PotentHerbs said:
It definitely plays a part in it. There are more 10 Million+ sellers on PS4 from third parties, compared to 10 Million+ third party releases on Nintendo, that Sony first party has to compete with on a year round basis. Sony has to price cut their games quicker than Nintendo because of this factor. The person I replied to was downplaying TLOU: Part II for having the potential to reach 20 Million because it would need price cuts to do it. |
The reality is Sony doesn't have to price cut their games and inversely Nintendo could choose to cut the price on most of their releases, even Mario Kart would sell even more with a price cut. It's just a different approach from both companies.
The idea that Nintendo keeps the $60 price tag because their games sell indefinitely is a myth. Not every Nintendo game is Mario Kart or Pokemon. Nintendo games have great legs but the majority of the 40+ games they've publsihed on Switch have sold 5m or under. Nintendo keep price high both as branding strategy (seal of quality) and a revenue strategy. Links Awakening and Luigi's Mansion are two successful games that have fallen off the charts and could definitely afford a price cut to get them selling better, but Nintendo is comfortable letting them sell 5-8m at full price, then selling 8-11m at a lower price.
Sony and others could do the same but that would create a far less healthy climate considering the number of AAA games on Playstation 4. This way their are far more games purchases in general and success is more evenly spread amongst publishers. From a consumer stand point its also great. When I got my PS4 I bought Uncharted 4, FFXV and Witcher 3 for the price of one Nintendo game. The translates directly into the fact that I only buy like 2 Switch games per year and they're always from Nintendo.
