If Nintendo wants to go the route of “some games deserve be more than $60” then they also have to accept that a good portion of their games deserve to be less than $60 Edit: Yes I know that Prime is only $40, but for every Metroid Prime there's two or three Mario Tennis Aces or a DK tropical freeze port selling for more than its launch price (great game still). Prime is the exception, not the rule
Yeah, Pokemon Company. But also arguably in the positive Kirby games are so consistently well made they would make that above 60 argument. Something as im writing this I wonder how many would accept.
Better idea - they need to drop the price of the peripherals. I would gladly spend as much as $100 on a new Zelda game, if it only cost $20-$30 to replace the Drift-suffering Joycons.
@@sirensongss That's the one rare exception though. Most of their ports/remasters cost $60 on release even ones that had less content than their original like New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe.
My biggest issue with the price raise is the fact that Nintendo hardly ever puts their games on discount, even if they're several years old. And when they do, it's impossible to find a title on a discount higher than 30%
Exactly. Breath of the Wild came out in 2017 and it’s still $60, maybe $50- something at best. And I can’t afford game for my 3ds without modding anymore.
Nintendo only really keels over on Black Friday: the only occasion where BotW was 40 dollars in the US. Whereas Mario Day is an annual thing since their sales doesn’t catch up to Zelda and Pokémon
@@dissonanceparadiddleif you prefer digital and don’t want to swap cartridges. The idea of always having BOTW with you, even if you don’t grab the cartridge, is pretty great.
Ease. They resold WiiU -> Switch games at higher values and charge us for online service that costs more and more for good features. I look at Pokémon Violet and Look at Pokémon Omega Sun and wonder is there really such a large difference
A very important point you didn't bring up is that Nintendo rarely discounts their games. When Sony or Ubisoft sell $70 games they generally go 50% off within 6 months so it's only a big price increase for people who buy day one.
Sony are starting to follow Nintendos pattern. Ratchet and clank ps5 is still 100$ in canada for me. It very rarely goes on sale. Your point is really not as valid anymore.
True. I tend to spend more money on Nintendo games than any other company because they almost never drop in price, despite Nintendo games looking over 20 years old and often having less content. I love Nintendo games, and now that I'm a father, being shorter and quicker to beat is actually a bonus to me. But they shouldn't cost as much as the games I'm buying on PS5.
Something I'd like to point out, most videogames tend to drop to a lower price after about a year or two, go on sale even. Nintendo games stay the same price for a very long time and hardly go on sale. The only price drop you'll find are from used copies.
@@TheKingRiku That's not an official sale, and even then you will not get a discount close to what you find for every other platform (especially PC). You can find 60%-90% off sales on huge games on Steam all the time for example, games newer and bigger than 5+ year old Switch games which still cost $60 new, or MAYBE $40 during the biggest Nintendo sale you ever see.
I honestly think the game will be extremely disappointing too. We’ve seen the same handful of enemies just with slight changed to them, no sign of actual Dungeons so more of the same sh!t with shrines and Devine beasts that all look the same too. 😪
The $70 price tag hits a lot harder with Nindendo than other studios because you know that stuff's never going to go on sale. So whatever they decide on for the launch price is going to stick for a long, long time.
Maybe perversely but for me Nintendo's reticence to ever put a game on sale makes me apt to just buy it right away if I wanted it. I don't like supporting Nintendo's hardware and I'm not approving of their business practices but frankly breath of the wild and now tears of the Kingdom are both just far too good to pass up. I originally bought the switch to play breath of the wild and in my mind I kind of thought if it lasted up until the next Zelda game that they would be a decent deal so in the end I guess I'm not too disappointed Even if I wish this game ran at 1080p at 60 frames a second
I bought and played TotK having never played BotW. I got my Switch when BotW was a 3 year old game. I’ve never been a huge Zelda fan, so I didn’t want to pay $60 for a 3 year old game from a series I wasn’t that interested in. Now it’s a 6 year old game and it’s still $60. Occasionally it goes on sale for $40, but any other game that old would be $20-30 without a sale.
You should have also talked about how TOTK is the first Nintendo game on switch to be above 16gb meaning they have to use a more expensive card for the game. The counter to this is that the Witcher 3 also used a 32 gb card but didn't charge $70.
@@beauwalker9820 bruh, our phones are portable ... The tech in the switch is from an Android tablet from almost a decade ago. My fucking phone can emulate the switch at more stable frame rates than the switch itself
I think the best example of this is the pricing of Gamecube games by the end of the lifecycle for the Wii. Due to the backwards compatibility Gamecube games were still sold in stores right alongside the Wii games. By the time the Wii U launched, Mario Sunshine was ten years old, Thousand Year Door was eight, and Twilight Princess was six. And yet a new copy of all three were still set at the exact same price as when they came out and the only way to get a discount was to buy them 'used' from Gamestop.
I do get annoyed by that but that’s why I keep an eye out for sales at GameStop and other stores that sell Switch games as they’ll eventually drop them down to a pretty good price. Black Friday and December in general is usually the best for this. Heck as another example Best Buy was selling Breath Of The Wild for twenty dollars off a month before Nintendo did it on their eShop and sure 20 dollars less isn’t that big of a deal but for a game that’s been out for as long as that one has it’s basically a steal.
I was so thrown off when each point came back around and the other side wasn't getting increasingly louder and angrier, lol. Makes you realize how rare it is to see such civilized debate. Although, I guess it's easier when you're arguing with yourself.
I would like to point out that in the Uk breath of the wild was already £59.99 when it came out which is equivalent to $70 so we have already had to pay $70 before. But the only two games which were £59.99 or $70 were Smash Ultimate and Breath of the wild, so hopefully that shows what kind of games would most likely get this $70 treatment. Great video by the way, I liked the way it was made!
Smash Ultimate and Breath of the Wild are also €69.99 in Ireland (and I'd assume across Europe) which comes out as $74.15... so we were already paying more. Used the €99 vouchers for those and gonna be using one for this game too. but yeah, glad to see your comment and know I wasn't going insane or anything
You literally created the perfect template for how a healthy respectable debate of two different perspectives on a particular topic can be conducted. Wish this was more common.
@@Portersona69420 came here to say the same thing. My world is shattered. What's next, Santa doesn't really go to every house in the world in one night?
I love this dual argument style. I honestly think the $70 price tag is scary only because of Nintendos unwillingness to put games on sale. I’m a casual nintendo fan and that is 100% because I don’t want to pay $60 for a 3 or 4 year old game. Mario Odyssey by this point should be a $20 game if you are comparing it to games that came out around the same time on other platforms. If Nintendo does the $70 price tag, I hope they are willing to reduce the prices a year later to make it more accessible to more people.
@@HandheldGamer1991 Ya that sucks. Although at least for DS enough time has passed where the price could go up because the games have been discontinued for a while and have become rarer. 3DS is dumb because it’s not even that old (in terms of when the console/games stopped being discontinued).
@@mrshmuga9 3Ds sadly makes sense, the eShop closed last year. (okay if you jump through a bunch of hoops you can maybe get money on your 3DS until March 2023, but they stopped accepting credit cards in May 2022 and effectively closed the shop for most buyers since you can't buy anything if they don't take your payment)
I think also assuming tears of the Kingdom will be as good as breath of the wild it's pretty fair. However I really do think that Nintendo games are hugely overpriced. I own so few games just because of how expensive they are
@@themysterykid1 it actually does, in fact most AAA games should cost more than 100 dollars because of inflation. Some decades ago the minimum wage was below 8$ an hour while now in many places its over 12$ an hour while the prices of AAA games stayed the same. Not to mention the cost of production.
Arlo straight up decided that since he can't have a calm rational discussion with respectful differing opinions with someone else, why not have it with himself? Really though, I love this layout. I also loved the Spicy Take Salad. It feels like he's just getting to the point where he finally feels comfy expressing his opinions without worrying about others. Let's all enjoy disagreeing respectfully.
I'll give it to you Arlo, this video was genius. The concept was gold, the execution was flawless and the timing on the back-and-forths was so convincing that it honestly felt like two people presenting the most sincere arguments they could think of to convince the other. I'd love to see more stuff like this.
Agreed, that is how a genuine debate should sound. Two people sharing their case while acknowledging the strengths in their opponents argument...if only all debates could be like this one 😔
This is how I find out if a game is worth my money. 1. Don't pre-order 2. Watch several reviews after the game release. 3. Check online if some stores offer it for cheaper than the eshop.
now that the game is actually out, I think it's safe to say it was DEFINITELY worth the price. even if it's technically on "older hardware" the new areas and stuff to do easily makes it over triple the size of botw. the fact that it can run on the switch at all is nothing short of a miracle, and it even runs at a consistent framerate.
Wait what? Two people with differing opinions can actually speak calmly and nicely to eachother without devolving to name calling and insults.... I am so confused; what witchcraft is this?
I think you're misdiagnosing what's going on with "discussion" on the internet. Most of the time, people are really past the "discussion" phase by the time they're speaking publicly on social media. A discussion is something you can have when you're trying to figure out what you think, and it's not something people tend to do publicly, let alone on the internet. It requires too much vulnerability and trust for that. The people on Twitter and Facebook who I'm guessing you're throwing shade at here are past that point. They have moved on to, at best, trying to promote their own already calcified views. Probably much more often, they're just fighting "the other team" to make themselves feel good. Our social media platforms are designed to inculcate this because it produces a lot more engagement. And while I agree it's good that Arlo is willing to expose his own thought processes and admit his ambivalence about a hotly debated topic, I don't think it should be used to denigrate others. I guess you can choose to blame all the individual users getting drawn in for not being "civil enough" if you want, but given the scale of the problem, that viewpoint doesn't really suggest any solutions that are likely to work.
In the meantime in Europe ... BotW was already €65 - €70 most of the time. Usually, prices for games and consoles simply swap out the dollar symbol for the euro symbol.
It’s not as bad but in the UK there’s a lot of swapping out the dollar symbol for the pound. Maybe they make the number a bit smaller but it still ends up costing more when you consider the exchange rate.
I think the biggest problem is that most people aren't being PAID more to justify spending this amount of money for what is just a hobby at the end of the day
the other problem is, while we are in fact paying less for games than we used to (the NES/SNES/Genesis generation, where they were no longer luxury items, but EVERYONE seemed to have one, or they were shunned by anyone and everyone in school, lol), we don't see it as such because back then it was our PARENTS who paid for it, not us.
In response to this I've heard people say "Just get a better job", but at this point that's what you need to do just to have as much buying power as you did before. If you haven't received at least a 15% raise in the past couple years, you're poorer than you used to be.
Absolutely adore the decision to properly explore both sides of the argument without a clear bias towards one or the other. Wish more UA-camrs did that
the problem with charging $70 for a game is considering accessibility all of the other countries and currency conversion, australia for example is going to charge $90 for tears of the kingdom which is absolutely mind boggling to me. i 100% understand why its like that but it just seems crazy to me how they expect other countries to cough up over $100 of dollars potentially in the future.
Living in Canada, I decided to not buy Zelda at launch. This is way more than I am willing to buy without a sale. With tax, we're edging tiwards a 115$ investment
It's crazy when u consider these prices in developing countries, 70$ is more than 25% of the monthly minimum wage where I live. And Unlike steam, for example, which sometimes offers different prices depending on where you live, nintendo doesn't support that (for my country at least) leading to ridiculous prices after currencies conversion.
I might be bold enough to make the claim that he does understand both sides accurately. Possibly not, but to me it seemed like he covered most of the bases that would be gone over on either side.
Phenomenal job Arlo. You really nailed every point. Finishing with the “well we’ve come full circle, so let’s end here.” was absolutely brilliant. You deserve all the attention for this one.
I think the biggest way the 70$ price will effect me is ill just get more picky when i buy AAA games and probably look at more indie titles to get my fill.
I am already there to be honest. 60$ was already an exception for me, only like once a year for the games I am most excited about. I am big onto waiting for years for a good sale and buying used.
I LOVE the style of this video. The format of presenting both arguments in a respectful way with what seems like very little bias. It's fun, it gets both points across, and capping it off with 'no, we haven't gotten any closer to a solution' perfectly sums up the whole fiasco. Great work with this one!
Consumer: Wow, you guys are making a lot of profit. Company: Yeah, but times are good. Customer: Wow, this is expensive and you guys are making a lot of profit. Company: Yeah but times are tough.
This is capitalism 101 baby. If demand is there and they can control supply, they can charge more. I don't understand why people who think nintendo is overcharging or underdelivering on content care so much... just don't buy it. Its easy to do. I've not bought literally thousands of games over the years.
