| Sephiran said: According to Circana's Piscatella, most console gamers in the US buy 1-2 new games every year, which means it makes no difference for the average console gamer if a game cost 70 instead of 60 because they don't reguarly buy any games. Its mostly core gamers that buy new games every month that gets a bigger impact from games costing 70 instead of 60, which is why its a topic that reguarly comes up in gaming forums, because those forums consist of people that buy new games all the time. When every major third party publisher price their games at 70, its ludicrous to think Nintendo should be the odd one out with permanent 60 priced games, does anyone really believe Sega, Atlus, Capcom etc should price their games at 70 and the much bigger Nintendo should go permanently below them in price? When Nintendo is a vastly bigger publisher than them? Sure, give us 60 games, but why single out Nintendo? Shouldn't the argument be that everyone should price their games at 60 instead of only complaining about Nintendo while everyone else are free to price their games at 70 with no criticism? |
Problem though is that Nintendo only does discounts on a timed bases and not by that much. Third party publishers often give big discounts after a while. Including for games that initially cost $70.
I won't complain about a $70 price for a game I'm interested in, if I know I can get it for half or less by being a little patient.
