By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
CrazyGamer2017 on 02 September 2019
Edit Thread
abronn627 said:

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.

To be clear I'm not saying this game or that game isn't worth the price. I don't value a game by its price because if I did then that would imply I'm calling The Last of us a bad game cause you can find it for less than 20 euros/dollars nowadays. Is God of War a bad game cause it's not sold at a full 60 dollars right now? Nope, it used to sell at full price and now most people who will ever buy it already bought it so it makes sense to lower the price so that people that may not think of buying it now could be tempted into getting it. It's business as business should be. Something is very attractive on day one, the price is high, after a while sales come down as they are expected to eventually, the price goes down too.

But Nintendo would rather lose some "end of life" sales than to lower the price over time and that strikes me as anti-consumer. By that logic, food and water should be super expensive cause people can never stop getting those, the way housing and health care keep going higher and higher in price. How is that good for people?

But I digress. So how is Nintendo not going the way of DLC's and micro-transactions? Isn't BOTW containing not only DLC's that you must pay extra for but also hiding a hard game mode for that game behind a paywall? Doesn't seem like keeping their games' prices high stops them from making DLC's and making you pay extra to access the hard mode.

Like I said before, If I end up getting a Switch, either games end up coming down in price, even a very long time after, I don't mind that, or I will only buy a very limited amount of games, only the top ones (BOTW, Super Mario Odyssey, Metroid Prime 4, maybe that 2D Zelda recently released whose name I don't remember right now and that's it) and I will be fine with that. Not sure how it wouldn't be better for both Nintendo and I, that I buy a ton of games rather than just a few or even risk not getting a Switch at all which is still an option.

I think Nintendo's philosophy on pricing is similar to the one of luxury cars. Those companies know very well they'll never sell billions of cars but at the same time they never meant to, they're fine selling to a small elite minority who can afford to pay full price.