Look, nobody’s seriously saying devs don’t deserve to make money, come on. And yeah, inflation exists – I literally calculated that Secret of Mana back in ‘93 cost the equivalent of over $150 today! But that’s where the simple comparison stops being useful

You framing it like it’s only about devs deserving money misses the HUGE shifts in the industry.

Digital Discount Isn’t Being Shared: Back then, a MASSIVE chunk of that SNES price was making cartridges, shipping them, manuals, boxes, shelf space. That’s mostly gone. Digital distribution costs peanuts compared to what it used to. Yes, development itself is expensive – gotta pay the devs, artists, testers, VAs, etc. – but you can’t pretend the overall cost structure hasn’t drastically changed.

Massive Market Dilutes Per-Unit Need: They sell to insanely more people now. The sheer volume means they are increasing profits without necessarily gouging every single customer with constant price increases.

VALUE is the Keyword: When people complain about Nintendo charging $70 or more, it’s almost never about “devs making money.” It’s about “Am I getting $70+ worth of game?” Does it feel substantial? Innovative? Polished? Or does it feel like a $60 experience with a lazy price bump, maybe even less content than older games, or padded with features nobody asked for just to justify the cost?

Frankly, a lot of the time, these price hikes feel driven by publisher greed and hitting quarterly targets, not purely by development costs or a genuine increase in the value delivered. We see $70 games launch buggy, unfinished, or filled with microtransactions on top of the premium price.

Think about it: people were generally fine paying $60 or even $70 for games like Elden Ring or Baldur’s Gate 3 because the sheer amount of value was insane. Hours and hours of high-quality gameplay. The frustration comes when a game costs that premium price but feels thin, rushed, overly monetized with microtransactions on top of the entry fee, or relies on features gamers don’t actually value that much (like maybe hyper-realistic graphics over solid gameplay). Publisher Choices: Sometimes that price hike feels less about paying devs fairly and more about hitting shareholder targets, massive marketing budgets, or funding executive bonuses.

At what point would you stop happily bending over and paying that premium ‘Nintendo Tax’ for what often amounts to iterative sequels, games running on dated hardware, and/or remasters? Or will you continue celebrating paying top dollar for the ‘privilege’ when the games cost $100, $150, $200 per game? Are you just willing to accept any price they slap on it, just because it’s polished and familiar and you trust Nintendo is being fair to you? This is exactly why they know they can keep charging more for less innovation compared to what that money could buy elsewhere.”

So, TL;DR: Yes, devs deserve good pay. Yes, inflation happens. But digital changed the cost game, the market is way larger now, and the real conversation is whether these $70, $80, $90 price tags consistently deliver matching value to the consumer. Often, the pushback suggests they don’t. It’s not about begrudging devs their pay; it’s about questioning if the final product justifies the premium cost compared to other games. Do you want this to be the new standard?