| PAOerfulone said: The explain why they can get away with porting the Wii U's entire library to the Switch and almost every single game can match or exceed the sales of the original Wii U version (MK8D, Tropical Freeze, Pokken DX, Captain Toad, NSMBU, etc.). Or how Link's Awakening is selling big numbers and may outsell the original despite being $60 for a remake of a Game Boy game. Especially when you look at other remasters like the Crash N Sane Trilogy and the Spyro Reignited Trilogy each going for $40 for 3 games; Or how every 1st party Nintendo game will still sell for full price even years after it came out and still have solid, steady legs. I say this as a Nintendo fan: Nintendo fans are some of the biggest sheep in gaming. |
lol I'd say humans in general are sheep, but in the case of the Wii U ports, it makes sense they sell better on a much larger installbase. Also in regards to full price games selling great for years, that's pretty silly, as if after an arbitrary amount of time it suddenly becomes bad to buy the game, that only the people who got it at launch were right to do so.
| TheMisterManGuy said: With Mario Kart Tour, their hands were simply forced by the market conditions of mobile gaming. Most of their other games had lukewarm profits, and Gatcha games have literally been the only consistent hit for them so far. With Mario Kart being such a big brand, there was a ton of pressure on Tour to deliver real results. I doubt this will be the norm for Nintendo, but it does show they will get their hands dirty if push comes to shove. At the end of the day, they're a publicly traded corporation owned by shareholders. If they're not making enough money in a lucrative market like Smartphone games, investors are naturally going to be annoyed. As for other things, Nintendo has a strict policy against starting development on DLC for a game until its finished, or near finished its core development cycle. With Nintendo DLC, they often arrive months after the game itself launches, and its usually reasonably priced. The worse they've gotten was some overpriced Fire Emblem DLC in the past. With Paid Online, Nintendo's service is at least much cheaper than the other services. It's nowhere near as robust, but you're getting about what you'd expect for a $20 service, and Nintendo has at least been making good on their promise of expanding its features and value, even if its only a little at a time. I'm saying that people aren't going to keep buying a game if you're dropping the price only a few months after release to clear shelf space. That's the traditional 3rd party model of selling a AAA game. They put it out, get most of the sales early, and then clear it out once the next shinny toy arrives. Nintendo games are designed to sell the entire generation, as they function to get people to buy the hardware. Keeping the game full price, with only a few sales a year is a smarter way to create longer lasting sales potential. Just look at How BotW and Smash Bros. still regularly chart high despite being 1-2 years old. |
You're just waffling now. The point is Nintendo is currently leaving money on the table, something they wouldn't do if they were truly all about maximizing profits.
I'm not following your logic regarding price at all. That 3rd partys pump out yearly sequels don't mean a price drop would lower consumer interest. Yes let's look at BotW and Smash Bros., ok and? You seriously think they'd sell worse if they were lowered to $40? I can tell you if Smash was $40 right now I'd own the game. Again, why are you defending this, why do you want to pay more for your games?
