| Jumpin said: Commodified luxuries aren’t priced based on some intrinsic value, but rather (in the most basic form) on a demand based calculation derived by estimates on which (volume + price) = highest profits. If, hypothetically, Nintendo estimates they’ll sell 1.3 million units at 30 USD, but then 1.25 million at 60 USD, but only 400K at 70 USD, you can call it lazy or greedy from the top of the your pulpit all day and night, it won’t make it true nor change the fact that any other price point than ~60 USD would be foolish. |
Not in the case of Nintendo, their games keep on 60 USD regardless of the sales. That's because right now Nintendo is ignoring the commodified side of games and using just the luxury side. They are keeping the image their IPs have a certain perceived value ignoring the fact their IPs could have sold better (and therefore being sold to more people who could become eventual new customers of this IP)
I don't like much this price policy. I'm ok with evergreens selling 60 USD forever and they are... well, evergreens, no reason to lower the base price. But a game like Link's Awakening that is failing to sell 4 million copies should be price cuted for at least 40 USD for quite a while now.