@@kj_H65f I'm not against capitalism. I'm a capitalist. I'm against bullshit. Yeah, they can charge whatever they want but I'm not going to sit here and suck up excuses like a dog. I have freedom of speech, so I don't need to buy their product in order to call them greedy. Inflation is straight up an excuse. Video games are an overpriced luxury item anyway, inflation has nothing to do with this. Video games do not cost $60 to make. $60 is what people are willing to pay. That's why Skyrim cost the same amount as that god awful Golden Axe reboot. They're charging 70 purely because they think people will pay it. I don't know why people like you think capitalism means never complain and let companies bend you over a railing.
@Andrew Pyle Okay, fine I'll take the bait. Yes there is. They can set the price to whatever they think it's worth. If people don't want to buy the game for $70...then they won't buy the game. But if it is worth the money, people will (and should) buy it. Will you buy it? Why or why not? I'll say this at least: I certainly will. It's a sequel to one of my favorite games of all time. It's absolutely worth 70 dollars to me. Mario tennis on the other hand isn't even worth thirty bucks to me. Sidenote: If you're saying "why charge more money, it only hurts the lower class, why the massive companies gotta be greedy"...I feel like this argument only applies to items that would qualify as necessities. (Food, housing, health care, utilities, etc). Games however, are a luxury item. We are not entitled to cheap entertainment.
Putting the actual topic aside this was a really clever way to present the 2 sides of things, I can tell you had fun with this one. I'd love to see you use this format again for other similar topics
I don’t bother. Even with Nintendo games I’ll wait. Luckily, I still get birthday/Christmas gifts so that’s two free games out of the year. I’ve recently discovered that my credit card had cash back, so I’ve used that once or twice, but I usually wait until they’re $50. That’s about as low as they go in CAD. Luckily Pikmin 4 comes out right around my birthday, lol.
My hat is off to you Arlo. This is a subject that a lot of us hold strong opinions on and they way you handled it was fantastic. It isn’t just cut and dry there are a lot of layers here. Really nice job in presenting this in a way that most people on both sides will feel heard. Seriously, great job!
I adore this immensely, I think it’s an amazing way for Arlo to express a back and forth issue while maintaining comedy and a shocking amount of fairness to both sides of the issue. I really hope for more of this.
One of the reasons I love his reviews. He usually does a really great job at expressing his gripes about games without seeming like it's just "Oh x isn't y so it sucks". And when he praises games, it feels fairly genuine.
@@Smuggy97 sometimes he goes overboard, and can be biased though, like his hate of the Sonic 2 movie stemmed from him barely knowing anything about the Sonic series, and his "characters that need to be retired" list included a few characters that actually were retired for many years, (like Andross and the Koopalings) and only recently brought back.
@@RadzPrower im okay with upping the price to 70 to cover the cost for inflation AS LONG AS we have the right to expect and demand the same quality as their past projects, the continually downgrade and ask for more money is a joke
This precedent has been said since 2020, this precedent has been in the works for 15-20 years while the cost of games was $60, so why act shocked at this inevitability? This also pales in comparison to n64 and older titles launching at $60-80 back in the early 90s!
Retro understands that their game is 20 years old at its core, and that Metroid isn't a franchise with a very large fan base. Had they charged $60 for that remaster, it wouldn't sell nearly as well, and therefore cut off potential buyers of Metroid Prime 4.
They just develop the game, it was ultimately Nintendo who priced it that way. I like to think that it’s a combination of the game being even older than Skyward Sword and needing to promote Metroid Prime 4
@@Antasma1 I'm still a bit baffled why that isn't metroid prime trilogy to be honest then. Unless MP4 is going so poorly again they feel they can pump out remasters of the 3 games before it comes out and/or additionally to subsidize it. In which case...ooof. But I doubt/hope it isnt that.
@@Gungho73 well there’s no way they were ever going to release 3 visually overhauled games in one trilogy. A rerelease with some modded controls wouldn’t really appeal to new players, since the GameCube era games haven’t aged that well. The whole point is to try and get new players into the series so they’ll buy the new game when it comes out. If Nintendo remasters 2 and 3 it will be after 4 comes out for sure.
@@mdreezy_ I just meant Metroid Prime Trilogy, which WAS available on their last platform. I can agree with the visual reasons and potential controller reasons too.
My take on it is that if it was any game that got a price increase, this is the one I would accept. My huge worry is that when tears of the kingdom inevitably sells well, that will become justification for it to become standard practice somewhere down the line. Because while I don’t mind it this time, I don’t think I would like if it started happening for several other Nintendo series, that are already pushing it by costing 60 dollars
Honestly, Nintendo should have been charging way more than $60 for years now. The quality of their games is incomparable in the industry. I'd gladly accept $100 US for a Zelda, Mario, or Pokemon game. Stuff like Metroid should should be $40 or less though, as they lack that Nintendo charm.
@@millykendrill5301 I'll agree with Zelda and Mario getting a higher price, but Pokemon should honestly get less. Scarlet and Violet came with bugs upon bugs within the game's launch week, and even though they are fun games, other than challenges, pokemon games more recently have had less quality overall, and are quite inconsistent between each other. Legends Arceus was an amazing game with lots of challenge and to a good chunk of people, didn't look the best, but it added a lot of quality of life changes. Hearing the shiny sound in the overworld, mass release from the boxes, easier ways to remember and forget moves, the ability to choose when a pokemon evolves, but then they removed almost all of that when Scarlet and Violet came, and even though it has one of the better stories in a pokemon game, it overall does not function the best. Zelda and Mario games are always fun and challenging. The port of Super Mario 3D world + bowser's fury was so fun, Odyssey, was so fun. There were aspects I didn't like in both of them, but they were really enjoyable because they felt complete. Breath of the Wild was really fun for me as well, but when it came to the DLC, I only have bad memories now, as the DLC for that game was just a fetch quest, and the one shot weapon they had instantly became garbage the second you completed the section for it. With the way Pokemon has been handling their games and release schedules I'm honestly annoyed to think that we're already gonna get a new Pokemon game of some sort come November. When it comes to Metroid though, I think the main problem is that they don't have enough games, and that's just for the fact that they are mechanically designed differently. TLDR: I agree with Zelda and Mario being more expensive because they have both increased and kept their quality, but Pokemon should be $40 + $20 DLC as they've kind declined in aspects since moving to 3D
@@millykendrill5301 Mario and Zelda should be and ONLY be the ones charging us $70 full price since they are Nintendo’s babies. Pokémon…should cost less than it’s regular price due to all of its bugs and just gameplay in general like…I love Pokémon and I respect it’s fan base but come on it’s been years and years and we’re STILL stuck with the SAME formula of combat since it’s debut title!
I think it's healthy to point out the flaws and hypocrisies in your own head, people are so headstrong on their first thought that it leads to more arguments rather than genuine discussions
@John Dodo I would argue that the exceptional quality and polish of a game outweighs less than standard graphical luxuries, and for reference botw is one of the most polished and least broken games I've played
@Jesus Barrera The framerate suffers in a couple areas and when spamming elemental effects, not a consistent problem and hardly enough to hurt the experience Korok forest is the most egregious offender but there's nothing to do there Overall the game isn't *broken* and I've only encountered a few accidental glitches in my hundreds of hours of playing, which is not something I can say about the majority of current gen games, not that I'm accusing them of anything, it's simply harder to hold together a game like that
I think Nintendo is using this as a test case for rolling this out across all first-party games. They'll roll it out slowly with games people absolutely will pay it for, Zelda, Mario, Pokémon. When they don't get too much pushback, it will spread.
Thanks Sony, for ruining another thing in videogames. I'm dipping out after this generation. I've got a backlog that will last me the rest of my life. Gaming has been spiraling down the toilet for a while. ✌️
@@djdoolittle1315 Yup. I'm probably contributing to the problem seing as I'm most likely getting ToTK, but I can't see many other Ninty games being worth that price for me. They're really pushing me to sail the high seas.
@@drowningin I've only been buying 2-4 years old games at huge discount + steam sale for the past few years, I've got like 350 games in my backlog, I haven't spent more than USD 12 in a given game in years, by the time I make any progress, former newer games also get discounted. Only thing I "miss" is being part of the conversation online, otherwise, I'm doing plenty fine.
In my opinion, this is one of the best videos you've ever done. This format of self-debate is one of the most original content you've created so far. The well agumented exposition of two points of view in one matter is something these kind of videos really lack of, at least from a videogame-focused standpoint. I could totally go with these to become a brand-original which is something not many videogame channels do since most of time there's a lot of bias going into each reviews, impressions and what not. I'm a regular in your channel and this is certanly the formula I enjoyed the most so far, cheers from Mexico
I really like how you structured this video, no bias to either side, simply presenting valid and actually true and well researched arguments for both sides.
I know people like you love to jerk off whenever someone sits on a fence, but he was biased. He was clearly biased toward the side of "anti $70". He gave that voice more speaking time and he made flimsier arguments on the "pro $70" side. He revealed his true opinion in this video.
Really not a fan of Nintendo making the jump to $70 especially we're nearing the end of the console generation, I imagine they did this to ease people in before launching their next console. Highly recommend people using those discount vouchers they're offering, for those who plan to play the game at launch.
They are not remotly in the middle of a console genoration. They also did this back in 2016 to ease people into paying 60 for Switch games the following year. The fact of the matter is $70 IS the norm, doesn't really matter if we agree with it or not. The only thing a induvual can do is buy the game or not, and if enough people don't buy it, they will lower the price. But this is Nintendo, and seeing how they own the top 5 most profitable videogame IP's, they are gonna sell, meaning these prices will not change.
You do have to wonder about how this looks to general audiences especially. Been paying 60 bucks which is already a lot on a platform that's existed for 6 years, now all of a sudden you have to pay 70 for the same types of games. It just doesn't seem right.
In Sweden, 60 $ Nintendo games costs 600 kr (58 USD, tax included), and Tears of the Kingdom costs 700 kr (68 USD, tax included). Often the international market is ignored in discussions like these.
It’s for reasons like this that I’ve fallen off the AAA train. Maybe the game really is worth the extra money but I don’t need big games to have fun. Lots of great indie games out there made by passionate developer-gamers and not greedy businesses.
I partially agree with you, but I'd like to point out that even most big games are made by a bunch of passionate developers. The business side of Nintendo is certainly greedy at times, but there's undoubtedly a lot of very passionate developers there as well. The thing is that the people that develop games have no control over the business decisions, so we should be looking at them as two completely different entities. I personally love the game development teams at Nintendo, but dislike the teams that are responsible for their business decisions.
@@somethin7020 I know Nintendo is filled with passionate developers, but the games they get to make are rarely of their own creation. Rather, they were greenlit because a bunch of guys in suits saw big numbers on a chart.
Problem is, the vouchers are only available in 2-packs for a total of $100, not to mention the fact that they require a paid NSO subscription to even buy them in the first place.
@@MemesToa Counterargument! One could say the vouchers are only a small part of the overall NSO service, and the fact it's only the base $20 per year service instead of the far more expensive expansion pass. Furthermore, if more Nintendo games start going for $70, you'd be saving $40 if you used both vouchers for two $70 games.
@@BostonianJake Unless, of course, you factor in the extra $20 to get the NSO subscription before buying the vouchers, which would drag your calculated savings down to only $20. Not to mention the vouchers actually being temporary, only being available for 1 year after purchase, so you’d better have another voucher-purchasable game lined up within that time or you just wasted the extra $50 you paid for the vouchers. Plus, according to your own post, this is all assuming Nintendo continues to put out more games with the already contentious $70 price tag, which is the exact problem that Arlo was covering in the main video to begin with.
@@MemesToa I can't imagine there are people getting NSO purely for the vouchers, therefore not factoring in the $20 when buying them. How is it any different from buying more games in addition the NSO yearly subscription? Most people get the NSO for the online multiplayer and retro games, with the vouchers acting as a seldom advertised bonus feature. But then again, this argument delves into the mindset of the consumer rather than Nintendo's business practices, so take this position as you will. But expanding on that, while I agree that the vouchers having an expiration date makes no sense considering the asking price, again, will the average consumer redeem one game and wait an entire year to redeem another? I'm largely projecting what I would do with the vouchers, but I'd imagine most people would use both vouchers immediately, if not within a few days of each other. Weeks at the very most. As for the $70 standardization, I guess that just boils down to me being pessimistic about the future of the games industry and Nintendo in general. I have a PS5, but I rarely pay full-price for next-gen games. I just wait for a natural discount and 9 times out of 10 I get that discount.
@@BostonianJake bruh, that just means that the people who don’t use the NSO because maintaining the online subscription is too expensive, the people who are less likely to afford a $70 game, are the ones who suffer the most. And I can tell you as a Switch user, that Nintendo games VERY rarely go on discount.
