seiya19 said:
I'm glad you found it to be useful. ^_^ For the record, I do consider the likes of Mario is Missing and Time Machine pointed out before to count as videogames though, regardless of their intent to be educational. The way they operate fits the cathegory in my opinion, and the fact that they appeared on NES/SNES is something to consider here, as it shows at least how Nintendo didn't think of them as being out of place in said platforms. As for your question, no, I can't think of more examples from the 90s onwards, outside of the CD-I games, the examples S.Peelman mentioned, and Pokédex 3D on iOS (which is arguably more of an app than a game). There's also versions of Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr. and Mario Bros. on the Atari 7800, but those were released on 1988.
As others have stated before, these games you allude to keep selling at full price because the demand is there. They are usually refered to as "evergreen" titles, capable of selling for long periods of time, yet having relatively low sales at launch compared to other "AAA" games. Not every game from Nintendo's lineup follows this trajectory though, as other games with less demand like Metroid: Other M, Paper Mario: Sticker Star, Wii Play: Motion, and Sin and Punishment: Star Successor evidence. Basically, only those Nintendo games that find mainstream success in the long run or the rare cases of niche games that get low shipments get to keep their price. The rest drops just as much as your average game or more. Furthermore, Nintendo has been reprinting many of their most popular games through budget labels like "Player's Choice", "Minna no Susume" and "Nintendo Selects" since the SNES era, and through the E-Shop they have done sales and promotions on 3DS and WiiU, even if most of them are for Virtual Console and download-only games. And your point about NES cartridges ignores the fact that said media was much more expensive to manufacture than the optical media we use these days, which naturally makes it more of a risk to overship, not to mention the condition of the market at the time. Nowadays, with the current move to digital media, this issue is becoming more and more irrelevant anyway.
The first party lineup of both Sony and Microsoft (Xbox) is largely exclusive, so I don't see how they aren't doing the same here. Sure, Microsoft has allowed a few of their exclusives to be ported to Windows later (part of them being 2nd party games), Rare has developed a few games on Nintendo handhelds, and Sony has SOE for MMOs on PC, but all this is more of the exception than the rule. And since Windows is also a Microsoft platform as you mentioned, it's not much of a counter-point for them here. As for Playstation Now, that's a service through streaming, so I don't think it's of much relevance in this context. This model is not only dependant on your internet bandwidth, but you're also "renting" the games (as far as I know at least). Personally, I prefer to own my media and physically if possible, and I don't have any confidence in playing games through streaming, so I'm definitely not interested... And I doubt I'm in the minority here... |
You really are a good poster. Clever comments and right to the point. However, I think you're wrong on 2 things:
- "these games you allude to keep selling at full price because the demand is there...The rest drops just as much as your average game or more" - That's not correct. The demand is not there to keep the full price. I have been following for several years both videogame sales and prices at online stores of games from all home platforms and many different publishers, and I assure you Nintendo games don't drop as they should. Could I prove it? Of course but, given the accuracy demanded here, that would take me dozens if not hundreds of hours. I can only suggest you to take a look at some recent charts and compare them against the price of the same games you see on 2 or 3 online stores. With a good sample, and comparing what it is comparable, you will easily see the difference between Nintendo and the others.
- "The first party lineup of both Sony and Microsoft (Xbox) is largely exclusive, so I don't see how they aren't doing the same here." - I guess what you fail to perceive here is that, when a company sets a strategy, all actions must be aligned according to it or it will not succeed. One pawn out of place and the battle is lost. Sony and Microsoft have surely a lot of pawns out of place so there's no way their strategy can be about blackmailing the market. They drop the price of their games much more often than Nintendo, they produce games for other platforms, they have never engaged into inventory management policies and Sony is even willing to provide their games on every device with PlayStation Now (it doesn't matter if you can only rent games, the "pawn" is out of place anyway). On the other hand, Nintendo has all the pieces in place to not let any breakout point (the blackmail is real).
Does it matter if some niche games from Nintendo drop the price a bit faster? Not much. Does it matter if Nintendo has let (not produced) a very limited amount of software (and some are not even games) to be released on other platforms decades ago (not at the moment or in recent years)? Not at all. Does it matter the fact that when it was a good opportunity to apply inventory management they did it and now that it's a good opportunity to apply "onlive" tech they did not? Sure it does.
This is the message the OP passes on the text mentioned previously and that was considered by many people on this thread a blatant lie (because of details that don't affect the logic described) but so far it was proven not to be a lie at all. What is your position and why?
Prediction made in 14/01/2014 for 31/12/2020: PS4: 100M XOne: 70M WiiU: 25M
Prediction made in 01/04/2016 for 31/12/2020: PS4: 100M XOne: 50M WiiU: 18M
Prediction made in 15/04/2017 for 31/12/2020: PS4: 90M XOne: 40M WiiU: 15M Switch: 20M
Prediction made in 24/03/2018 for 31/12/2020: PS4: 110M XOne: 50M WiiU: 14M Switch: 65M
