Personally, for me, it's not Stockholm Syndrome  (thanks for that bit of presumptuous ondescension though), it's just that I have a broader perspective on the issue.  Cutting prices this fast in my mind devalues games as a whole, especially when it is a high quality game doing it, and ultimately perpetuates the hype-machine driven front-loaded-sales state that the industry is in.  It conditions consumers to *expect* rapid drops in prices, meaning if your game isn't spectacular or more to the point hyped up by a massive advertising push, you're screwed.  Because your game won't sell enough in launch window and you can't keep your price up and bank on legs because no one will pay that full price.  Rapidly falling prices on all games in my mind is unhealthy for the games industry.  It encourages companies to double down on the already toxic preorder culture, devalues games in general in the minds of consumers, discourages taking risks on new ideas that will be dependent on long term sales rather than massive launch window sales, and encourages the already egregious advertising spending.  Nintendo can be extreme in peotecting the value of games, but look at, say, Splatoon.  In a market where games have been devalued by the aforementioned practices and consumers conditioned to expect price cuts constantly, Splatoon would have had little chance of becoming the successful new IP it was because it's very odd premise made it dependent on legs much more so than launch day sales.  Could it have been a sales success still? Probably but nowhere near as profitable and who knows where that would put us at now.  Who knows if Nintendo would have even bothered. 

Personally, in my mind, unless a game is failing in sales, I would like it's MSRP to stay $60 for 12 months.  Then drop it in tiers over an extended period.  Cutting a quality game's price in half 5 months after launch is just not healthy for the industry and while it's lovely short term for consumers, it's not worth the exchange.

Nintendo has gotten better with lowering the prices of their games with the Nintendo selects program.

Actually we can't say this is true. There are too many variables for that....for instance I could say well the game did so well before the 1st price cut that it made back the money spent and they were able to cut the price. Thus enabling more customers to get the game which means even more sales and profit being made. So game sales are higher quality games are in more homes and the industry thrives(that's just another outlook but yours is also possible).......besides to be fair the game is only $10 less than launch price of $59.99 on almost all major retailers like BB, Target, Walmart, Gamestop etc. Games staying at $60 for 12months sounds like a horrible idea in my opion. 6-8 sure but 12 months that just is too long to still be $60.

Lol devalues. Come on like I bought far cry primal, mad max and assassin Creed unity all for $10 each last November. I recently bought deus ex for $15. Why would you want their prices to stay high. Instead of buying 1 game I can buy 4 for the same price. It means I can buy a shit ton of games. That's value.

Some people make it seem like Nintendo's wallet is more important than ours LOL

PRICE DROPS ARE GOOD PEOPLE

Yup you said it.  You should want to play more games for your money not less.  It's why I've got more games then I can play and all for super value. 

I agree.

That's the gaming market in general, things depreciate in time. It's generally out of a publisher's hands when a game doesn't move despite their efforts. Video games aren't currency though. Trying to artificially fix prices way beyond the point of interest doesn't help the publisher at all, especially when they should ultimately look out for their consumers.  You have to get the product out there the best you can to keep interest in your brand's output so they can figure out why it's worth buying in the first place. It seems like publishers like Nintendo have been creating this economic subculture among their fandom of scalpers and forgers due to both keeping their prices relatively high compared to other publishers, and having product in constantly limited stock.

To be fair, I do understand what you mean by devaluing the market. Case in point, the Xbox One, which is at the polar opposite of the spectrum. Microsoft had gotten so desperate to put systems in homes, they were giving away so much of their merchandise (along with third party games) at the time. It was less a move to benefit themselves, than it was just to spoil the industry for the competition. Giving away SEVERAL current gen games with the purchase of their consoles on top of the discounted price of the system, only stemmed the market to wait to buy their products in fire sales. Not just at the end of the year in holiday sales, but year round. Leading to their position at the moment.

There's got to be a balance between not being flexible with prices and giving away the house, since the interest and demand for games has a small window from release. Video games are a rapidly evolving industry, constantly looking for new angles to sell games. Sometimes, products fail, but playing keep-away with prices and hoping and wishing products get discovered at some natural impulse doesn't happen. The industry has to move forward, looking for the next product that can hopefully be successful.

If you want cheaper games pay the 2nd hand price. Personally I prefer it if publishers didn't destroy the resale/trade-in value of my game collection.

Everything devalues over time.

I find absurd the idea of defending a corporation so they can mantain the full price of something for years and years.

Who are we rooting for?! LOL

Whats next? Burning stores for having Black Fridays or something?