The thing is that Nintendo wanted to jump from 60 $ to 70 $ for new games but wanted start this with a game, where at least some people would discuss if the game could have the value to pay more than the regular price... but I think this will be the new regular price introduced with this game :)
@@EliteOcto It's mainly inflation though. The gaming industry have been going for a while without accounting for it, it was really only a matter of time honestly.
I appreciate that we could see '$70 is good' Arlo move the goalposts in real time. From "Nintendo is raising employee wages by 10%, so they need to charge more for their big-budget games!" to "Nintendo isn't trying to make up for the wage increase, since they've ONLY bumped up the price on TotK!" I dunno, as a Canadian who would have to pay upwards of $150 for the full game after taxes, it really rings hollow for me. S'why I'm going to have to pass on the game.
Honestly impressive how you showed how to have a heated discussion without it devolving I love it there are only 2 people that I know that I can have these kinds of conversations with
Arlo: "Why am I always sick?" Also Arlo: "I keep bags of chips in the bathroom for easy access DON'T JUDGE ME!" Sorry Arlo, not judgin, just 'splainin. Signed, a microbiologist.
Especially for Nintendo. Like a big game from anyone else costing $70? It sucks, but you wait long enough and the prices will drop or it'll come to Game Pass or something. Nintendo? That $70 is sticking. Maybe it'll drop a bit around the holidays, but not permanently and that discount would likely become $50 instead of the $40 we usually get.
Ya you nailed it, the fact that Nintendo acts like there games are like Gold is really bothersome. It's a video game, after so many years drop the fucking price and stop making people pay full price for a 5 year old game........
Yeah, games literally wont go down an entire consoles life, and then they go UP when a console's lifespan ends because Nintendo is horrible at keeping their games accessable
I’d trust them more if Nintendo occasionally released budget games for $50 or $40 new. But they just released an upscaled version of Metroid Prime for how much?
This was a great video! Loved the calm and informative way the points were laid out and it mirrored an argument I've been having with myself over this price hike.
Рік тому+159
I seldom comment but I want you to know that this is probably the best video you made. Both viewpoints are valid and I love listening to "two" persons who respect the other without resorting to strawmanning or insults. More of this, please!
The job of a consummer however is not to see both sides. It is to always demand a better deal so that they can stop corporations for creeping up with more nickel and diming. It's hiw we upkeep a balance. But with fan-culture, we make excuses for them, upsetting the balance, and this is why we pay for online play, lose ownership through subscription accounts, siffer price increases, and large corporations are allowed to abuse copyright. Our job os not to understand them. It is to counterbalance them, as they sure as heck won't care about how we feel when they look at their bank accounts.
Рік тому+4
@@Vigilanteblade I disagree. Everyone would be better off if everybody took a little time to try and understand the bigger picture and both sides of an argument. A consumer does not have any job but to consume. If I can't afford the product I won't buy it and then the company lose money. I decide if its worth it or not. It's mostly self regulated.
@Walfrid Lindsgård I never said their job was to consume. I said their job was to he a counterbalance. A corporation has one goal: "Exert control and make money" Our job is to demand better value. Untethered, companies spiral into charging us more and more, and use psychology to manipulate us into getting used to new status quos where we go "That's just how things are now". You can be certain that if consummers stood their ground, we'd still have free online play.
Рік тому+2
@@Vigilanteblade I know you didn't say that. I said that. 😁 And I don't think that the consumer has any job or responsibility at all. I also think you are simplifying the role of a company a bit. They are regular people like you and me and of course they want us to buy their stuff. Hell, we often WANT to buy their stuff. The problem is not a 10 dollar price change. Stuff like bad work environment, underpaid labour and not telling consumers what is in their products, that is the problems. If we know what's in the stuff we buy we can make the choice if its worth our money. That choice is more important than making companies charge less for their (THEIR!!!) stuff. If ultimately I decide to not buy the new Zelda because of the price that is my choice. Having access to games is not a human right. It's luxury.
@Walfrid Lindsgård by definition, corporations are entities with one goal in mind: "maximize profit for investors". They are legally-bound to do this do something called "Fiduciary duty". As such, they are incentivized to take as much money as they can from us. If we, as consummers, di nit act as a counterbalance, our rights slowly erode away and we start paying more and losing ownership. This is not something that can be denied. It's a fact. Every time we let them take more, it's money and rights we lose. Passivity hurts everyone. I care about this, and I'm tired of people letting things get worse. I don't personally care if it's not a human rights issue. I am allowed to be bummed that something I love is exploiting people.
I will say it's very interesting to see 3 big Nintendo games got price reveals on the same day that are vastly different. Zelda was revealed to be $70, Pikmin was revealed to be $60 and Metroid Prime Remastered released at $40. While Metroid Prime is not directly Nintendo there is a chance with the new $70 price hike being introduced there's a chance Nintendo might be opening up to the idea of more flexible price ranges if they're allowed to put their big boys at $70
I mean it also might be because they kind of need to trickle in the new price point without the feds getting mad. The big 3 would have made them all $70 a few years ago if it wasnt stopped
This is what kinda gets me. The Metroid Prime Remaster has been one of the best things things put out almost ever. That game is a masterclass in what a Remake should be. Not only is it one of the best remakes ever done, but it's also $40 yet still worth the $60 price tag (seriously if they announced it at $70, I'd hesitate for a few seconds and still buy it). Yet we have a remake 2D Kirby game coming out a week later, that is $60, while it has graphical improvements, etc., it isn't going to be even remotely comes close to MPR. I'd buy it up it if it was $40, but not at $60. I haven't played it, heard it was one of the best 2D Kirby games and I want it. I'm a huge Kirby fan (this is the only Kirby game I haven't played). But I don't know if I want to dish out $60 for it. As for TotK... Not even second guessing or batting an eyelash I'll pay $70 for it. Original BotW was phenomenal. It truly was one of the best gaming experiences I've had in years. I can only imagine how much greater the game is going to be. It's going to be pretty close to the game I already loved, yet so much more. And I'm down for that. I can't wait. And an extra $10 for it? I can barely buy 2 loaves of bread for the difference.
I hope that's the case because I was extremely surprised when they priced Prime Remastered at $40 when so many WiiU ports were $60, yes most of them added some new content to the ports but they didn't have the graphics completely redone either. I also miss the Nintendo Selects once games sold a ton and were out for a few years they got a $20 release, what happened to that concept?
Only point I would also add is that Totk is one of like three switch games to be printed on a 32 GB cartridge, which could definitely also be bringing the price up
@@jaketest9265 not to my knowledge but they also weren’t new games either. Honestly I’m not defending Nintendo here because there is no easy answer (and I’d obviously prefer if it stayed cheap, but I’d also prefer if all games were free soooo), but it’s another point to consider
Well... Storage is extremely cheap. With some types of storage chips, it's actually cheaper to just buy the bigger capacity chips compared to a step down as there are just way, way more of them, driving the price down. I kinda lean towards Nintendo having to shell out a bit more for the bigger cartridges, but I'm not exactly totally convinced on that.
That's essentially what they did through the NSO voucher system, granted it's a more roundabout approach and you have to buy two games. But retailers would be up-in-arms if the digital version had a lower upfront price, that's kind of where digital games staying full price originated.
the reason they're charging 70 for this title is because they can easily get away with it. The amount of fans who want this is insane so they know they can get away with it and pocket the profit for the same kinda quality as the prequel of it.
exactly, there's no other reason here besides the fact that they can. people accept it because they love the company which is the exact reason why shit cost so much now. You have people like Milly who is just willing to throw money at a company without any idea or care of what it makes a company think of its consumers.
@@savagekid94 I could afford to pay $3k per game. My family are pieces of (shlt) whlte christlam scum. But the good thing is that they at least have so much money I never have to pay for anything in my life again. Then again, me, being trans, otherkin, and atheist in America means that I am a minority. If you have an issue with that, I don't know what to tell you. I am queer and if you don't like it, too bad. The future is queer and that is that
As an aside, I would pay for there to be more double Arlo debate. That was well done But the only way to vote for games to not cost $70 is to be willing not to buy them. Because buying it, despite misgivings or complaints, still literally means it was worth that price to you. Or, I suppose, the entire community could stage an uprising (i.e.- to freak out loudly online en masse and start cancelling subscriptions in quantities enough to cause executives to not dismiss customer discontent) kind of like D&D fans recently did.
The D&D uprising was amazing, and proof of what a community banding together can accomplish. Sadly, I don't see that working with the video game community since fans are still going to shell out the money regardless, kids are going to beg their parents, and streamers/UA-camrs are still going to stream/post gameplay of it (which in turn encourages their viewers to buy it to play for themselves). The last time I ever saw a successful boycott in regards to a video game was waaaaay back when Activision first paired up with Blizzard, and they wanted to strip people of their usernames on the forums (in favor of using the real names of folks) for WoW. There was a thread with over 70 pages of replies, and the majority of us cancelled our subs and refused to have anything to do with WoW. After a long battle, they finally agreed not to do that. TL;DR: I don't believe I've ever seen something like that happen again (where a majority of video game players successfully boycotted something a game corporation attempted to do), as it requires people to actually not get or play a video game...which seems to be hard for some people to commit to (again, particularly content creators).
One thing about choosing this particular game to try out the $70 price point though is that in order to make this decision Nintendo has got to be VERY confident right now that this game will get a positive reception. Imagine paying more than you have paid for any other game on the system and then being disappointed with the final product, it would be a horrible look for the company.
@@FrenchFrye223 the witcher 3 was a port of an already made game that already made its profits. the switch port is basically just free money. totk has been in active development for 6 years, they aren't comparable. you're taking the 64gb cart out of context and using that as if it's the one and only variable, but it's just a single important variable in a bigger consideration. the fact that this is likely one of nintendo's most expensive games ever and inflation and they have to pay their employees 10% more and the cartridge is eating into each physical sale's profits among many other considerations are what makes this a unique case. witcher 3 shares like literally none of the same variables except the cartridge
one argument I hate about SNES inflation is that people forget one crucial aspect is that making physical snes cartidges is not as cheap as buying a download code from the eshop (or even blu-ray discs or switch game cards today). There's actual hardware in that cartridge. Let's not forget about subscription services to use your console or dlc that can be sold after release P.S Arlo does mention it but I wanted to clarify even more, if you want to count inflation in the cost of the game why don't you count inflation in the manufacturing costs as well???
I feel like if they find out they can get away with charging $70 then it's only a matter of time before the prices go up again further. Don't forget these companies are looking for growth in perpetuity and will look for any way possible to increase profit margins.
if all games become 70 bucks then less people will be able to afford gaming as a hobby so I feel like in the end they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.
@@pedrito890 you really think there's more people out there that will stop playing games due to a 10$ increase than the amount of extra money that those that remain will pay. Sorry pal but I don't think that is true
All these prices raised with the excuse of inflation and yet articles about the same companies hitting record sales on fiscal year kept popping up on my news feed. Same thing with GPU these days. One thing that people failed to realised is the cost making something is vastly reduced when it is mass produced and demand increased. Comparing it to the 90s is like comparing a stall selling ice cream in a middle of a bustling city vs selling them on top of a mountain with barely any people around. Gaming is mainstream now.
This is something people forget, BotW sold 29,000,000 copies. These sales on TotK would be 290,000,000$ extra. It isn't a few 100 copies being sold and them making 1,000$ extra. It is millions of lower cost production for millions.
I had the same discussion with myself in my head like Arlo did and he really mentioned all the factors and let people decide themselves. Greatly solved.
That tells one of two things. Either Nintendo put so much effort and ideas into the content of the game which is the reason it's taking so long....or it's going to crash and burn. Nintendo doesn't normally release games in a critically bad state with Pokemon Scarlet & Violet being the exception. So I'm not personally worried about the quality of the game too much. So if it's the former, and it's overflowing with content and stuff to find one could easily suggest that the $70 price tag is worth the money for the time and effort they put into the game. It's still a bummer that it's $70, I was mad at first but I have hope that Nintendo's starting to justify their prices better. The old Nintendo would've charged use full price for Metroid Prime Remastered like they did with Skyward Sword. But they didn't. It's hard not to think that something internally is going on and Nintendo's starting to realize that people will eventually leave if they keep releasing smaller games. So even if it's just a little hope it's still some hope I have.
@@sonicstarman9663 something tells me some people aren't aware that this happens every Zelda game after Majora's Mask. Wind Waker's development was the only one that wasn't troubled, but that's because they already had an idea of how to take the series, they just ran out of time. Twilight Princess was a shot in the dark. They initially had no concept for that game. That game took a long time to conceptualise. With Skyward Sword, it was trying to get their vision to work properly. And with Breath of the Wild, everything was new to them.
