I don't think 450 is bad at all for Nintendow Switch.
It's steep, sure, but if the hardware specs are to be believed (that's a BIG if), it should be way better than OG Switch.
It's the reason the GameCube did poorly and the WiiU did poorly—cost way too much for their client base. I still think MK8 on the WiiU is a gorgeous game, and it may actually run better than the Switch version.
Idk. I just want to see what Nintendo can do with headroom now on their stuff. Hopefully the console isn't nearly as hardware-limited as before (it IS Nintendo, so it still will be somewhat...), and games cost more for HOPEFULLY a good reason... making games that run at 4K or 120fps is harder than 1080p (obviously), and even quite a few 1080p experiences on Switch (or even 720p!) were stuttery.
I personally don't have an issue paying more for something as long as the quality is there.
I don't go buying games every week though. I can't remember the last time I bought a game. It's probably been over a year actually...
If it's gonna be the case that, say, Pokémon comes out with another game that runs like garbage and has low visual fidelity, AND charges 80 for it, I'm right there with you.
I don't think they should have even charged 60 for their most recent ones, as they were kinda a train wreck.
I think Nintendo can charge whatever they want for their stuff—the market will just react accordingly. If they charge 100$ for the new Mario, it's gonna have way less sales than Mario normally makes because kids can't afford that.