Astral Chain Debuts at No.1 in the UK

[abronn627]

CrazyGamer2017 said:

abronn627 said:

You’re right, people also tend to forget about second hand value and inventory. Games which have tendencies to drop fast in price also have the tendency to be returned as trade-in faster, which affect the inventory available against the demand.

A company like GameStop needs the second hand market to be profitable, but if they’re not moving their new inventory because they move too much second hand units, sales will follow.

It’s easy to complain about Nintendo’s pricing philosophy, which os based on offer and demand, but a look at the used market shows that their approach is the right one if your games can be marketed as such.

For example, since both released few days appart, take Zelda BotW and Horizon Zero Dawn. GameStop’s value for Zelda is 33$ as of today, while HZD is at 3.30$, and if you go in store you’ll have trouble finding a used copy of Zelda while HZD’s are all over the shelves and bins. Zelda’s higher price also guarantee a better value and the time it takes for them to sell a used copy tells us that’s there still a lot of demand for it.

In term of business, Nintendo’s doing the right thing. 

Again their prices are good for THEM, and NOT for the consumer, and I'm not sure why some people almost religiously defend any brand and cheer for said brand in such a way that comes into contradiction with his/her own interests?

Regardless, I don't fully get this as it being the explanation for Nintendo's games prices holding in value over time the way they do. I mean your example of Horizon Zero Dawn and Zelda Breath of the Wild is a relevant one.

BOTH games have sold past 10 millions copies, both games are tremendous successes and both games are NATURALLY right now NOT selling much. Unless you want to argue that BOTW is number one in sales right now, I don't see why it holds in value. GTA5 which is completely crushing both BOTW and HZD put together in terms of sales can be found at a very low price so success has obviously nothing to do with how much a game is prices years after release.

There is something else going on here, I don't know what but Nintendo is not a good choice when it comes to consumer's best interest. Sure Nintendo much prefers to sell BOTW at full price even almost 3 years after release but I'm much happier with Sony selling their games at a very small price after that much time their games are released, it's much more interesting for me, the consumer and it's what the consumer should be looking into.

I don't know what the deal is so I cannot say for sure but I suspect Nintendo doing something to keep prices artificially high. Why else EVERY single other games publishers get their games selling at a very good price sometimes months only after release but not Nintendo?

You guys shouldn't be happy about this price issue, you shouldn't be applauding Nintendo for this cause it's NOT in your interest.

The easy answer to your comment is because they can and the others can’t.

They build their business model on the value of their games and their IPs, lowering the value because you need to sell something is good when you need to do it. I used the comparaison to show that even a second hand version, which is not influenced by the publishers anymore, can keep a high value for a long time, it’s not at the expense of the customers if they’re willing to pay said price. If it doesn’t fit with your value, there’s nothing I can say to make you accept to pay higher for a game you don’t think it’s worth the price asked and that’s you right.

But it’s easy to look at Nintendo the bad way now for it’s pricing policy, you also have to remember that before gen 7, this was normal practice. It’s not that I praise Nintendo for this, but I prefer when a game company can only depend on the sales of the game to be profitable and not fall in a full DLC and microtransactions pattern.

Last edited by abronn627 - on 02 September 2019