I think it's the hardware limitations. They know what they want to put in the game but the repeated optimization passes in order to bring it up to standard are crippling the dev cycle.
@@Nikkska I think people just tend to nitpick and makes a game look worse than it actually is. I think people confuse mid to below average games being bad way to often and it's unfair to expect every game to push every game in a franchise forward. Nitpicking leads to entitlement. I'm not saying we shouldn't criticize games, after all everyone has a valid opinion it's okay to have nitpicks just not when it's making a game look worse than it actually is. S/V was different because while it did push the franchise forward doing so gave us a game that's honestly probably worse than Sonic '06, S/V's personality, story, and charm is the only thing that saved that game from being a complete train wreck in my opinion.
That's kinda what bugs me most about it. This is the sequel to their mega-hit Game Of The Year genre defining highly influential killer app. Fans of BOTW will probably buy it regardless of price. If they did this with Pikmin 4 people would be a lot less keen on buying.
don't do it, if one accepts this they'll eventually bend to every other game, all about desensitize the audience to it zelda isn't worth 70, no game is
They said that all Switch games wouldn't be $70. They never said that it'd wouldn't be the norm when they release the successor to the Nintendo Switch. I think Nintendo's gotten better about how they price their games. There's Metroid Prime Remastered at $40 Kirby Fighters 2 at $20 Kirby's buffet at $15 and Pikmin 4 at the normal price range. So I'm still hesitant to accept that but I don't have a hard time to believe it.
Yea there is no chance they will stop doing it if it sells. For every 10 people they would be making 100 dollars more and now imagine that 1000000 times more. That is a very very good bonus. Why not do 70 on Botw 3? Why stop at Zelda? Why not fire emblem, why not mario?
@Penguin Economics Gamefreak still has a lot of faults that's been sucking the life outta their games for ages, we can't write em off completely. But I get your point, shoulda made it the Pokemon Company throwing a hissy fit, but despite the flaw's of my joke it's statement remains the same: We're 100% gonna get 70$ games that's not worth it, just because the IP is popular. I don't trust nintendo to be fair.
@@justacrittic1578you say the pokemon company then right at the end blame Nintendo? You know Nintendo only has about a 25% share in the pokemon franchise right? To get an idea of how much sway Nintendo has with pokemon just look at the Mario maker sprites of the Pokemon. There's hardly any sound effects because creatures (the real master minds in the shadows) would only allow visual likeness and not sound effects.
The “so yeah” at the end summoned up the whole ordeal pretty much entirely. It honestly is what it is and you can either buy it or not. Thank you for this dynamic take on the matter fighting both sides, fantastic stuff as always Arlo!
@@papa_NCF I was trying to show that "it is what it is, buy it or not" is a bad argument, because you could apply the same logic to any price, like 200. It suffocates any discussion about the price. I'm not saying 200 bucks is a realistic price, I'm just trying to show you that there is a line where people think it's overpriced, and simply not buying it is not really a solution.
I think one part that Arlo didn't touch on is the fact that, yes, wages are being increased in Japan, but they aren't anywhere else. For the past 4 decades we've seen a trend of wage stagnation: wages aren't increasing with inflation here in Japan, US and even in the EU. Game developers (such as myself, hi.) have had to deal with wages that value us much lower than we're really worth. TOTK has had a lot of development time in Japan, sure, but we cannot discount the numerous American and European developers who do other fundamental things for the product. In my opinion, this makes the 10% wage increase argument weaker: not only does that 10% increase make up for their already stagnated wages, many of the people involved with the game won't even see any sort of wage increase, and are more likely to be laid off than given a raise once the game releases.
@@millykendrill5301 Communism is bad. The current economic situation regarding stagnating wages and rapid inflation doesn't change the fact that Communism is bad.
The voucher system is the only reason I'm not mad about the price but I also hate that they're suckering me into buying the digital copy and saving money on not having to provide me a physical cartridge,box, etc
I wonder if switch 2 or whatever announced will transfer over the catalog or if it will use the same cartridges. It's a big question if they want to isolate the games or move them over. I Also miss the gamecube/wii/wii u when you transferred data you'd see pikmin moving your data.
@@sworddomo1951 they better make the cartridges compatible and transfer library. Istg I’m not starting another Nintendo library. I don’t like it that much.
The vouchers aren't very good, and only 10% off... The Eshop gives you better discounts, heck I got some physical discounts better. Got Mario Odyssey, Mario 3D World/Fury, Breath of the Wild, Skyward Sword HD all for only $40 each physical from holiday sales... that's 30% off, much better then the vouchers.
At the end of the day, any product (game or no) is simply worth what people are willing to pay for it. I don’t like it, you may not like it, but it’s unfortunately true. The price raise could even be due to Nintendo simply gauging by trailer views how many people actually care about this game, and concluding that even if some people refuse to pay an extra $10, those that oblige will more than cover Nintendo’s losses. Fantastic video!! Loved this format
This actually made me think hard about where I stand in all this, something most videos do where they often have one opinion and that’s it. We could really use more stuff like this
HEY IT'S A PINNED COMMENT
Go to buyraycon.com/arlo for 15% off sitewide! Brought to you by Raycon.
This was the first comment
The saga continues:)
Nintendo is so obscenely wealthy, maybe companies can take a hit. For once. Even on just a game.
What would make this hurt even more is if there was a dlc pack
Lmao is the tune behind your ad from blues clues? 😂😭
If Nintendo wants to go the route of “some games deserve be more than $60” then they also have to accept that a good portion of their games deserve to be less than $60
Edit: Yes I know that Prime is only $40, but for every Metroid Prime there's two or three Mario Tennis Aces or a DK tropical freeze port selling for more than its launch price (great game still). Prime is the exception, not the rule
Yeah, Pokemon Company.
But also arguably in the positive Kirby games are so consistently well made they would make that above 60 argument. Something as im writing this I wonder how many would accept.
Better idea - they need to drop the price of the peripherals. I would gladly spend as much as $100 on a new Zelda game, if it only cost $20-$30 to replace the Drift-suffering Joycons.
prime remake shows this is something they’ve started already
@@sirensongss That's the one rare exception though. Most of their ports/remasters cost $60 on release even ones that had less content than their original like New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe.
I cannot even begin to fathom agreeing with that Kirby take wow
My biggest issue with the price raise is the fact that Nintendo hardly ever puts their games on discount, even if they're several years old. And when they do, it's impossible to find a title on a discount higher than 30%
Yeah, and even with old systems, some of the games are worth double or triple of their original prices
Exactly. Breath of the Wild came out in 2017 and it’s still $60, maybe $50- something at best. And I can’t afford game for my 3ds without modding anymore.
Nintendo only really keels over on Black Friday: the only occasion where BotW was 40 dollars in the US. Whereas Mario Day is an annual thing since their sales doesn’t catch up to Zelda and Pokémon
@@SwedePotato314 why would anyone buy botw new when there's so many used copies to buy from?
@@dissonanceparadiddleif you prefer digital and don’t want to swap cartridges. The idea of always having BOTW with you, even if you don’t grab the cartridge, is pretty great.
Sometimes you can't help but just stop and comprehend "I'm watching a spirited financial debate between two puppets."
not just two puppets, the same puppet on different sides of a table
Puppets? Where?
We live in an odd world in the decade of 2020s
@@digitaltailsmon4096 We always did.
@Theo Aremevano With a reasonable criticism of the current capitalist system, I might add.
Nintendo is going to start doing this for every game. This is just how they "ease" into it.
Slippery slopes are possible.
Yeah but we should argue when they do that rather than predicting the future and stop them increasing the price now
Ease. They resold WiiU -> Switch games at higher values and charge us for online service that costs more and more for good features. I look at Pokémon Violet and Look at Pokémon Omega Sun and wonder is there really such a large difference
case by case basis... but how will we know every case isn't a $70 by their arbitrary standards?
Ease into what? They were selling $70 N64 games decades ago lol
OMG, I’m so happy you decided to collab with Arlo! You two are my favorite UA-camrs!
You're a fan of Arlo too?! I like him even better than Arlo!
I prefer Arlo over Arlo... just my opinion tho
@@pinktrutle1490 come on man, arlo is pretty great too
@@pinktrutle1490 no dude arlo steals arlo's ideas, arlo is clearly superior
It's great to see Arlo give new opportunities to other great creators like Arlo.
A very important point you didn't bring up is that Nintendo rarely discounts their games. When Sony or Ubisoft sell $70 games they generally go 50% off within 6 months so it's only a big price increase for people who buy day one.
Sony are starting to follow Nintendos pattern. Ratchet and clank ps5 is still 100$ in canada for me. It very rarely goes on sale. Your point is really not as valid anymore.
@@coreymckee4844 yeah but also that games not selling very well....
@@coreymckee4844
I saw it on sale for like half off yesterday though....
True. I tend to spend more money on Nintendo games than any other company because they almost never drop in price, despite Nintendo games looking over 20 years old and often having less content. I love Nintendo games, and now that I'm a father, being shorter and quicker to beat is actually a bonus to me. But they shouldn't cost as much as the games I'm buying on PS5.
That also means they are more valuable on resale (if buying physical)
Something I'd like to point out, most videogames tend to drop to a lower price after about a year or two, go on sale even. Nintendo games stay the same price for a very long time and hardly go on sale. The only price drop you'll find are from used copies.
And even then not near their contemporaries due to purposeful limited physical releases.
You don't have to wait that long. Just buy a used copy a month after release.
@@TheKingRiku That's not an official sale, and even then you will not get a discount close to what you find for every other platform (especially PC). You can find 60%-90% off sales on huge games on Steam all the time for example, games newer and bigger than 5+ year old Switch games which still cost $60 new, or MAYBE $40 during the biggest Nintendo sale you ever see.
No other games are of the same quality as Nintendo games, which are often timeless, so it's not a fair comparison.
I honestly think the game will be extremely disappointing too. We’ve seen the same handful of enemies just with slight changed to them, no sign of actual Dungeons so more of the same sh!t with shrines and Devine beasts that all look the same too. 😪
The $70 price tag hits a lot harder with Nindendo than other studios because you know that stuff's never going to go on sale. So whatever they decide on for the launch price is going to stick for a long, long time.
Maybe perversely but for me Nintendo's reticence to ever put a game on sale makes me apt to just buy it right away if I wanted it. I don't like supporting Nintendo's hardware and I'm not approving of their business practices but frankly breath of the wild and now tears of the Kingdom are both just far too good to pass up. I originally bought the switch to play breath of the wild and in my mind I kind of thought if it lasted up until the next Zelda game that they would be a decent deal so in the end I guess I'm not too disappointed Even if I wish this game ran at 1080p at 60 frames a second
I bought and played TotK having never played BotW. I got my Switch when BotW was a 3 year old game. I’ve never been a huge Zelda fan, so I didn’t want to pay $60 for a 3 year old game from a series I wasn’t that interested in. Now it’s a 6 year old game and it’s still $60. Occasionally it goes on sale for $40, but any other game that old would be $20-30 without a sale.
You should have also talked about how TOTK is the first Nintendo game on switch to be above 16gb meaning they have to use a more expensive card for the game. The counter to this is that the Witcher 3 also used a 32 gb card but didn't charge $70.
And Nintendo is more than capable of eating the cost since the hardware is significantly outdated
What's the incremental cost on a slightly larger cartridge though? Surely not that much?
@@fillerbunnyninjashark271 not for portable standards.
And one of the greatest games of the ps4/xb1 era
@@beauwalker9820 bruh, our phones are portable ... The tech in the switch is from an Android tablet from almost a decade ago. My fucking phone can emulate the switch at more stable frame rates than the switch itself
Let's not forget how Nintendo has "evergreen games" that, even years after release, they keep at full or near full price.
One of which is Breath of the Wild
I think the best example of this is the pricing of Gamecube games by the end of the lifecycle for the Wii. Due to the backwards compatibility Gamecube games were still sold in stores right alongside the Wii games. By the time the Wii U launched, Mario Sunshine was ten years old, Thousand Year Door was eight, and Twilight Princess was six. And yet a new copy of all three were still set at the exact same price as when they came out and the only way to get a discount was to buy them 'used' from Gamestop.
This is why it hurts more than other companies. GoW (2018) is on sale right now for $10. No chance in hell that would ever happen with this game.
And people still buy them. Why would they drop the price of games that are still flying off shelves?
I do get annoyed by that but that’s why I keep an eye out for sales at GameStop and other stores that sell Switch games as they’ll eventually drop them down to a pretty good price.
Black Friday and December in general is usually the best for this. Heck as another example Best Buy was selling Breath Of The Wild for twenty dollars off a month before Nintendo did it on their eShop and sure 20 dollars less isn’t that big of a deal but for a game that’s been out for as long as that one has it’s basically a steal.
