Nintendo will always occupy an odd space in the world of gaming. Calling them the gaming equivalent of Disney is comparable, given their focus on curating a huge library of varied characters and franchises, as well as a specific brand image related to fun and positive energy. However, even as someone who has played and loved their games for my whole life, there is a necessity to observe them in a balanced perspective. While yes, they treat their developers very well and create games with a more artistic and balanced philosophy in mind, they are still a huge global corporation and one of the biggest in a country with many successful tech companies. I say all of this to lay the groundwork for my perception and mindset regarding the current state of Nintendo’s business and why we need to be critical about it.
Companies need to make money, and in an ever-growing area like technology, it’s valid to understand why the costs of certain things need to go up. However, there’s a difference between something like, say, a fridge or a washing machine that is vital in function and will be consistently used, and video games. The industry as a whole has had this issue where they treat their products as something that needs to be prioritized by their consumers. Costs and prices keep going up regardless of it being necessary, and the justification from the other end is “well, it’s what the market demands”, despite these statements coming from those who lead and build said market. So many internal stories within the industry say that studios overspend or focus on higher detail, as well as focus on ways to create more spending habits out of players. It’s created a business that has its direction driven less by balance and more by higher performance and revenue at the cost of the consumer experience and that of the developers. For Nintendo, all of this applies to their recent string of controversies with the launch of the Switch 2.
While recent tariffs can be considered a factor, there is a sense that the basic elements being sold and priced at such a high value are unreasonable in principle. The recent Nintendo Direct from a few weeks ago highlighted this issue perfectly. They announced that Mario Galaxy and Galaxy 2 would be available for Switch owners, but they are only tweaked ports priced at $40 individually and $70 together. Now, I don’t know about you, but selling games over a decade old at that cost is ridiculous. These aren’t remasters or remakes in any capacity, just the same old games available on new hardware. Nintendo discussed the element of variable pricing when it comes to the Switch 2 and specifically why they priced Mario Kart World at $80. They stated that they would price games at the value they believed would represent it best. Of course, the valid concern was that the company would only apply this in an upward manner and price things higher rather than lower compared to the baseline value.
The Mario Galaxy games being rereleased at a premium price with little effort is one example of this pricing in practice, but another is the fact that the new Mario Tennis is also 70 dollars. Now, ask yourself, what type of game would fit the lower-priced model? Well, spinoffs, sports games, or ones with smaller replay value. Something like a tennis game isn’t something that will light the world on fire and is an example of a more mid-level game that would usually be priced at a mid-point in the lower days. However, Nintendo is focused on applying the $70 base to all their series, regardless of whether the individual games are actually at that price value. I don’t think something like Mario Tennis is something all the kids are going to go after, and probably appeals to a smaller crowd compared to something like Mario Kart, so spacing out the prices a bit seems reasonable. Nintendo is not taking this approach and instead is going with a high baseline to the point that it seems like their base price will stay at around 70 and only go up. Given how many spin-offs during the first Switch’s life were criticized for a lack of content that was patched in later, who’s to say that issue won’t continue into this generation, only with a higher entry price?
There is also the Virtual Boy accessory, which not only is required to play the dozen or so Virtual Boy games that will be made available for upper-tier Nintendo Online members, but is a hollow hunk of plastic that costs $ 100. The Virtual Boy is already known as the most infamous flop by Nintendo in the first place, and any sort of interest or affection for it is out of the odd novelty and historical intrigue it has. Pricing something that is at best a niche library of games that only hard-core Nintendo fans would want, and also putting it behind a higher-tier paid online subscription, is a complete mess. Even if this is meant only for the niche audience, the pricing does not match what is being offered since there aren’t that many games made for the Virtual Boy in the first place, and it is a subscription add-on.
Even amiibos, plastic figurines that are remnants of the toys to life fad of the mid to late 2000s, that are only still around due to them being Nintendo themed, are being overpriced. Placing the Kirby Air Ride amiibos at 50 dollars each, even if they are detachable and swapable, is way too much for a niche product. It’s not like these are extremely detailed figurines made for collectors. They are smaller and cheaper in production value. Pricing them up like this is bad for both their image and for the handful of people who are still buying them. Wii and 3DS games were priced around this figure, while amiibos started out around 12 to 15 dollars.
The last issue is that of the DLC announced for some of the games. Pokémon Legends Z-A had DLC announced two months before the game came out. An entire chunk of the game is already complete and will be made available at an additional cost when the game itself isn’t even out yet. This isn’t an uncommon tactic with modern games, and plenty of big franchises do this all the time. The online pass, pre-order bonuses, or road maps, just to give some examples of either asking for more upfront or asking for money for something that might not even exist. Nintendo doing it isn’t unprecedented either, but compared to something like Smash Bros, it just feels even more brazen when Pokémon does it, considering the lagging state of the franchise. Scarlet and Violet didn’t even run at a proper frame rate until the Switch 2 hardware allowed it. The most successful franchise in the world people.
The most egregious example of this, though, has to be the Donkey Kong Bananza DLC. It is just an extra small area and a side mode. These are priced at $20 together, but are not even close to being substantial enough to be worth that price. Mario Odyssey had a similar minigame mode, but that was released as a free update years ago. This is like if that minigame, and the Peach’s Castle world at the end of the game, were locked behind a paywall. It’s something that’s been done before, but now priced and unreasonably so, given the value and past trends.
All of this speaks to the issue of unsustainability with gaming. Xbox just announced huge price increases for their consoles, using the tariffs as a reason why, but I absolutely believe they would still be raising their prices even without the global economic turmoil, simply due to the trends in the industry. DLC, gambling mechanics, free-to-play, subscriptions, paying for online, all of it indicates an industry that wants more for less and will carve out every area to get it. Rather than being content with mid-level prices and consistent profit, there’s an expectation to exceed the highest margins and those of the next quarter. In a time where smaller developers can release games like Silksong after years of slow development and still sell it for 20 with so much content to offer, it tells me that the big guns of the industry are drying out. I only believe Nintendo will stick around due to having a stronger brand and a varied market hold. Otherwise, I feel that many big companies are reaching a dangerous point where their personal expectations are going to price out the average consumer, and the hardcore base won’t be enough to satisfy the unwieldy needs.
Even then, I know Nintendo focusing on squeezing every dime out will backfire sooner or later simply because there are only so many people with flexible income to spend on entertainment, and the bottom will fall out eventually if they keep pushing in this direction. There will be plenty who will be willing to buy at first, but that number will likely not go up, and will eventually not satisfy the company’s demands. It’s the problem of rushing in, focused only on growth over sustainability, and while I don’t see disaster for Nintendo, their current pricing mentality does have me concerned about their current mindset and a seeming lack of a long-term perception of things. Nintendo has always tended to get too big for its britches. After the NES and SNES got big, they got cocky with the N64 as well as with their treatment of 3rd parties, which led to the creation of the PlayStation and Sony’s dominance for the next decade. After the Wii, they doubled down on the gimmick aspect with the Wii U, while not really finding a proper crowd to market it to, and it resulted in a huge lack of interest. Now that the Switch is a huge seller, Nintendo is offering everything regarding its successor at a premium since both the market and their ego make them believe they can offer a lot. Again, I recognize the needs of business and costs, but I just feel they have taken the wrong direction and mindset here, and I don’t see it going well long-term.
