Star Fox Digital Version is Cheaper than Physical Copy - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 07 May 2026 / 3,003 Views
Nintendo yesterday following rumors officially announced a remake and reimagining of Star Fox 64, called Star Fox, for the Nintendo Switch 2. It will launch on June 25.
Details on the price have been released that shows the digital version is cheaper than the physical version. Making it the second first-party Switch 2 game to have a cheaper digital version after Yoshi and the Mysterious Book.
In the US, the digital version is priced at $49.99, while the physical version will retail for $59.99. In Japan, the digital version is priced at ¥5,480, while the physical version will retail for ¥6,480.
In the UK, the digital version will cost £41.99. However, as of the time of writing it isn't known how much the physical version will cost, but it is expected to be priced at £49.99.
Thanks, VideoGamesChronicle.
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can follow the author on Bluesky.
More Articles
Before you think this is a good deal, bear in mind that the credits of Star Fox 64 can be seen after a single play session.
So can the majority of Resident Evil games... and I'm happy to drop $70 or $80 on those
Games need to stop being defined SOLELY by game length
Replay value, production quality, novelty... and how much fun the gameplay is
These should all be major factors
I don't get why people want 100 hour games that are 80% filler with mid af gameplay lol
With that said...
I don't care about Star Fox at all personally lol
Because price per hour is the best way to measure value. Would people play a Mario game which looked the bees knees but only had a 5 hour play time at $80? I bet they would not, but I suppose some would move the goal posts.
They mentioned resident evil as full priced games that rely on replay value over long game times. You just chose to ignore that though huh?
I'm not saying that can't be the main point... but using a single playthrough time as the ONLY factor is the reason we have bloated and boring games
From the moment Skyrim and GTA5 released, everyone expected every full priced game to be 40 to 100 hours... which is an unattainable standard to set
If price per hour is all you care about, let me introduce you to F2P and MMO games lol
I will agree tons of games are severely bloated.
Why does only the length of single playthrough count? Why doesn't replay value count? If I spent $60-70 on a game that's 80 hours long, but only play once because of the sheer time investment, how is that any different from paying $60-70 on a game that's only 2 or 4 or 8 hours but I replay so often as to squeeze at least 80 hours of gameplay time out of it over time? This "price divided by hours to beat once" mentality, and the general turning of "short" and "linear" into dirty words in the world of video gaming, is one of the major components responsible for "AAA" games becoming ridiculously expensive games taking gigantic teams working 5+ years. Making gigantic game worlds full of detail and 80+ hours of "content" doesn't come cheap.
So many of these newer games these days are a "one-and-done" experience to me. They just take so damn long to beat that by time I'm done I'm ready to move on to something else. The only open-world game I've replayed in the last decade-plus was Horizon Zero Dawn. Meanwhile, hopping on a Mega Man game or playing a Halo campaign asks far less of my time, and for that I replay them constantly. I spent hundreds of hours playing Star Fox 64, Mega Man, Super Mario Bros., Halo CE, and other games considered "too short" by today's standards, more time than I ever spent playing the latest le epic open world game. I just hop on, get an hour or two in, and then replay it again a few days later. Some of my favorite recent games include the Resident Evil remakes (and I'm finally playing RE7 after it's sat on my shelf for years), and that's because they're relatively short. I've replayed them several times each because they can be beaten relatively quickly. Once I figured everything out, the speedrunning trophy in RE4 was easy to get, and even beating it on S+ ranking didn't take too long at all. Probably played through the game five times over the span of one month.
It's the same for movies. I can rewatch a movie more often than an entire TV show, because the movie only asks about 2 hours of my time while rewatching an entire show can take dozens of hours. It could take many tens of hours to rewatch a particularly long series. If it's 120 hours to binge a whole show, well, I could watch like 60 movies in that time instead. Also, you never hear people calling movies "rip-offs" for lasting only two hours, do you?
I bring up game length largely because that was one of the big complaints I heard about Star Fox Zero back in 2016.
So? I paid $60 back in 1998 (the equivalent of about $120 in today's money) for the original N64 release. It was worth every penny. I put so many hours into that game. Amazing replay value. And replay value matters more than game length to me. Most of my favorite games I can beat in one or a few game sessions. I can beat Halo CE in two or three afternoons, and that's on Legendary. I can pop off two or three Mega Man games in a single afternoon. Those are the kind of games I can keep coming back to over and over simply because they don't ask much of my time. I'd rather pay $60 for a game that I can beat in four hours but will play dozens of times than pay the same for a game that takes 60+ hours to beat but I may never replay again because it asks so much of my time.
Some games dont even have campaigns and cost more.
According to howlongtobeat.com Starfox 64 takes 10.5 hours to see and do everything. IMO that's a good enough length for an on-rails shmup.
I don't think that the digital version is cheaper than physical copy, the physical copy is more expensive than the digital copy. And yes, there's a difference.
Someone wise said - BS.
Isn’t this what Nintendo said they were going to do starting with Yoshi? Or am I missing something?