We need more of these videos where Arlo calmly debates with himself, this was great!
Agree
This was pretty good and there are several other topics in the gaming industry that could use this treatment.
I was so thrown off when each point came back around and the other side wasn't getting increasingly louder and angrier, lol. Makes you realize how rare it is to see such civilized debate. Although, I guess it's easier when you're arguing with yourself.
This isn’t a debate. You can’t debate yourself lol
I would like to point out that in the Uk breath of the wild was already £59.99 when it came out which is equivalent to $70 so we have already had to pay $70 before. But the only two games which were £59.99 or $70 were Smash Ultimate and Breath of the wild, so hopefully that shows what kind of games would most likely get this $70 treatment. Great video by the way, I liked the way it was made!
Smash Ultimate and Breath of the Wild are also €69.99 in Ireland (and I'd assume across Europe) which comes out as $74.15... so we were already paying more. Used the €99 vouchers for those and gonna be using one for this game too. but yeah, glad to see your comment and know I wasn't going insane or anything
@@jilluigi4958 yes I was also confusing when everyone was complaining about this. I’m guessing it’s just a USA issue
I also like to add in Canada breath of the wild cost $80 but with tax its around $90
Yup, in Germany BotW costs 70€, while almost every single other game costs 60€.
In the UK you can find Tears of the Kingdom for cheaper, I preordered it for around £45
You literally created the perfect template for how a healthy respectable debate of two different perspectives on a particular topic can be conducted. Wish this was more common.
And he literally said that they weren’t any closer to the conclusion of the debate😂😂😂
I wish people were still capable of having conversations like this.
Yeah… except this particular issue really didn’t need this.
@@TheAlibabatreeBut it's the internet, so of course it's going to happen anyway. 😂
@@TheAlibabatreewhat do you mean by that?
The fact that he puts on a freaking puppet show for every fairly lengthy video he does is just.....so amazing. I can't get enough of it
What do you mean "puppet show?"
@@Portersona69420 came here to say the same thing.
My world is shattered. What's next, Santa doesn't really go to every house in the world in one night?
Nintendos past gens started losing me. The switch was the nail in the coffin. Its Arlos production is what keeps me comin back.
I love this dual argument style. I honestly think the $70 price tag is scary only because of Nintendos unwillingness to put games on sale. I’m a casual nintendo fan and that is 100% because I don’t want to pay $60 for a 3 or 4 year old game. Mario Odyssey by this point should be a $20 game if you are comparing it to games that came out around the same time on other platforms. If Nintendo does the $70 price tag, I hope they are willing to reduce the prices a year later to make it more accessible to more people.
They won't. It's going to be stuck in their old times.
Lol i still find ds and 3ds games out in the wild that go for 40-45 euro aka their original price.
@@HandheldGamer1991 Ya that sucks. Although at least for DS enough time has passed where the price could go up because the games have been discontinued for a while and have become rarer. 3DS is dumb because it’s not even that old (in terms of when the console/games stopped being discontinued).
@@mrshmuga9 3Ds sadly makes sense, the eShop closed last year.
(okay if you jump through a bunch of hoops you can maybe get money on your 3DS until March 2023, but they stopped accepting credit cards in May 2022 and effectively closed the shop for most buyers since you can't buy anything if they don't take your payment)
I think also assuming tears of the Kingdom will be as good as breath of the wild it's pretty fair. However I really do think that Nintendo games are hugely overpriced. I own so few games just because of how expensive they are
Sad reality is that all their future games have 99% chance to be 70$
Then $80, 90, and eventually 100 & 100+
Yes, that’s how inflation works.
@@lesunshineworshiper11 100 dollars a game🤦🏽♂️ noooooo
@@LorianandLothric literally has nothing to do with inflation, that’s just a myth.
@@themysterykid1 it actually does, in fact most AAA games should cost more than 100 dollars because of inflation. Some decades ago the minimum wage was below 8$ an hour while now in many places its over 12$ an hour while the prices of AAA games stayed the same. Not to mention the cost of production.
Arlo straight up decided that since he can't have a calm rational discussion with respectful differing opinions with someone else, why not have it with himself? Really though, I love this layout. I also loved the Spicy Take Salad. It feels like he's just getting to the point where he finally feels comfy expressing his opinions without worrying about others. Let's all enjoy disagreeing respectfully.
I love how Arlo decided to discuss the topic with Arlo to maintain as much objectivity as possible.
I'll give it to you Arlo, this video was genius. The concept was gold, the execution was flawless and the timing on the back-and-forths was so convincing that it honestly felt like two people presenting the most sincere arguments they could think of to convince the other. I'd love to see more stuff like this.
Agreed, that is how a genuine debate should sound. Two people sharing their case while acknowledging the strengths in their opponents argument...if only all debates could be like this one 😔
This is how I find out if a game is worth my money.
1. Don't pre-order
2. Watch several reviews after the game release.
3. Check online if some stores offer it for cheaper than the eshop.
This is called the dialectical method, it has been employed by many of the great thinkers of the past. It's really cool to see Arlo using it!
now that the game is actually out, I think it's safe to say it was DEFINITELY worth the price. even if it's technically on "older hardware" the new areas and stuff to do easily makes it over triple the size of botw. the fact that it can run on the switch at all is nothing short of a miracle, and it even runs at a consistent framerate.
The size is irrelevant. The content is what matters. Which seems to be very good, but my point is that it's not because of the size.
Arlo just taught the entire internet how to have a discussion.
Wait what? Two people with differing opinions can actually speak calmly and nicely to eachother without devolving to name calling and insults.... I am so confused; what witchcraft is this?
And a civilized one at that
… huh. Maybe just you bro
@@enternamehere142 lol… and there’s the troll
I think you're misdiagnosing what's going on with "discussion" on the internet. Most of the time, people are really past the "discussion" phase by the time they're speaking publicly on social media. A discussion is something you can have when you're trying to figure out what you think, and it's not something people tend to do publicly, let alone on the internet. It requires too much vulnerability and trust for that.
The people on Twitter and Facebook who I'm guessing you're throwing shade at here are past that point. They have moved on to, at best, trying to promote their own already calcified views. Probably much more often, they're just fighting "the other team" to make themselves feel good. Our social media platforms are designed to inculcate this because it produces a lot more engagement.
And while I agree it's good that Arlo is willing to expose his own thought processes and admit his ambivalence about a hotly debated topic, I don't think it should be used to denigrate others. I guess you can choose to blame all the individual users getting drawn in for not being "civil enough" if you want, but given the scale of the problem, that viewpoint doesn't really suggest any solutions that are likely to work.
In the meantime in Europe ... BotW was already €65 - €70 most of the time. Usually, prices for games and consoles simply swap out the dollar symbol for the euro symbol.
Let's be honest, they only do that if the currency exchange ends up benefiting them
Yeah, in Australia most Nintendo games are $80AUD, but BotW is 90
It’s not as bad but in the UK there’s a lot of swapping out the dollar symbol for the pound. Maybe they make the number a bit smaller but it still ends up costing more when you consider the exchange rate.
In the US, taxes are not included in the advertised price, so that's why they often appear cheaper.
@@magnus1043 Same thing as in Canada. TotK will be a little over $100 after taxes.
I think the biggest problem is that most people aren't being PAID more to justify spending this amount of money for what is just a hobby at the end of the day
Exactly this. Prices for things are going up while wages are not in many places, it's wild.
Yeah there's the biggest problem with the inflation argument. People's paychecks aren't reflecting that inflation
the other problem is, while we are in fact paying less for games than we used to (the NES/SNES/Genesis generation, where they were no longer luxury items, but EVERYONE seemed to have one, or they were shunned by anyone and everyone in school, lol), we don't see it as such because back then it was our PARENTS who paid for it, not us.
People are being paid a little more, but yes not enough.
In response to this I've heard people say "Just get a better job", but at this point that's what you need to do just to have as much buying power as you did before. If you haven't received at least a 15% raise in the past couple years, you're poorer than you used to be.
Absolutely adore the decision to properly explore both sides of the argument without a clear bias towards one or the other.
Wish more UA-camrs did that
the problem with charging $70 for a game is considering accessibility all of the other countries and currency conversion, australia for example is going to charge $90 for tears of the kingdom which is absolutely mind boggling to me. i 100% understand why its like that but it just seems crazy to me how they expect other countries to cough up over $100 of dollars potentially in the future.
Living in Canada, I decided to not buy Zelda at launch. This is way more than I am willing to buy without a sale. With tax, we're edging tiwards a 115$ investment
Emulation enters the chat
@@fillerbunnyninjashark271 already has
It's crazy when u consider these prices in developing countries, 70$ is more than 25% of the monthly minimum wage where I live. And Unlike steam, for example, which sometimes offers different prices depending on where you live, nintendo doesn't support that (for my country at least) leading to ridiculous prices after currencies conversion.
@@mortazam.qassem5194 Nintendo has said they don't lower prices because of their "perceived value"
I love how this actually sound like an argument between two people. It's like Arlo actually understands both sides accurately.
I might be bold enough to make the claim that he does understand both sides accurately. Possibly not, but to me it seemed like he covered most of the bases that would be gone over on either side.
But didn’t do this with reviews like Pokémon?
@@thedastone1939Yes
"The Arlo Hour" where Arlo debates Arlo on issues Arlo and Arlo care about is a program I'd gladly watch every week
Is game pass killing the industry?
Should Nintendo go fully software only?
Are console wars good or bad?
Could be a segment on Arlocast (if THAT ever comes back lol).
He did the same thing with Pokemon Unite.
Phenomenal job Arlo. You really nailed every point. Finishing with the “well we’ve come full circle, so let’s end here.” was absolutely brilliant. You deserve all the attention for this one.
I think the biggest way the 70$ price will effect me is ill just get more picky when i buy AAA games and probably look at more indie titles to get my fill.
I am already there to be honest. 60$ was already an exception for me, only like once a year for the games I am most excited about. I am big onto waiting for years for a good sale and buying used.
I very rarely buy games on launch day at 60$, 70$ is a deal breaker for me.
Stalin pfp wtf
Same I’m already doing this. So many AAA titles are bland time killers anyway…
Really? is $10 really enough to stray you from a game? Yea $70 is quite a bit of money but so is $60
I LOVE the style of this video. The format of presenting both arguments in a respectful way with what seems like very little bias. It's fun, it gets both points across, and capping it off with 'no, we haven't gotten any closer to a solution' perfectly sums up the whole fiasco. Great work with this one!
Consumer: Wow, you guys are making a lot of profit.
Company: Yeah, but times are good.
Customer: Wow, this is expensive and you guys are making a lot of profit.
Company: Yeah but times are tough.
This is capitalism 101 baby. If demand is there and they can control supply, they can charge more.
I don't understand why people who think nintendo is overcharging or underdelivering on content care so much... just don't buy it.
Its easy to do. I've not bought literally thousands of games over the years.
@@kj_H65f because we still want the product. It's still bs though.
@@Celtic1020 the pirate life leads to many abilities some would consider... unnatural
@@kj_H65f I'm not against capitalism. I'm a capitalist. I'm against bullshit. Yeah, they can charge whatever they want but I'm not going to sit here and suck up excuses like a dog. I have freedom of speech, so I don't need to buy their product in order to call them greedy. Inflation is straight up an excuse. Video games are an overpriced luxury item anyway, inflation has nothing to do with this. Video games do not cost $60 to make. $60 is what people are willing to pay. That's why Skyrim cost the same amount as that god awful Golden Axe reboot. They're charging 70 purely because they think people will pay it. I don't know why people like you think capitalism means never complain and let companies bend you over a railing.
@@kj_H65fwhat a worthless take.
“A slightly shorter mountain of money isn’t a problem as long as you can pay your employees. Unless greed comes into the picture…” great quote!
I love this dual argument format, really puts both sides into perspective in a fair way
Exactly! No straw-manning here, it was really well thought out!
And the only problem i have with this: Arlo never yelled OBJECTION! or HOLD IT!, and never slammed the desk.
@Andrew Pyle Okay, fine I'll take the bait. Yes there is. They can set the price to whatever they think it's worth. If people don't want to buy the game for $70...then they won't buy the game. But if it is worth the money, people will (and should) buy it. Will you buy it? Why or why not? I'll say this at least: I certainly will. It's a sequel to one of my favorite games of all time. It's absolutely worth 70 dollars to me. Mario tennis on the other hand isn't even worth thirty bucks to me.
Sidenote: If you're saying "why charge more money, it only hurts the lower class, why the massive companies gotta be greedy"...I feel like this argument only applies to items that would qualify as necessities. (Food, housing, health care, utilities, etc). Games however, are a luxury item. We are not entitled to cheap entertainment.
