Because I want business to succeed, and if Nintendo is doing fine with a business model that is pricey, but in no way scummy, then why change that? There's nothing to gain from Nintendo dropping the price of their games only a few months after release, unless its to clear shelf space of an unpopular product. Their current business model works just fine for both them and the consumer. Nintendo makes long-term profits on a big release by always having something to market alongside their hardware, and the consumer benefits because at the end of the day, they're still getting a quality product no matter how old it is. Nobody's going to stop buying MK8 Deluxe because it's 2 years old, but they'll keep buying it because its a great game, so take advantage of that.

I get criticizing companies for them to improve, but only if its for stuff that's actually broken or should be a lot better. For example, Nintendo still should continue to add more to NSO if they want me to keep my subscription, which at launch, was already hard to justify. But their pricing model on games? Eh, it'd be nice if they're on sale more often, but it's not a huge deal because good games are still good games, so I'm willing to spend $60 on BotW even years after its release. Though I will say that Nintendo should do more complete additions of their games with the DLC built-in. Keeping BotW full price is one thing, but not even including DLC with it even years after release is a little ridiculous.

So you want them to succeed no matter what, although earlier you said they shouldn't do microtransactions/lootboxes even though it'd make them more successful. What is the truth lol. Either way, the "but it's just good business" excuse probably isn't going to convince your fellow consumers that an act of greed is something else. I believe a business should only succeed if it can do so without being greedy and anti-consumer, which Nintendo most certainly can afford to do and thus should rightfully be criticized when they don't.

Also, the implication that only Nintendo makes games worthy of being full price forever is laughable, and what they have to gain by reducing price is more sales obviously. 

I said they were forced into gatcha by the hands of the mobile market, and that I don't think it'll be the norm for Nintendo going forward. In regards to mobile games, I honestly don't care what they do because I don't care about mobile games. But I don't think they should double down as heavily on all their games as much as they did with MK Tour. Tour was a unique case because it was Nintendo's big Mobile release for FY 2019, and it needed to bring in the big bucks quickly. I'll complain more if this becomes a regular problem for Nintendo going forward, but in the case of their previous games and the situation with Tour, I can understand it.

My point is that there's nothing wrong with Nintendo's current business model from a consumer or business perspective. It's more expensive, yes, but it's not screwing you over in a way that rampant micro-transactions do. Nintendo gets something they can sell for a long time, and the consumer still gets a good, reliable product in the end. There's nothing to gain from changing that, because Nintendo still sells ass loads of games at full price even years after they release. Again, just look at the NPD results to understand why they do it.

Nintendo is very unique for a large, global corporation as they value the uniqueness and consumer enjoyment of a product rather than just straight profits. At the end of the day though, they're still a large, global corporation who in the end, still needs to make make money off these products. It's safe to assume Shinya Takahashi (software head) does need to keep the Board of Directors updated on the creative process every now and again. The board wants to make sure company money is being spent wisely, so that everything is working as well as it should.

Nintendo gives developers a lot of creative freedom, but they also give them the guidance necessary to make something profitable as well. My opinion is that companies like Nintendo should have a balance of creativity and bean-counting. The artists get to make the product they want, just as long as within feasible budgets and marketability for its target audience.

Um, what the hell are you talking about!? In case you misunderstood, you're contradicting yourself, saying you're talking from a business standpoint but also saying you don't want lootboxes/microtransactions that would make Nintendo more money.

Ha, you say there's nothing wrong then immediately acknowledge what's wrong with it. Just because it's less bad doesn't make it ok. Once again you use the silly logic of "but they Nintendo they make good games" as if no one else also makes good games. Well, they do, and they actually price drop to boot. Horizon Zero Dawn released in 2017 and is now $20, meanwhile BotW released same year but is still $60. This isn't because BotW is just that much better lol, it's because Nintendo is greedy when it comes to their game prices.

Undoubtedly Nintendo does both, and they are at their best when they do both. Wii Sports and Brain Age were nuclear missiles in the video gaming universe. One game set off the fastest-selling console in history; the other began an entire genre and market for casual gaming. But you're right, if Nintendo had taken Brain Age to the next step with microtransactions for various elements, like rushing and retries, etc... they may have been more successful financially. The point is, Nintendo is an innovator.

It's also NOT "Oh, Mario Galaxy is just another Mario game" because it wasn't. The game was completely different from Mario Sunshine; Sunshine wasn't a vast adventure through a variety of locations like Super Mario Bros 3, World (to a lesser extent), and 64; everything was themed similarly and had similar design strategies. Nintendo spent years working on Super Mario 64 II, and that metamorphosized into Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2. Gravity effects, shooting around between planets... Super Mario Galaxy 1 was the best overall concept, Super Mario Galaxy 2 didn't have the Rosalina framing (they went with their #2 framework), but they developed their more advanced level designs to appropriate completion, and IMO Galaxy 1 may have been the better package, but Galaxy 2 has the best level design in platforming history. These levels are the collection of creative ideas; much of this stuff had never been done before.

