It Doesn't Make Sense to Buy Games at Launch

[RolStoppable]

Spindel said:

Just from a pure capitalistic standpoint.

What do people think has the best chance to generator a sequel or other good game from the studio. The game that sold 1 000 000 copies at full price or the game that sold 1 000 000 copies, most at stupid discount price like $15.

For a lot of games that fast goes to the discount bin the amount of copies sold doesn’t actually matter to if they get a sequel or the studio will make another ”masterpiece”. The discount bin is almost never to be ”nice” to gamers but mostly a damage control move.

From a pure capitalistic standpoint Nintendo differs greatly from all the AAA publishers.

Nintendo's model is about creating games that stand the test of time, so that they can keep selling them long beyond an initial hype wave and have them become a consistent stream of revenue for the company. Nintendo benefits again from this approach by going to their vault and remaking/remastering their old games which tend to sell significantly better than remakes/remasters of other publishers. Yet another benefit is the level of trust it builds with their customers, hence why people don't mind paying full price for Nintendo games that are already over one year old.

Contrary to that is the AAA model where it's about creating the next big thing, milking it and having it replaced by the next big thing; in other words, make games with built-in expiration dates to have an easier time getting people to buy the next game. Here the revenue is maximized by capitalizing on hype with a number of special editions at launch, followed by dropping the prices quickly to access the lower tiers of customers before the game gets forgotten due to the hype for another game.

This is why the replies in this thread follow the trends of "you are right, OP" and "Nintendo games are different", although it's acknowledged by the OP that Nintendo games are different, so this sentence right here could have been worded better. It's just that I don't care to change it now.

...

Now for me personally, my attitude to game purchases has changed a bit during the past couple of years. Previously, I wouldn't have bought remasters/remakes of most Nintendo games that I had already purchased in their original form - I made the rare exceptions for games I really loved - but now I am more relaxed on this subject. When I know that I am going to have fun playing such a game again, why wouldn't I pay for it in full again even if the updates/improvements are sparse? The alternative of taking chances on third party games I haven't played before, even discounted ones, isn't especially appealing when it's hit or miss too commonly.

And in general, almost all of my entertainment spending goes to video games, so saving €10, 20, 30 or even 40 on a possible discount isn't the most important thing in the world when I end up liking the given game anyway. Conversely, saving money doesn't mean much when I end up not liking the given game. In other words, paying more money for a good game stings a lot less than spending a small amount of money on a rubbish game.