Nintendo selling a Switch game for $70 should be illegal
@@ItsYuhBoyyyy Either this is clearly a bait, or whatever education system you went through failed.
Putting the actual topic aside this was a really clever way to present the 2 sides of things, I can tell you had fun with this one. I'd love to see you use this format again for other similar topics
"70 is outrageous"
me, a Canadian paying 79.99 for games since 2013 with games now going up to 89.99😮
Me a Swede paying 599 for games and this is 699
Me on Mars paying 5000 gerble coins for games now
I don’t bother. Even with Nintendo games I’ll wait. Luckily, I still get birthday/Christmas gifts so that’s two free games out of the year. I’ve recently discovered that my credit card had cash back, so I’ve used that once or twice, but I usually wait until they’re $50. That’s about as low as they go in CAD. Luckily Pikmin 4 comes out right around my birthday, lol.
Ever heard of different countries have different currencies
My hat is off to you Arlo. This is a subject that a lot of us hold strong opinions on and they way you handled it was fantastic. It isn’t just cut and dry there are a lot of layers here. Really nice job in presenting this in a way that most people on both sides will feel heard. Seriously, great job!
The Ace Attorney theme from the beginning was the highlight of my month. Now we just need Arlo to play those games.
EXACTLY
@@crystalchain6836 Maybe one day we can get Kayne to convince Arlo to them.
I adore this immensely, I think it’s an amazing way for Arlo to express a back and forth issue while maintaining comedy and a shocking amount of fairness to both sides of the issue. I really hope for more of this.
One of the reasons I love his reviews. He usually does a really great job at expressing his gripes about games without seeming like it's just "Oh x isn't y so it sucks". And when he praises games, it feels fairly genuine.
@@Smuggy97 sometimes he goes overboard, and can be biased though, like his hate of the Sonic 2 movie stemmed from him barely knowing anything about the Sonic series, and his "characters that need to be retired" list included a few characters that actually were retired for many years, (like Andross and the Koopalings) and only recently brought back.
Have to love that Arlo actually argued both sides of the issue against himself without turning either one into a strawman.
Really like that there weren't strawmen.
And with the release I haven’t heard anyone complain about the 70$
I'm definitely afraid of this setting a new precedent, I don't wanna be paying 70 for Mario next lol
I mean, look at the bright side. At least we aren't paying $108 like Ocarina of Time cost at launch (when adjusting for inflation).
@@OniLink147 Yeah, it's not like we've been continually getting more for less for basically the whole life of the industry or anything...
@@RadzPrower im okay with upping the price to 70 to cover the cost for inflation AS LONG AS we have the right to expect and demand the same quality as their past projects, the continually downgrade and ask for more money is a joke
@@RadzPrower games should stay 60
This precedent has been said since 2020, this precedent has been in the works for 15-20 years while the cost of games was $60, so why act shocked at this inevitability? This also pales in comparison to n64 and older titles launching at $60-80 back in the early 90s!
This is one of the smartest ways I’ve seen an issue like this tackled. Well done.
I really want to know how retro studios got Nintendo to sell Metroid prime for only 40$
Retro understands that their game is 20 years old at its core, and that Metroid isn't a franchise with a very large fan base.
Had they charged $60 for that remaster, it wouldn't sell nearly as well, and therefore cut off potential buyers of Metroid Prime 4.
They just develop the game, it was ultimately Nintendo who priced it that way. I like to think that it’s a combination of the game being even older than Skyward Sword and needing to promote Metroid Prime 4
@@Antasma1 I'm still a bit baffled why that isn't metroid prime trilogy to be honest then. Unless MP4 is going so poorly again they feel they can pump out remasters of the 3 games before it comes out and/or additionally to subsidize it. In which case...ooof. But I doubt/hope it isnt that.
@@Gungho73 well there’s no way they were ever going to release 3 visually overhauled games in one trilogy. A rerelease with some modded controls wouldn’t really appeal to new players, since the GameCube era games haven’t aged that well. The whole point is to try and get new players into the series so they’ll buy the new game when it comes out. If Nintendo remasters 2 and 3 it will be after 4 comes out for sure.
@@mdreezy_ I just meant Metroid Prime Trilogy, which WAS available on their last platform. I can agree with the visual reasons and potential controller reasons too.
Arlo: "But power isn't everything!"
Vergil: *intent to kill*
10 outta 10 more realistic than mainstream media. I have conversations with myself all the time.
The 2 braincells speaking to each other.
I think you 100% nailed it on the head with the comments re: "Making a slightly shorter mountain of money is NOT a problem!"
Welcome to late stage capitalism where not most of the money is enough you must have all of the money!
This wouldn't be a problem in a Communist country
@@Neon_Plasma Imagine choosing mass starvation over a video game costing an extra $10.
My take on it is that if it was any game that got a price increase, this is the one I would accept. My huge worry is that when tears of the kingdom inevitably sells well, that will become justification for it to become standard practice somewhere down the line. Because while I don’t mind it this time, I don’t think I would like if it started happening for several other Nintendo series, that are already pushing it by costing 60 dollars
Honestly, Nintendo should have been charging way more than $60 for years now. The quality of their games is incomparable in the industry. I'd gladly accept $100 US for a Zelda, Mario, or Pokemon game. Stuff like Metroid should should be $40 or less though, as they lack that Nintendo charm.
@@millykendrill5301 I'll agree with Zelda and Mario getting a higher price, but Pokemon should honestly get less. Scarlet and Violet came with bugs upon bugs within the game's launch week, and even though they are fun games, other than challenges, pokemon games more recently have had less quality overall, and are quite inconsistent between each other. Legends Arceus was an amazing game with lots of challenge and to a good chunk of people, didn't look the best, but it added a lot of quality of life changes. Hearing the shiny sound in the overworld, mass release from the boxes, easier ways to remember and forget moves, the ability to choose when a pokemon evolves, but then they removed almost all of that when Scarlet and Violet came, and even though it has one of the better stories in a pokemon game, it overall does not function the best. Zelda and Mario games are always fun and challenging. The port of Super Mario 3D world + bowser's fury was so fun, Odyssey, was so fun. There were aspects I didn't like in both of them, but they were really enjoyable because they felt complete. Breath of the Wild was really fun for me as well, but when it came to the DLC, I only have bad memories now, as the DLC for that game was just a fetch quest, and the one shot weapon they had instantly became garbage the second you completed the section for it. With the way Pokemon has been handling their games and release schedules I'm honestly annoyed to think that we're already gonna get a new Pokemon game of some sort come November. When it comes to Metroid though, I think the main problem is that they don't have enough games, and that's just for the fact that they are mechanically designed differently.
TLDR:
I agree with Zelda and Mario being more expensive because they have both increased and kept their quality, but Pokemon should be $40 + $20 DLC as they've kind declined in aspects since moving to 3D
@@millykendrill5301 No, they shouldn’t have.
@@millykendrill5301 Mario and Zelda should be and ONLY be the ones charging us $70 full price since they are Nintendo’s babies. Pokémon…should cost less than it’s regular price due to all of its bugs and just gameplay in general like…I love Pokémon and I respect it’s fan base but come on it’s been years and years and we’re STILL stuck with the SAME formula of combat since it’s debut title!
@@millykendrill5301 zelda and mario, sure. pokemon? Only if it had the same level on polish.
for 70$ i expect hydrated ganon to come out of the screen and give me a foot massage
I think it's healthy to point out the flaws and hypocrisies in your own head, people are so headstrong on their first thought that it leads to more arguments rather than genuine discussions
I would say it's simple...
If Nintendo can't even hit 1080p in 2023, their games should cost less than 50, let alone going up to 70
@@johndodo2062 braindead take to a completely unrelated comment
@John Dodo I would argue that the exceptional quality and polish of a game outweighs less than standard graphical luxuries, and for reference botw is one of the most polished and least broken games I've played
@@hatti... yeah and the game still tanks the frame rate and looks jagged AF on big TV's.... Even GOW Ragnarok wasn't $70 on PS4
@Jesus Barrera The framerate suffers in a couple areas and when spamming elemental effects, not a consistent problem and hardly enough to hurt the experience
Korok forest is the most egregious offender but there's nothing to do there
Overall the game isn't *broken* and I've only encountered a few accidental glitches in my hundreds of hours of playing, which is not something I can say about the majority of current gen games, not that I'm accusing them of anything, it's simply harder to hold together a game like that
I think Nintendo is using this as a test case for rolling this out across all first-party games. They'll roll it out slowly with games people absolutely will pay it for, Zelda, Mario, Pokémon. When they don't get too much pushback, it will spread.
Thanks Sony, for ruining another thing in videogames. I'm dipping out after this generation. I've got a backlog that will last me the rest of my life. Gaming has been spiraling down the toilet for a while. ✌️
Thank God for Emulation ✌️😉
@xid And it’ll be even more hilarious when they outsell the previous ones😔
@@djdoolittle1315 Yup. I'm probably contributing to the problem seing as I'm most likely getting ToTK, but I can't see many other Ninty games being worth that price for me. They're really pushing me to sail the high seas.
@@drowningin I've only been buying 2-4 years old games at huge discount + steam sale for the past few years, I've got like 350 games in my backlog, I haven't spent more than USD 12 in a given game in years, by the time I make any progress, former newer games also get discounted.
Only thing I "miss" is being part of the conversation online, otherwise, I'm doing plenty fine.
In my opinion, this is one of the best videos you've ever done. This format of self-debate is one of the most original content you've created so far. The well agumented exposition of two points of view in one matter is something these kind of videos really lack of, at least from a videogame-focused standpoint. I could totally go with these to become a brand-original which is something not many videogame channels do since most of time there's a lot of bias going into each reviews, impressions and what not. I'm a regular in your channel and this is certanly the formula I enjoyed the most so far, cheers from Mexico
Honestly felt like 2 different people who are excellent at debate. Well done Arlo
Agree, top quality
absolutely agree. The humor was on point in this one too
Solidly solidly agreed here. As an audience member, this is what we really love
Lol are you serious? I've seen this 'style' done in countless other channels - I thought the fad had all but worn out that's all.
I really like how you structured this video, no bias to either side, simply presenting valid and actually true and well researched arguments for both sides.
I know people like you love to jerk off whenever someone sits on a fence, but he was biased. He was clearly biased toward the side of "anti $70". He gave that voice more speaking time and he made flimsier arguments on the "pro $70" side. He revealed his true opinion in this video.
Really not a fan of Nintendo making the jump to $70 especially we're nearing the end of the console generation, I imagine they did this to ease people in before launching their next console. Highly recommend people using those discount vouchers they're offering, for those who plan to play the game at launch.
They are not remotly in the middle of a console genoration. They also did this back in 2016 to ease people into paying 60 for Switch games the following year. The fact of the matter is $70 IS the norm, doesn't really matter if we agree with it or not. The only thing a induvual can do is buy the game or not, and if enough people don't buy it, they will lower the price. But this is Nintendo, and seeing how they own the top 5 most profitable videogame IP's, they are gonna sell, meaning these prices will not change.
exceptttttt buy physical
@@ClayArcher23 The thing is, adjusting for inflation, TotK is cheaper in 2023 than BotW was in 2017
@@saml302 Why buy Physical? I own BotW physically, and my wife complains each and every time any other game is in the Switch when she wants to play.
You do have to wonder about how this looks to general audiences especially. Been paying 60 bucks which is already a lot on a platform that's existed for 6 years, now all of a sudden you have to pay 70 for the same types of games. It just doesn't seem right.
In Sweden, 60 $ Nintendo games costs 600 kr (58 USD, tax included), and Tears of the Kingdom costs 700 kr (68 USD, tax included). Often the international market is ignored in discussions like these.
Breath of the Wild cost 70 euros when it came out... It's funny seeing everyone in America freak out now.
@@The_Jzoli Nope not everywhere, in the Netherlands at least it wasn't.
In the UK, botw costs £60
@@eoinryan7274 no its £50
@Eoin Ryan it's £60 from the eshop for some ungodly reason but most other places it's below £50
It’s for reasons like this that I’ve fallen off the AAA train. Maybe the game really is worth the extra money but I don’t need big games to have fun. Lots of great indie games out there made by passionate developer-gamers and not greedy businesses.
@JCS not when they keep trying to get rid of physical copies
I partially agree with you, but I'd like to point out that even most big games are made by a bunch of passionate developers. The business side of Nintendo is certainly greedy at times, but there's undoubtedly a lot of very passionate developers there as well. The thing is that the people that develop games have no control over the business decisions, so we should be looking at them as two completely different entities. I personally love the game development teams at Nintendo, but dislike the teams that are responsible for their business decisions.
chad mindset
@JCS Which I might do if I come across a used copy while browsing at Limited Run.
