![[Switch] The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt Complete Edition - $55.96 @ Nintendo eShop](https://files.ozbargain.com.au/n/58/528358.jpg?h=b2cc5a1a)
Not a big fan of digital downloads however this is the historical lowest price as per Dekudeals.
[Switch] The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt Complete Edition - $55.96 @ Nintendo eShop
250
Clivey In Space on 03/04/2020 - 12:51 ec.nintendo.com (319 clicks)
Last edited 03/04/2020 - 12:54 by 1 other user
Last edited 03/04/2020 - 12:54 by 1 other user
Related Stores
closed Comments
Release date on PlayStation 4: 2015
Studios required: 1
Release date on PC: 2015
Studios required: 1
Release date on Xbox One: 2015
Studios required: 1Release date on Switch: 2019
Studios required: 2Take into account that a 32GB Switch Cartridge is 60% more expensive to produce than a PS4 game as well and that parity needs to be present across physical and digital games' prices as per policies across all console platforms.
Why would they immediately devalue their game mere months after its initial release just to match the price of the other systems and anger early adopters of the game on Switch?
Like you said, the game came out in 2015. Other rereleases on other consoles have often been discounted from the start. And this is the digital version so the cartridge argument is kinda invalid. It’s ok, you don’t need to stand up for their pricing. Everyone agrees it’s too steep but people will still buy it is so they can see Geralt in 540p while they take a dump.
That was a very dismissive and immature response to what I said.
CD Projekt Red hired an entire studio (Saber Interactive) to port the game to switch. That's a lot of work. It's not a simple cut and paste to make the game work on lesser hardware. Initial efforts saw the game running at 10fps and had a 50GB file size, but I'm guessing you didn't know that? And that porting takes time, money and effort?
The physical/digital argument is not invalid. It's a policy from all console stores to sell digital versions of games that have a physical counterpart at the same price as - or close enough to - the physical version so that each demographic pays the same price for their prefered format as to not implicate there is a preferable way to purchase a game.
As for your closing comment, despite being unnecessarily condescending, is also factually incorrect and like you've just stated it to feel better about your complaint.
Obviously people want to pay less for things. And no, the price isn't to gouge the Switch market, but to recover costs for hiring a second studio and to keep CD Projekt's Switch endeavour profitable.
I actively dislike capitalist structures such as these, but it's really not difficult at all to see why there is a price discrepancy between titles on Switch that came out much later, and required additional studios to port them, and the original releases that came out years prior on more efficient hardware with clear benchmarks for the initial development timeframe.
@Faro: While I understand Donald's response was brief, your points don't fully explain the price point other than price gouging because you can't get it on Switch otherwise.
"CD Projekt Red hired an entire studio (Saber Interactive) to port the game to switch. That's a lot of work. It's not a simple cut and paste to make the game work on lesser hardware. Initial efforts saw the game running at 10fps and had a 50GB file size, but I'm guessing you didn't know that? And that porting takes time, money and effort?"
Yes, they should recover their cost but this game release at $99.95 which is the price when it came out on PS4/XBOX are you saying they spend as much developing the whole game and porting to Switch?
https://www.ebgames.com.au/product/nintendo-switch/252819-wi…
"The physical/digital argument is not invalid. It's a policy from all console stores to sell digital versions of games that have a physical counterpart at the same price as - or close enough to - the physical version so that each demographic pays the same price for their prefered format as to not implicate there is a preferable way to purchase a game."
This is a business decision like steam charges us more because we are in Australia don't really agree that we need to pay this price because they choose a technology that is 60% more expensive that is Nintendo's problem.
"Obviously people want to pay less for things. And no, the price isn"t to gouge the Switch market, but to recover costs for hiring a second studio and to keep CD Projekt's Switch endeavour profitable."
Nope unless you can prove to me that it cost more to port than develop the whole game this is price gouging/paying more for the "Nintendo" brand.
"I actively dislike capitalist structures such as these, but it's really not difficult at all to see why there is a price discrepancy between titles on Switch that came out much later, and required additional studios to port them, and the original releases that came out years prior on more efficient hardware with clear benchmarks for the initial development timeframe."
I am not disagreeing that they can charge more but $99.95 on release? did they spend 400 mil porting the game?
