $70 for a game on the same old tech,same old engine,same old console running at the resolutions of 720p/900p @ 30fps is ridiculous.

[SPEAKxTHExTRUTH]

Charging $70 period is a rip off. Don’t justify this price increase for games that can run on last gen. Name a single $70 game that can’t run on last gen? I’ll wait…None of these games I’ve seen this gen are worth the price increase but you guys go right ahead and try to defend these companies for ripping us off…

[RauLeCreuset]

@Speak

"None of these games I’ve seen this gen are worth the price increase but you guys go right ahead and try to defend these companies for ripping us off…"

Am I missing something? You didn't say anything critical in your OP about the subject of the article raising prices. You jumped straight to blaming Sony with a sour comment drawing a false equivalency to people blaming MS for online. How are you now pointing the finger at other people for defending these companies when you used a questionable deflection to take the focus off the subject of the article raising prices?

[Petebloodyonion]

And on what basis can you say it was inevitable?
Did Sony raise the price for PS4 games?

Since the answer is No that means there must be an extra cost to produce the PS5 version that can only be absorbed by a price increase (like the price of chips for the console) right?

So let's see:
A new in-house graphics engine made for Ps5 games (ex Unreal 5)? Nope
A new medium like a cartridge that the cost has to be passed to the consumer? Nope
A sharp decline in profit or sales? Nope

So again what's your basis for the price increase?

here's mine
the combination of: PPLS are willing to pay more for less, and, consumers rely on price to determine the quality of a product.
In our case, the consumers made it clear that they are willing to pay more and believe that they should pay more to separate the value of product A from B (best example a DVD movie cost less versus a Bluray version).
Also, Sony has an easy accurate tool to validate that metric called the various collector/special/deluxe editions of their games that consist often of paying 10$ more for basically nothing (skins, currency, emote).
https://www.playstation.com...

If a lot of ppl buy the tier 2 version of the game it's easy to say that in the worst case, they would buy the basic offering instead while some would still buy tier 2, and a minority would not buy the game or buy it on the previous console.

[RauLeCreuset]

That narrative ignores a few truths.

Sony may be the first console manufacturer to charge $70 this gen, but there were 3rd party publishers doing it regardless. That isn't something that was going to go unnoticed by console manufacturers publishing their own games. I haven't heard any compelling reason why being the first among console manufacturers is significant in this context.

Increasing game prices are not a trend that started with Sony or that started this generation, nor was it a practice that was popularized by Sony or during this generation. It is not the comparison to paying to play online you're trying to make it. Sure, you can choose to narrow the scope to only look at which of the console manufacturers were first to charge more this gen, but what purpose does that serve given 3rd parties were already going down that path, and it's only a new trend if you establish this gen as the cutoff and ignore the rest of console history?

[Outside_ofthe_Box]

It's Sony's fault! Despite 3rd parties doing it before them... Maybe if the same people that are quick to say "it's Sony's fault!" said that the first time a 3rd party publisher raised their price instead of waiting for a console manufacturer that they hate to raise their price before they complain, we wouldn't be here? Maybe...

[Petebloodyonion]

@ RauLeCreuset
"That isn't something that was going to go unnoticed by console manufacturers publishing their own games"
Yet console manufacturers are often seen as the ones legitimizing a move.
For instance, Microsoft is often blamed for Microtransactions. Are they the 1st? no, Are they the worst? no.

The same applies here and I could give you the perfect example of that by bringing back the fact that, EA, Take Two and Ubisoft did try to raise the price of AAA (in 2015) and revert to the normal price because the industry didn't follow suit.

[RauLeCreuset]

@Pete

"For instance, Microsoft is often blamed for Microtransactions. Are they the 1st? no, Are they the worst? no."

They are often called out for using MTs, or they are often blamed for starting the trend of MTs? Those are two different things.

"The same applies here and I could give you the perfect example of that by bringing back the fact that, EA, Take Two and Ubisoft did try to raise the price of AAA (in 2015) and revert to the normal price because the industry didn't follow suit."

1) Source that claim please.

2) You're not arguing that PS started a trend. You're trying to shift the argument to faulting them for not blocking it.