@@somethin7020 I know Nintendo is filled with passionate developers, but the games they get to make are rarely of their own creation. Rather, they were greenlit because a bunch of guys in suits saw big numbers on a chart.
It was worth the money.
they know darn well that we will pay an extra $10 for a brand new zelda, and they can use it as precedent for other games
Tears of The Kingdom is available to use with the online voucher, where you can essentially get it for $50 instead of $70.
Problem is, the vouchers are only available in 2-packs for a total of $100, not to mention the fact that they require a paid NSO subscription to even buy them in the first place.
@@MemesToa Counterargument! One could say the vouchers are only a small part of the overall NSO service, and the fact it's only the base $20 per year service instead of the far more expensive expansion pass.
Furthermore, if more Nintendo games start going for $70, you'd be saving $40 if you used both vouchers for two $70 games.
@@BostonianJake Unless, of course, you factor in the extra $20 to get the NSO subscription before buying the vouchers, which would drag your calculated savings down to only $20. Not to mention the vouchers actually being temporary, only being available for 1 year after purchase, so you’d better have another voucher-purchasable game lined up within that time or you just wasted the extra $50 you paid for the vouchers.
Plus, according to your own post, this is all assuming Nintendo continues to put out more games with the already contentious $70 price tag, which is the exact problem that Arlo was covering in the main video to begin with.
@@MemesToa I can't imagine there are people getting NSO purely for the vouchers, therefore not factoring in the $20 when buying them. How is it any different from buying more games in addition the NSO yearly subscription? Most people get the NSO for the online multiplayer and retro games, with the vouchers acting as a seldom advertised bonus feature. But then again, this argument delves into the mindset of the consumer rather than Nintendo's business practices, so take this position as you will.
But expanding on that, while I agree that the vouchers having an expiration date makes no sense considering the asking price, again, will the average consumer redeem one game and wait an entire year to redeem another? I'm largely projecting what I would do with the vouchers, but I'd imagine most people would use both vouchers immediately, if not within a few days of each other. Weeks at the very most.
As for the $70 standardization, I guess that just boils down to me being pessimistic about the future of the games industry and Nintendo in general. I have a PS5, but I rarely pay full-price for next-gen games. I just wait for a natural discount and 9 times out of 10 I get that discount.
@@BostonianJake bruh, that just means that the people who don’t use the NSO because maintaining the online subscription is too expensive, the people who are less likely to afford a $70 game, are the ones who suffer the most.
And I can tell you as a Switch user, that Nintendo games VERY rarely go on discount.
"70 dollars is outrageous!"
"I agree!", I say, as I spend 200 dollars to get the collector's edition Pre-order.
The pre order is out now?
Me with Pokémon
So you're admitting you're part of the problem? lol
@@tountoes1677 Yes!
@@tountoes1677everyone watching this video is part of the problem.
I love this guy. So passionate and such clean content. Even when he rants, it doesn't even sound toxic.
This is SUCH a fun video format, I’d love to see more content and debates like this!
The thing is that Nintendo wanted to jump from 60 $ to 70 $ for new games but wanted start this with a game, where at least some people would discuss if the game could have the value to pay more than the regular price... but I think this will be the new regular price introduced with this game :)
BotW was also $70.
Oh god please no
@@EliteOcto it's just inflation
@@lomiification Its more then inflation. The whole video this comment is on was about the *multiple reasons* to certain extent
@@EliteOcto It's mainly inflation though. The gaming industry have been going for a while without accounting for it, it was really only a matter of time honestly.
I appreciate that we could see '$70 is good' Arlo move the goalposts in real time. From "Nintendo is raising employee wages by 10%, so they need to charge more for their big-budget games!" to "Nintendo isn't trying to make up for the wage increase, since they've ONLY bumped up the price on TotK!"
I dunno, as a Canadian who would have to pay upwards of $150 for the full game after taxes, it really rings hollow for me. S'why I'm going to have to pass on the game.
TOTK will be on a 64 GB cartridge/card if the leaks are true…
Which justifies the higher price
@@crazysilly2914 stop spamming this comment if you don't know for sure
Pro tip: get a family member or friend in another country to buy the less expensive copy and ship it to you.
@@henrydikes6704 cost of shipping
@@henrydikes6704 might be in a different language though...
Honestly impressive how you showed how to have a heated discussion without it devolving I love it there are only 2 people that I know that I can have these kinds of conversations with
Arlo: "Why am I always sick?"
Also Arlo: "I keep bags of chips in the bathroom for easy access DON'T JUDGE ME!"
Sorry Arlo, not judgin, just 'splainin. Signed, a microbiologist.
Hey, no Puppetsplainin here! :D
there's something very funny about a RayCon ad on a video about Nintendo charging less money for an enormous video game than RayCon headphones cost
the irony of it is great
Its not the $10 that bothers me. Its the $10 extra forever afterwards that irritates me.
Especially for Nintendo. Like a big game from anyone else costing $70? It sucks, but you wait long enough and the prices will drop or it'll come to Game Pass or something. Nintendo? That $70 is sticking. Maybe it'll drop a bit around the holidays, but not permanently and that discount would likely become $50 instead of the $40 we usually get.
Ya you nailed it, the fact that Nintendo acts like there games are like Gold is really bothersome. It's a video game, after so many years drop the fucking price and stop making people pay full price for a 5 year old game........
Yeah, games literally wont go down an entire consoles life, and then they go UP when a console's lifespan ends because Nintendo is horrible at keeping their games accessable
I’d trust them more if Nintendo occasionally released budget games for $50 or $40 new. But they just released an upscaled version of Metroid Prime for how much?
@MonkeyxMoo a game like ragnarok deserves the 70 dollars. There's no much more tech and effort in that game that any Zelda game ever made
This was a great video! Loved the calm and informative way the points were laid out and it mirrored an argument I've been having with myself over this price hike.
I seldom comment but I want you to know that this is probably the best video you made. Both viewpoints are valid and I love listening to "two" persons who respect the other without resorting to strawmanning or insults. More of this, please!
The job of a consummer however is not to see both sides. It is to always demand a better deal so that they can stop corporations for creeping up with more nickel and diming. It's hiw we upkeep a balance. But with fan-culture, we make excuses for them, upsetting the balance, and this is why we pay for online play, lose ownership through subscription accounts, siffer price increases, and large corporations are allowed to abuse copyright. Our job os not to understand them. It is to counterbalance them, as they sure as heck won't care about how we feel when they look at their bank accounts.
@@Vigilanteblade I disagree. Everyone would be better off if everybody took a little time to try and understand the bigger picture and both sides of an argument.
A consumer does not have any job but to consume. If I can't afford the product I won't buy it and then the company lose money. I decide if its worth it or not. It's mostly self regulated.
@Walfrid Lindsgård I never said their job was to consume. I said their job was to he a counterbalance. A corporation has one goal: "Exert control and make money"
Our job is to demand better value. Untethered, companies spiral into charging us more and more, and use psychology to manipulate us into getting used to new status quos where we go "That's just how things are now".
You can be certain that if consummers stood their ground, we'd still have free online play.
@@Vigilanteblade I know you didn't say that. I said that. 😁 And I don't think that the consumer has any job or responsibility at all. I also think you are simplifying the role of a company a bit. They are regular people like you and me and of course they want us to buy their stuff. Hell, we often WANT to buy their stuff. The problem is not a 10 dollar price change. Stuff like bad work environment, underpaid labour and not telling consumers what is in their products, that is the problems. If we know what's in the stuff we buy we can make the choice if its worth our money. That choice is more important than making companies charge less for their (THEIR!!!) stuff. If ultimately I decide to not buy the new Zelda because of the price that is my choice. Having access to games is not a human right. It's luxury.
@Walfrid Lindsgård by definition, corporations are entities with one goal in mind: "maximize profit for investors". They are legally-bound to do this do something called "Fiduciary duty". As such, they are incentivized to take as much money as they can from us. If we, as consummers, di nit act as a counterbalance, our rights slowly erode away and we start paying more and losing ownership. This is not something that can be denied. It's a fact. Every time we let them take more, it's money and rights we lose. Passivity hurts everyone.
I care about this, and I'm tired of people letting things get worse. I don't personally care if it's not a human rights issue. I am allowed to be bummed that something I love is exploiting people.
I will say it's very interesting to see 3 big Nintendo games got price reveals on the same day that are vastly different. Zelda was revealed to be $70, Pikmin was revealed to be $60 and Metroid Prime Remastered released at $40. While Metroid Prime is not directly Nintendo there is a chance with the new $70 price hike being introduced there's a chance Nintendo might be opening up to the idea of more flexible price ranges if they're allowed to put their big boys at $70
If $70 new games is the cost for remasters being a reasonable price, then so be it.
I mean it also might be because they kind of need to trickle in the new price point without the feds getting mad. The big 3 would have made them all $70 a few years ago if it wasnt stopped
This is what kinda gets me. The Metroid Prime Remaster has been one of the best things things put out almost ever. That game is a masterclass in what a Remake should be. Not only is it one of the best remakes ever done, but it's also $40 yet still worth the $60 price tag (seriously if they announced it at $70, I'd hesitate for a few seconds and still buy it). Yet we have a remake 2D Kirby game coming out a week later, that is $60, while it has graphical improvements, etc., it isn't going to be even remotely comes close to MPR. I'd buy it up it if it was $40, but not at $60. I haven't played it, heard it was one of the best 2D Kirby games and I want it. I'm a huge Kirby fan (this is the only Kirby game I haven't played). But I don't know if I want to dish out $60 for it.
As for TotK... Not even second guessing or batting an eyelash I'll pay $70 for it. Original BotW was phenomenal. It truly was one of the best gaming experiences I've had in years. I can only imagine how much greater the game is going to be. It's going to be pretty close to the game I already loved, yet so much more. And I'm down for that. I can't wait. And an extra $10 for it? I can barely buy 2 loaves of bread for the difference.
I hope that's the case because I was extremely surprised when they priced Prime Remastered at $40 when so many WiiU ports were $60, yes most of them added some new content to the ports but they didn't have the graphics completely redone either. I also miss the Nintendo Selects once games sold a ton and were out for a few years they got a $20 release, what happened to that concept?
@@zedgathegreat9122 It's not a remake though, it's a remaster
Only point I would also add is that Totk is one of like three switch games to be printed on a 32 GB cartridge, which could definitely also be bringing the price up
Were those other games $70?
@@jaketest9265 not to my knowledge but they also weren’t new games either. Honestly I’m not defending Nintendo here because there is no easy answer (and I’d obviously prefer if it stayed cheap, but I’d also prefer if all games were free soooo), but it’s another point to consider
@@jaketest9265 I think Witcher 3 was only $60
Well... Storage is extremely cheap. With some types of storage chips, it's actually cheaper to just buy the bigger capacity chips compared to a step down as there are just way, way more of them, driving the price down. I kinda lean towards Nintendo having to shell out a bit more for the bigger cartridges, but I'm not exactly totally convinced on that.
Not an excuse for downloaded version.
They should keep the price of digitial at $60. Since there's more overhead for physical a price increase makes sense but not for digital.
That's essentially what they did through the NSO voucher system, granted it's a more roundabout approach and you have to buy two games.
But retailers would be up-in-arms if the digital version had a lower upfront price, that's kind of where digital games staying full price originated.
you and kane outdid yourselves on this one. so many great points and presented so well. this is up there with the best of your essay-style vids
the reason they're charging 70 for this title is because they can easily get away with it. The amount of fans who want this is insane so they know they can get away with it and pocket the profit for the same kinda quality as the prequel of it.
I'd gladly pay over $100 for this, Mario, and Pokémon games going forward.
@@millykendrill5301 you are why our society is failing
exactly, there's no other reason here besides the fact that they can. people accept it because they love the company which is the exact reason why shit cost so much now. You have people like Milly who is just willing to throw money at a company without any idea or care of what it makes a company think of its consumers.
@@savagekid94 I could afford to pay $3k per game. My family are pieces of (shlt) whlte christlam scum. But the good thing is that they at least have so much money I never have to pay for anything in my life again. Then again, me, being trans, otherkin, and atheist in America means that I am a minority. If you have an issue with that, I don't know what to tell you.
I am queer and if you don't like it, too bad. The future is queer and that is that
As an aside, I would pay for there to be more double Arlo debate. That was well done
But the only way to vote for games to not cost $70 is to be willing not to buy them. Because buying it, despite misgivings or complaints, still literally means it was worth that price to you.
Or, I suppose, the entire community could stage an uprising (i.e.- to freak out loudly online en masse and start cancelling subscriptions in quantities enough to cause executives to not dismiss customer discontent) kind of like D&D fans recently did.
