Nintendo could handle their port situation so much better

[Chaimo]

GoOnKid said:

Chaimo said:

A lower pricepoint doesn't make a game worse. A Select-Title isn't worse than its original, Super Mario World isn't worse on VC than the original SNES-Title because of the differences in what you have to pay. And so on. I don't think a re-release of a four year old game should cost the same as then. Would you buy a PS3-game which re-released on the PS4 with minor improvements for full price? Wouldn't you think that this is a bit unfair?

The Last of Us was full price when they re-released it on the PS4 and it still sold extremely well. It all comes down to the point that the age of any game is not what drives the price up or down, but the customers' demand does. The demand is clearly high for these late ports so Nintendo is right to charge full price. Sales data supports this.

Some people will interpret this and think that I love paying full price. I don't. Some may think that I will defend Nintendo for anything, I don't. I just think that any company does this, not just Nintendo. It would rather be dumb to not charge full price, actually. You as the customer can indeed only wait for price drops or sale offers if you think that these prices are too high.

And a lower price may indeed influence how much you like a game, this was scientifically proven. Paying a higher price makes you think that the product is superior to cheaper products. We can't shake that off, that's how our brain works.

 

RolStoppable said:

Chaimo said: 

Hm, I'd rather say it's just another "I'd like Nintendo to change its behaviour" thread. Yes, many people buy Wii U-Ports but that doesn't make the situation any better, does it? Only for Nintendos finances of course. I could wait untill the price drops but that's not the point here. I wanted to point out why Nintendos practices aren't consumer-friendly and further take on a solution that doesn't just say "Stop making ports", while I know that what I've suggested has its flaws and can absolutly be seen as too avaricious, as Veknoid_Outcast said.

Actually, it does make the situation better, because it proves that the charged prices are in line with the perceived value of the games. Good entertainment remains good entertainment regardless of age, hence why you can find similar examples to what Nintendo does in other branches of entertainment. Decades old Star Wars movies retail for a higher price than movies that came out only a year ago. The music of certain artists still commands a premium price despite its age.

What is and what is not consumer-friendly in the specific case of Wii U ports depends on the individual perspective. The general observation that can be made is that people who owned a Wii U consider the prices of ports too high because they've already bought those games before (therefore not consumer-friendly) while people who didn't own a Wii U don't mind the prices because the ports allow them to play good games without having to buy the atrocity that was the Wii U (therefore consumer-friendly). As such, the objective conclusion cannot be that Nintendo's practices are not consumer-friendly.

It's for the same reason that threads that ask the question if there have been too many Wii U ports on Switch have greatly divided answers. People who owned a Wii U will say "yes" while people who didn't own a Wii U demand that there should be even more ports.

While I can't say that many subjective opinions create an objective view of things, I can't argue against you two anymore. I'll have to start from another point of view next time.

Thx for the discussion. :)