[Outside_ofthe_Box]

"You can thanks Sony for this trend. The same way you people like to blame MS for paying to play online you can credit Sony to being the 1st console manufacturer to charge $70. Sorry if this hurts some feelings but it’s the truth…"

Interesting you say this as if you yourself personally don't blame MS for online paywall, but since others you do you might as well use it to justify blaming Sony for $70 games... interesting

[Elda]

Charging retail price of $70 now for AAA games on current gen consoles after paying $60 retail price for AAA games for the past 15 years..for 2 console generations is not a rip off. Again the price of AAA games after 2 generations have past is inevitable to go up in price especially when the new generation has new powerful consoles. Did you really think AAA games were going to stay $60 for 3,4 or 5 generations? If there was a Switch 2 or a new Nintendo console running the new Zelda at 4k & 60fps then I would definitely agree to Nintendo charging $70. Not $70 for running the game on the same old Switch at low resolutions @30fps.

[BehindTheRows]

Name a single game? Rift Apart.

Any other nonsense you want to talk? You try to justify paywalls while blaming Sony for $70 games. Get real!

[northpaws]

- weak console
- bad graphic
- high price
- never drop price

sigh....

[Sgt_Slaughter]

- Still runs games at 1080p/60fps docked when developers actually take the time to optimize for the hardware and it's portable, had they made it more powerful and it drained batteries like nobody's business people would still complain
- Nintendo games go on sale more than they ever have, sometimes ending up 50% off or more during big sale days, and they're the only first-party console maker that has a digital way of buying games cheaper that actually makes a difference (their certificate program). I get it, the games holding their prices sucks but why would they drop them much? People buy them in droves at full prices most of the time. What business would go against that just to make a few people happy?

[northpaws]

Still run some games at 1080p/60fps doesn't mean it is actually powerful, it just mean developers lowered the graphic to make that happens, there are simple no "1080p console" or "4k console", someone can tune up a game so high that even PS5 can't run at 640p, it doesn't mean anything.

Battery wouldn't be an issue if it is an actual console, not a half ass console with 32Gb storage and no voice chat that are uncomfortable to hold without a third party case.

Nintendo went for full gimmick instead of actual good design.

Docked or not, it won't run the next Zelda at 1080p even at 30fps.

And are you saying dropping price would only make a FEW people happy? You mean the millions of people who buy their games at full price would be mad that they can now pay less? You are not making sense.

To me, the best Nintendo consoles are SNES, N64, GC, actually powerful consoles that run the best games of that generation, hack even Wii U is better than the Switch.

[senorfartcushion]

They’re just following the trend. Every other company has increased their prices MULTIPLE times over the years.

Is it a bad decision and should they pay for it?

Yes and yes.

[stloony]

Yeah, I get that development is costly regardless of what system a game is being developed on.

BUT, when you are behind the times in resolutions and fps....you are offering a product with less "features" so to say, that the gaming community wants and is already paying for almost everywhere else.

That alone should be reason enough to stick to $60.

When you include the fact that nintendo may only ever reduce the price of their games by $10 during a holiday sale, and that they never reduce 1st party prices......even $60 can be argued to be too much, $70 is just ridiculous without ever bring down the prices.

[masterfox]

well god luck with that, there is absolutely no justification for such increment, the sad thing about it lots of people will still keep supporting it, whats even worse it gives the wrong idea to other developers that tries to thrive and be better in what they do like create better visuals, better stories, bigger detailed worlds, so an increment in cost in those games are clearly justified, but then here comes Nintendo with its mediocrity in technology of games that could run in a PS3 or 360 asking the same price as those that are current gen?, well thats kind of BS for the whole game industry, other devs will be like why would us even try now to be better and create rich detailed games if this company are charging the same amount for such low end games, lots of people will not see the bigger picture here what Nintendo is doing is bad for the whole game industry.

[sadraiden]

Sorry, this is hot on the heels of the previous article that said that Nintendo will not be pricing their games @ $70 going forward. Excuse me if the contradiction is met with dismission.

[CrimsonWing69]

Thought it was a “case-by-case” basis?

[Sgt_Slaughter]

it is, this article contradicts themselves immediately after stating something as fact.

Some games will still be $59.99 USD or lower, in the case of Metroid Prime Remastered which released at $39.99

[thecodingart]

Yeah, not buying it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Relientk77]

Looks like I'm buying less Nintendo games. There are a bunch I don't even think are worth $60 lol . I ain't paying $70 for those.

[gold_drake]

this just means that the prices will not change for a long whole. since they mever drop in price over in Nintendo land.

[SoloGamer1]

Nintendo is really NOT consumer friendly. a six year old console, that CANT compete with the likes of PS5/XBox Series X performance wise, and they want to now charge $70 for their first party games?! no thanks,

[MWH]

We live in dark times.

