Your tldr makes literally no sense.  These companies do not exist in a vaccuum.  Nitnendo is competing against Microsoft, Sony and PCs for gamers' dollars.  Smash is competing against RDR2 for gamers' dollars.  In this respect, Nintendo the developer is in the exact same situation that Activision, Square Enix, SIE, and others are: they want you buying their game and are competing against everyone else for their share of the pie.

The answer is competition, with lackluster 3rd party support/inferior ports there's little Nintendo's games have to compete with for consumer attention so they can keep the prices up. Sony & Microsoft have significantly more games competing for consumers money so obviously need to drop prices to remain competitive.

So what, if Nintendo consoles had more third party games, they'd have to drop their prices?

....Frankly that just makes it seem like the third parties are stupid for not putting less expensive games on the Switch to try and fill that niche. So basically we are all saying that the third parties are stupid and failing to fill in a clear and obvious niche.

"Yes. Nobody invests tens of millions of dollars for a game, and will simply sit and stare at other's new games overshadow it a week after launch."

>What are you referring to here?

"The Nintendo consoles have a lot less multiplats and there is a reason for it."

>The Switch is newer compared to the X1/PS4?

Nintendo thinks that by lowering their prices, they are devaluing their product. For them, people often associate low prices with low quality products and do not want people to have that perception of their games. The problem here is that Nintendo has no competition in the market, its games are unique, no other game gives you the "Nintendo experience", so they do not feel that need to lower the price quickly. In the case of others, their games have a more direct competition with those of other companies.

Personally, I like Nintendo and luckily for them, I decide for what I like and not for price.

Well, competition, first and foremost. I don't see why anyone would even attempt to downplay that factor. It's probably part of the reason Nintendo never really tried to form an equitable partnership with third-parties across the board the way others have. Nintendo's consoles are primarily intended to push their own software.

More than that, though, they've conditioned their fans to accept it. Once that happens, many of those fans will defend the practice.

As for why others drop their prices, that's pretty simple. The people who aren't trying your game at $60 might try it if it's at $40. Those that aren't trying it at $40 might try it at $20. When there is a lot of competition, this is viable way to increase exposure. Selling cheaply is better than not selling at all. Software isn't like a physical product where most of the investment is in the production materials.

More importantly, getting someone to try your game at $20 might turn them into a fan, meaning they might buy your NEXT game at $60. It's an especially smart move when you're talking about a continuing franchise.

Which strategy do people think is the better one for the longivety of a company?

R.I.P. Bullfrog, Maxis, Westwood etc

Nintendo system of doing stuff is trash tier level, overpriced games for years & barely any discounts, thank God for PSN, XBL & Steam.

I'm not saying games should be 50% off after a week but after 6 months drop the price 25/30% & everyone would be happy, plus more people would enjoy.

Yea, Breath of the Wild has barely budged.

Ok, competition is a fact. But, Nintendo is selling video games. Rockstar is selling video games, Activision is selling video games, EA is selling video games, everybody here are selling video games. So, competition is real, for all, Nintendo included.