That's Nintendo at its best, the creative market leader.

When Nintendo is at its worst... It's when they are making bastardizations of what others are leading on: Gamecube is Nintendo at its worst. It's a PS2, basically, but they made some changes to make it more kid-friendly: the big green button on the Fisher-Price controller, the tiny/barely usable d-pad... There's a reason why 2D never really took off on the Gamecube, plug that controller into a Wii and try to play 2D Virtual Console games with it that have any kind of transitional button stuff... very awkward. The cube-shaped box itself had a handle to appeal to children, make it look like a lunchbox. Nintendo wasn't thinking about "What would Nintendo do?" they were thinking about "What would Sony do to appeal to kids?" And while some people liked Celda, Squirt Gun Mario, and 15-second lap piggy-back Mario Kart, to others it looked like Nintendo was taking a generation off... and that's why not many bought the Gamecube.

I think when Nintendo is adventurous, people like it. I also believe that when Nintendo is showing people a more accessible way to play complex games, they like it. This is where the Wii U failed; it looked like they were trying to make a complex way to play simple games. Gamecube, Wii U, these were not appealing consoles to most. And despite the Wii U having a controller not seen before, it also wasn't used in any way that made the console appealing: asymmetric gameplay? That was the primary marketing thrust of the console, and the only game they showed that did anything with asymmetric gameplay was Nintendo Land, and then nothing really after that. While Nintendo's biggest fuck-up was the N64 (high price, 3rd party alienation, 2nd party evaporation from frugalness and bad relations), at least it was still a Nintendo-feeling console with Nintendoish software. N64 hit 30+ million despite its massive flaws, it was worse than Gamecube and Wii U in terms of the cartridge format and pricing, but better because they didn't sell their soul as they did with Gamecube to try to be the Playstation for children, and they didn't become complacent and arrogant like they did with Wii U.


Anyway, I'm ranting. Bottom line: Nintendo are innovators and creative inventors: consoles are the canvas for that. Some are not very inspirational, not interesting, or not usable (Gamecube and Wii U in particular, Virtual Boy as well) and the audience sees that: they know these are the consoles to skip. Some of their consoles (NES, GB, SNES, DS, N64, Wii, Switch) are canvasses that inspire their devs to make great works of art, things that interest gamers as much as the artists, great Nintendo things.

"if it isn't broke don't fix it" is also, in some instances,  a way of saying "it's ok to leave money on the table". At that point it becomes a bit more philosophical from a business standpoint. I think Nintendo lucks out because, in many cases, what they want to make is what people want to buy. I think they are a little too conservative however. For starters, why aren't there microtransactions in their games when it's suitable? I hate lootboxes and prefer those to die off, but if splatoon had some cosmetic variations that you could just buy to make your current gear look different i'd love it. In turn they could continue to profit on a game that requires extra work after it's release to maintain without receiving additional revenue. That's a mistake and an example of leaving money on the table. Also, I'd love it if i could buy just one console where i could play zelda, metroid while still getting 1-2 great AAA single player games that i'm really into and a couple cool online games to sink my teeth into. Nintendo could do this on their own imo. Hell i think they may have done it back on the gamecube (pre online of course), but they don't. I really feel they could still make all the "weird games" they take chances with while still supporting a solid library, I don't feel they do that however. I was hoping that combining the handheld & home console libraries would do that, but i wouldn't say that's the case necessarily. I'm hoping that's changing a bit through 2nd party/3rd party partnerships. Starlink was a cool attempt at expanding their higher budget game library using the starfox property. It felt like an attempt at the modern starfox nintendo should have created on the wii & wii u. Pit made a return on the 3ds, but they could still go so much further so i'm HOPING for an announcement that ubisoft will once again partnering with nintendo to make "gods and monsters" feel like the newest "kid icarus" adventure title. So yeah, nintendo is currently doing FINE. but that doesn't mean there's not room for improvement.

I think it's definitely good for Nintendo to flex their creative muscle and crank out some things they truly enjoy making, being in the creative business they're in pushing boundaries is a good thing. At the same time they're a business that provides a product at a certain level of quality and style their fans expect. They essentially work for the fans so ultimately the focus should be more what the fans are looking for.

Games like NSMB simply should be made at times, as they help keep their business running so they can be around to crank out the weirder stuff in the first place. And hell, the "creative freedom" angle vs "business side" don't always have to be mutually exclusive anyway. If a game is of enough quality and appeals to enough people, but ends can be achieved simultaneously.

Well, part of working for the fans also involves giving them stuff they didn't even know they wanted. And that only comes from developers being allowed to go nuts within reason.