[Dandizzle]

For me personally I'm willing to pay $70, these games take a huge amount of work from many many talented people who have worked long hours for years, and during covid. Paying a measly $10 more is not that huge a deal.

If anyone is not willing to accept the price hike then just don't buy the game. Or wait the years it takes to drop in price.

[Smellsforfree]

I mean it sucks, but I'm still going to be buying it because I know there is a really good chance that it will be at least 50 hours of enjoyment if not more if it is on the same level as BOTW (which I have over 100 hours invested in).

I think the price increase across the board (XBox and Playstation games too) sucks, but I'm not going to give up gaming and find a new hobby over it.

[Chocoburger]

Yikes, PS3 / X360 era hardware generation games charging $70? Stuttering framerates and less than 1080p resolution with constant pop-in? Unacceptable.

Atmosphere all the way.

[TheEnigma313]

Very simple. If we don't buy, the prices will drop. Some of you will still defend the price tag though.

[StarkR3ality]

For last gen game? Come on now...

[adaminoregon]

I will never pay 70 dollars for any game. I wait until a price drop or two and the games are actually finished which is usually a few months after release.

[LucidIllusion]

Surprise surprise

[hiawa23]

No surprise.

[Stevonidas]

This comment section is a sad reminder that most gamers are still broke-ass losers in 2023.

[navi87]

Too true, that's why Sony and Microsoft have to sell at a loss for the first couple of years since most wouldn't be able to afford their console. People want more for less.

[chobit_A5HL3Y]

nintendo has THE most delusional fanbase out there and are just one of the most greedy companies in general. not sure why they're always getting a free pass on their bs all the time either. like, ms and sony will release their exclusive titles, and within a year, usually within 6 months, you'll be able to find them at 50%+ off either on their own online marketplace or through another vendor on a regular basis. nintendo on the other hand. they've got games that pretty much launched with the switch and you might get a 20% off once a year if nintendo's feeling generous.

not to mention their hardware is sub-par before it even launches in terms of tech, and even the joy cons have issues that still haven't been fixed/addressed to this day. so, why exactly are they raising their prices? they're not pushing the envelope in terms of tech, or anything for that matter, so costs definitely aren't going up with them having to do r&d or buying new tech, and they haven't fixed major issues that have been present since the launch of their latest console(the switch). so why is the cost of their games going up along side their competitors when they haven't bothered to keep up with anything? the switch is basically selling ps3 games for current gen prices and some people are trying to justify that practice because... what? it's portable? the steam deck is also portable and blows it out of the water in every way possible. not only that, the games are the same price or cheaper. but hey, it's nintendo, so it's ok, they get a free pass.

[navi87]

They make great games. Isn't that what's important for consoles?

In regards to the Steamdeck, its marketed as being able to play AAA games...yeah in 720p and with FSR enabled which allows you to play at just about 30 fps. It will be obsolete in a years time. Awesome lol

[chobit_A5HL3Y]

so you bring up the steamdeck not being good and saying it will be obsolete in a year's time but completely ignore the fact that the switch was obsolete by multiple generations before it even released, can't hold a steady 30fps on a regular basis(or even its own store), and also only supports 720p? steam also objectively has access to a far larger library of games and just better exclusives overall than the switch.

and look, if you fall under the delusional nintendo fanboy; go nuts. have fun. but you paying an increased price tag and being ok with it for no reason other than that, "it's nintendo", is exactly what's wrong with them. your, "They make great games. Isn't that what's important for consoles? ", argument is a poor one for the costs going up and shouldn't even be a factor in this case. you're essentially saying that if they started charging 500$ per game as they're good, then that's ok with you. do you not value your money and actually think about what you're using it for? lol it doesn't bother you at all that nintendo increases their prices, "just because", mid-gen, when they haven't upgraded a single thing? ps4/xbo-ps5/xbs upping their prices is bogus, too, but at least they've introduced brand new consoles to somewhat create the illusion that it's costing more.

[TheCaptainKuchiki]

That much for the same copy pasted games ?

[Rutaprkl]

Greedy

[Aussiesummer]

Well they need to bring out some new suitably first party hardware.

[Father__Merrin]

I can recall outrage at Sony for increasing with ppl say Ha 79 dollar games sux

[chrislinc79]

Nintendo was charging about 80 dollars for N64 games in the late 90s . Which it's around 140 dollars now. Nintendo is always overcharging , what new.