@OpenAI: I get your point.
New games, especially with a physical release, always price at a premium and inevitably fall unless the cost of doing so was negligible.
The initial high prices of these new ports or releases is to protect the brand or IP that the price is representing.
If CD Projekt Red released Witcher 3 on Switch for $30 (physically and digitally as per policy) just because that's the price on the other platforms, it does not make the game profitable and suggests that the IP of the Witcher series is not something they value any more as it is "old".
This game will inevitably get cheaper, as is the case with almost every game as it ages on a current generation platform, but expecting it to launch at the same price as the other systems is not realistic. Most sales for any game come in the first few weeks of release.
Granted, no consumers would be complaining that they can get their "new release" games cheaper, but it wouldn't make financial sense for companies to do it this way. That is the answer, despite how people will agree or disagree with it.
@Faro: Considering this is the full answer as to why the companies release old games at a full RRP, it seems people did not want an answer, but rather to complain about things until they can get them for as close to free as possible.
But playing on the go or in the loo though…
everyone is stuck at home, which does detract from needing the game on a portable device
Pi$$ off Nintendo.
That's not how you spell "CD PROJEKT", given that it's individual developers/publishers (and not Nintendo) that sets the prices on the eShop.
How does publishing my content on the Nintendo eShop work? Who gets to control the price, release date and promotional materials?
As the developer, the price, release date and content are all set by you.
https://developer.nintendo.com/faqHe just wanted the upvotes, and targeting Nintendo is low hanging fruit considering the prices of their first party titles.
You're not going to get a logical response back.
You sure your not Reggie or Bowser in disguise?
@[Deactivated]: For criticising your unfounded anger towards CD Projekt Red for not pricing their game at bargain prices on release?
@Faro: I love CD Projekt Red. I have no issue with the Nintendo switch console. But I am displeased people have to pay 3 times the amount for an inferior version of this fantastic game then every other major platform is selling it for. Simple.
@[Deactivated]: So what would you suggest then? For the new release of Witcher 3 on Switch to cost $18 already because it matches the other systems? Therefore making the physical version unprofitable and stopping new games from CD Projekt Red being ported to the Switch in the future?
I'm actually curious how you would prefer the situation to look within the realms of our reality.
@Faro: Not necessarily $18 but maybe a little bit closer to the others. To be honest, I really don’t care, I have this game of PC and PS4 and the price I paid for both combined is less than 1 copy of the inferior Nintendo version. But that’s cool, Nintendo can have their free pass and keep their game prices higher because why not, “it’s Nintendo bro, it’s just what they do so you as a dumb consumer should just accept that”. Are you sure you are not a Nintendo rep??
Its both Nintendo's and individual publishers fault.
Nintendo doesn't want to devalue its games.
Individual publishers keep prices in line with Nintendo games in that store.
You can see in the latest round of sales on the eshop, some publishers have discounted reasonably, but most haven't.
In reality, they're competing with games on all platforms, PC, Playstation etc. It's just absurd to me that I can pay $5 for Baldur's Gate EE on PC or $50 for the 2 pack on the Switch. Most people are going to hold off unless you have a bottomless pit of money.
And its also the reason I have WAY less games on every nintendo system.
"As the developer, the price, release date and content are all set by you."
Lol. That is such a selective quote. The fees are set by Nintendo.
Fees are passed onto the consumer.
What are those fees and how important are they to final price? No idea. But you need to interrogate what you read or else you're just blind.
What are those fees and how important are they to final price? No idea. But you need to interrogate what you read or else you're just blind.
Given that there are indie developers/publishers that regularly discount their games on the eShop by 80%~90% to increase visibility and sales, do you have any compelling evidence that Nintendo charge anything beyond (at most) the 30% cut of the final sales price that is generally considered the industry standard?
The extra cost of the cart for physical releases notwithstanding.
@pj1351: How would I know? Tiered pricing exists.
Next time there's an au switch game posted on ozb with active devs (happens alot) why don't you ask?
Tiered pricing exists.
So we should reasonably expect CD PROJEKT to get less favourable terms for fees than indie devs?
Anyway, I’ve already presented evidence for my case that developers/publishers are the ones who get to set the price of their own games on the eShop (it doesn’t get much more official than a page every would-be Switch developer would see on the way in).