The D&D uprising was amazing, and proof of what a community banding together can accomplish. Sadly, I don't see that working with the video game community since fans are still going to shell out the money regardless, kids are going to beg their parents, and streamers/UA-camrs are still going to stream/post gameplay of it (which in turn encourages their viewers to buy it to play for themselves).
The last time I ever saw a successful boycott in regards to a video game was waaaaay back when Activision first paired up with Blizzard, and they wanted to strip people of their usernames on the forums (in favor of using the real names of folks) for WoW. There was a thread with over 70 pages of replies, and the majority of us cancelled our subs and refused to have anything to do with WoW. After a long battle, they finally agreed not to do that.
TL;DR: I don't believe I've ever seen something like that happen again (where a majority of video game players successfully boycotted something a game corporation attempted to do), as it requires people to actually not get or play a video game...which seems to be hard for some people to commit to (again, particularly content creators).
Arlo arguing with himself has the same energy as the arguing with a brick wall meme
The Ace Attorney fanboy in me absolutely adored this type of video! Hope you'll do it more often!
Sameeeeee. Definitely have Kane to owe for that hehehe
Also there’s a green screen for this entire video so someone (possibly me if I find the time) has GOT to make this in ace attorney XD
What a fantastic format for discussing both sides. Keep up the amazing work
One thing about choosing this particular game to try out the $70 price point though is that in order to make this decision Nintendo has got to be VERY confident right now that this game will get a positive reception. Imagine paying more than you have paid for any other game on the system and then being disappointed with the final product, it would be a horrible look for the company.
It’s gonna happen.
TOTK will be on a 64 GB cartridge/card if the leaks are true…
Which justifies the higher price
@@crazysilly2914 the Witcher 3 was also on a bigger cartridge but charged the same price as every other game :/
@@FrenchFrye223 true
@@FrenchFrye223 the witcher 3 was a port of an already made game that already made its profits. the switch port is basically just free money. totk has been in active development for 6 years, they aren't comparable. you're taking the 64gb cart out of context and using that as if it's the one and only variable, but it's just a single important variable in a bigger consideration. the fact that this is likely one of nintendo's most expensive games ever and inflation and they have to pay their employees 10% more and the cartridge is eating into each physical sale's profits among many other considerations are what makes this a unique case. witcher 3 shares like literally none of the same variables except the cartridge
one argument I hate about SNES inflation is that people forget one crucial aspect is that making physical snes cartidges is not as cheap as buying a download code from the eshop (or even blu-ray discs or switch game cards today). There's actual hardware in that cartridge.
Let's not forget about subscription services to use your console or dlc that can be sold after release
P.S Arlo does mention it but I wanted to clarify even more, if you want to count inflation in the cost of the game why don't you count inflation in the manufacturing costs as well???
I feel like if they find out they can get away with charging $70 then it's only a matter of time before the prices go up again further. Don't forget these companies are looking for growth in perpetuity and will look for any way possible to increase profit margins.
Unsustainable by Muse starts in the background...
I remember paying $70 for BotW in 2017. A few comments down someone said the same thing, so I don't think I'm going crazy.
if all games become 70 bucks then less people will be able to afford gaming as a hobby so I feel like in the end they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.
@@pedrito890 you really think there's more people out there that will stop playing games due to a 10$ increase than the amount of extra money that those that remain will pay. Sorry pal but I don't think that is true
@@somethingelse4282 ok
All these prices raised with the excuse of inflation and yet articles about the same companies hitting record sales on fiscal year kept popping up on my news feed. Same thing with GPU these days.
One thing that people failed to realised is the cost making something is vastly reduced when it is mass produced and demand increased. Comparing it to the 90s is like comparing a stall selling ice cream in a middle of a bustling city vs selling them on top of a mountain with barely any people around.
Gaming is mainstream now.
Shareholders was a mistake
This is something people forget, BotW sold 29,000,000 copies.
These sales on TotK would be 290,000,000$ extra.
It isn't a few 100 copies being sold and them making 1,000$ extra. It is millions of lower cost production for millions.
I had the same discussion with myself in my head like Arlo did and he really mentioned all the factors and let people decide themselves. Greatly solved.
TOTK will be on a 64 GB cartridge/card if the leaks are true…
Which justifies the higher price
You should have said "we" until revealing "in my head".
It wouldve have been funny
I'd watch a whole channel of discussions like this even expanding beyond video games.
This is how discussions should be done. Mutual respect for the other opinion even if you do not agree
Tears of the Kingdom has had the longest development cycle of ANY Zelda game. And for a reusing asset sequel, that is insanity
That tells one of two things. Either Nintendo put so much effort and ideas into the content of the game which is the reason it's taking so long....or it's going to crash and burn. Nintendo doesn't normally release games in a critically bad state with Pokemon Scarlet & Violet being the exception. So I'm not personally worried about the quality of the game too much. So if it's the former, and it's overflowing with content and stuff to find one could easily suggest that the $70 price tag is worth the money for the time and effort they put into the game. It's still a bummer that it's $70, I was mad at first but I have hope that Nintendo's starting to justify their prices better. The old Nintendo would've charged use full price for Metroid Prime Remastered like they did with Skyward Sword. But they didn't. It's hard not to think that something internally is going on and Nintendo's starting to realize that people will eventually leave if they keep releasing smaller games. So even if it's just a little hope it's still some hope I have.
@@sonicstarman9663 something tells me some people aren't aware that this happens every Zelda game after Majora's Mask. Wind Waker's development was the only one that wasn't troubled, but that's because they already had an idea of how to take the series, they just ran out of time. Twilight Princess was a shot in the dark. They initially had no concept for that game. That game took a long time to conceptualise. With Skyward Sword, it was trying to get their vision to work properly. And with Breath of the Wild, everything was new to them.
@@sonicstarman9663 most modern Pokémon games to be fair, Game Freak really tests it’s fan’s patience 😢
I think it's the hardware limitations. They know what they want to put in the game but the repeated optimization passes in order to bring it up to standard are crippling the dev cycle.
@@Nikkska I think people just tend to nitpick and makes a game look worse than it actually is. I think people confuse mid to below average games being bad way to often and it's unfair to expect every game to push every game in a franchise forward. Nitpicking leads to entitlement. I'm not saying we shouldn't criticize games, after all everyone has a valid opinion it's okay to have nitpicks just not when it's making a game look worse than it actually is. S/V was different because while it did push the franchise forward doing so gave us a game that's honestly probably worse than Sonic '06, S/V's personality, story, and charm is the only thing that saved that game from being a complete train wreck in my opinion.
Never thought I would enjoy a puppet having a conversation with himself about Nintendo prices this much
This was way too polite of a debate than what I'm used to seeing. It makes me uncomfortable.
I don’t mind paying $70 for this game but it’s literally the only game I could ever see myself paying that price for
That's kinda what bugs me most about it. This is the sequel to their mega-hit Game Of The Year genre defining highly influential killer app. Fans of BOTW will probably buy it regardless of price. If they did this with Pikmin 4 people would be a lot less keen on buying.
don't do it, if one accepts this they'll eventually bend to every other game, all about desensitize the audience to it
zelda isn't worth 70, no game is
Metroid Prime 4 will most probably be 70 due to its production length. Like TotK.
I like how people act like $60 is some super cheap price while $70 is far too absurd to even consider
Its not that.
it's crazy how much 10 extra dollars for video games has raised so many interesting discussions.
And Nintendo is a company that sells for lower than standard too, but that's ignored in this discussion.
When you consider it is 290,000,000$ more if TotK sells as much as BotW you realize things are a lot more crazy.
I have a hard time believing Nintendo will keep to their word when they say that $70 won't become the norm.
They said that all Switch games wouldn't be $70. They never said that it'd wouldn't be the norm when they release the successor to the Nintendo Switch. I think Nintendo's gotten better about how they price their games. There's Metroid Prime Remastered at $40 Kirby Fighters 2 at $20 Kirby's buffet at $15 and Pikmin 4 at the normal price range. So I'm still hesitant to accept that but I don't have a hard time to believe it.
Gamefreak will have a hissy fit if they aren't allowed to put next years pokemon game at 70$ + 30$ dlc
Yea there is no chance they will stop doing it if it sells. For every 10 people they would be making 100 dollars more and now imagine that 1000000 times more. That is a very very good bonus. Why not do 70 on Botw 3? Why stop at Zelda? Why not fire emblem, why not mario?
@Penguin Economics Gamefreak still has a lot of faults that's been sucking the life outta their games for ages, we can't write em off completely. But I get your point, shoulda made it the Pokemon Company throwing a hissy fit, but despite the flaw's of my joke it's statement remains the same:
We're 100% gonna get 70$ games that's not worth it, just because the IP is popular.
I don't trust nintendo to be fair.
@@justacrittic1578you say the pokemon company then right at the end blame Nintendo? You know Nintendo only has about a 25% share in the pokemon franchise right? To get an idea of how much sway Nintendo has with pokemon just look at the Mario maker sprites of the Pokemon. There's hardly any sound effects because creatures (the real master minds in the shadows) would only allow visual likeness and not sound effects.
So A: Games should be $90 according to inflation
B: So far this game is well worth the price.
The “so yeah” at the end summoned up the whole ordeal pretty much entirely. It honestly is what it is and you can either buy it or not. Thank you for this dynamic take on the matter fighting both sides, fantastic stuff as always Arlo!
Would you still say it is what it is, if they would charge 200 bucks?
@@papa_NCF ps5 games are worth 70. There's more effort in one god of war game than ever Nintendo game in a year combined
@@papa_NCF It’s arbitrary but taking an argument to it’s logical extreme is important to see if you still support it.
He actually said "so there you have it".
@@papa_NCF I was trying to show that "it is what it is, buy it or not" is a bad argument, because you could apply the same logic to any price, like 200. It suffocates any discussion about the price. I'm not saying 200 bucks is a realistic price, I'm just trying to show you that there is a line where people think it's overpriced, and simply not buying it is not really a solution.
I think one part that Arlo didn't touch on is the fact that, yes, wages are being increased in Japan, but they aren't anywhere else. For the past 4 decades we've seen a trend of wage stagnation: wages aren't increasing with inflation here in Japan, US and even in the EU. Game developers (such as myself, hi.) have had to deal with wages that value us much lower than we're really worth. TOTK has had a lot of development time in Japan, sure, but we cannot discount the numerous American and European developers who do other fundamental things for the product. In my opinion, this makes the 10% wage increase argument weaker: not only does that 10% increase make up for their already stagnated wages, many of the people involved with the game won't even see any sort of wage increase, and are more likely to be laid off than given a raise once the game releases.
Simply raised the prices to feed the beast that is greedy shareholders at the expense of everyone else from the devs to the consumers.
And people still want to say "lol Communism bad lol" smh
@@millykendrill5301 Communism is bad. The current economic situation regarding stagnating wages and rapid inflation doesn't change the fact that Communism is bad.
but, the price will rise only in America, Europe and Japan, Totk costs the same as the first part
@@Alaois enjoy your white-supremacist Christian capitalism!
The voucher system is the only reason I'm not mad about the price but I also hate that they're suckering me into buying the digital copy and saving money on not having to provide me a physical cartridge,box, etc
I wonder if switch 2 or whatever announced will transfer over the catalog or if it will use the same cartridges. It's a big question if they want to isolate the games or move them over.
I Also miss the gamecube/wii/wii u when you transferred data you'd see pikmin moving your data.
The voucher system is terrible though. I was able to get far better deals without using it. Plus, it's only for digital
@@sworddomo1951 they better make the cartridges compatible and transfer library. Istg I’m not starting another Nintendo library. I don’t like it that much.
Lmao “vouchers” this man excusing price increases because “muh vouchers”
The vouchers aren't very good, and only 10% off... The Eshop gives you better discounts, heck I got some physical discounts better. Got Mario Odyssey, Mario 3D World/Fury, Breath of the Wild, Skyward Sword HD all for only $40 each physical from holiday sales... that's 30% off, much better then the vouchers.
At the end of the day, any product (game or no) is simply worth what people are willing to pay for it. I don’t like it, you may not like it, but it’s unfortunately true. The price raise could even be due to Nintendo simply gauging by trailer views how many people actually care about this game, and concluding that even if some people refuse to pay an extra $10, those that oblige will more than cover Nintendo’s losses.
Fantastic video!! Loved this format
This is officially the best Arlo video. Arlo v Arlo debate hour needs to be weekly.
It must be _REALLY_ easy to give both sides of the argument when you don't know what side to take yourself.
I LOVE this format! I'd love to see you use the second Arlo like this more often! It feels so natural and flows to nicely!!
This actually made me think hard about where I stand in all this, something most videos do where they often have one opinion and that’s it. We could really use more stuff like this