Why exactly should I be chasing devs to try find any evidence to support your case?
@pj1351: It's a logical argument. Don't act like you're right without investigating.
Whereas I'm merely pointing out possibilities, not acting like I'm right. I said i don't know how much of an impact it is.
Yes I would expect tiered pricing. Indie often can't pay as much. Nintendo know if they don't cater for indie their eshop will have a gaping wound compared to competitors.
Tiered pricing might even be a discount fee based on volume of sales rather than price point.
Again, just pointing out possibilities. I always challenge people because I hate assumptions. Ultimately I don't care that much about the outcome as much as the thought process. It's a bugbear of mine from dealing with "senior" engineers that make our decisions due to assumptions
I think anyone who wants to play this game needs to experience it on a PC. U would never go back
unless you have a potato
So a Switch?
After just finishing the game for the first time on Switch and being able to play it portably (which came in handy several times when traveling to friend's places, needing to share the tv, etc), I believe you should just play it.
Don't be elitist about platform or make people feel inferior about their choice or availability of system.
Not my intention here. I have it on switch as well. It's just my opinion that it is a vastly enhanced opinion.
…if you are part of that small percentage of gamers that have a high powered gaming PC available to them
@Faro: You do NOT need a high powered gaming PC to play The Witcher 3 at Ultra/1080p, a low end 1050ti or 1650S will work just fine at a similar 30fps cap. You can also get an Xbox One X these days very cheap. Are you saying a small percentage of gamers own a PC? Because that is just not true.
@Vinodra: While that statement is fair, why would someone who may not already have those devices buy them to play Witcher 3 when they may already have a Switch available to them?
That's what I'm saying.
There's always a technically superior way to play any non-first-party Switch game. There's even always a better way to play any Xbox game or non-exclusive PlayStation game, but for some reason everyone always feels the need to remind people of the PC ports more on Switch posts than other consoles.
@Faro: The switch version is not a playable experience in my opinion, if you dont play this game on PC or atleast an Xbox One X (around the same price as a switch), you're doing yourself a disservice.
I originally played this on the base xbox one in 2015 and then on PC last year, it really is a night and day difference. Im sure the base console versions are way more optimized at this point, so base PS4 and Xbox One would be fine also.
@Vinodra: Considering I just finished the main story on Switch without any hindrances (especially post patch 3.6), and you clearly haven't, you've now lost me.
@Faro: Ive played it on 5 different systems, Xbox One (complete playthrough) Xbox One X, Low End Gaming PC, High End Gaming PC (Complete playthrough) and Switch, the only way i'd ever play it on Switch again is if I had no other options. I havent played Patch 3.6 though.
You dont need to have completed the game to know which versions are superior.
@Vinodra: No, but having completed it on Switch I can say it is definitely "playable".
I own the game on Xbox One X and simply didn't want to be glued to one spot playing this game for the 80 hours it took me to finish the main quest. I was able to play this game in bed, at my mate's place, parked in my car and on my tv. I could not have done that with my Xbox.
@Faro: To be fair I dont really use my switch in portable mode, so I didnt really consider that benefit. I usually only use it to play first party Nintendo games in docked mode. I just hate the JoyCons to be honest, I have to use the Switch Pro controller to enjoy playing games on it.
This has cross-save with PC. You can play it on PC and then take it to the TV or the loo on the switch lol
The recent 3.6 patch for this on Switch makes it look absolutely amazing with AA off and Sharpening on High. Prior to that patch I would not have recommended the game as it looked very muddy, personally I think it's a must buy now for those who haven't played it. The cross save between PC is amazing also.
For me personally, the sweet spot was AA off, Blur and Motion Blur off and Sharpening on low, although I've heard others who prefered AA on and Sharpening on High.
Regardless, I agree that it is much improved with these options and is 100% a must-buy.
If you're new to it, I'd just suggest messing around with the settings yourself until you find the visual sweet spot.
Toss a coin to him
Rather than to Nintendo 😁
Toss an upvote to your OzBargainer.
The main issue I have with this price is I will only play it once. And physical version is around this price. It's not cheap enough vs physical to be a compelling purchase.
$17.95 on PlayStation $23.98 on Xbox $23.69 on Steam. Pi$$ off Nintendo.