I think Nintendo immunizes themselves better to the economic pressures faced by other agencies by having profitable software on cheaper and more ubiquitous hardware.
What we probably see with player attitudes toward software pricing is that massive discounts and price drops are a typical thing. But theory may support that this is an extremely bad practice from a business standpoint, as it degrades the value expectation of the product. This is simple (Skinner style) behavioural psychology: that is, companies have trained their customers that they can purchase games cheaply if they but wait for them. This also breeds resentment when they want a game (us gamers are impulsive) and it is substantially higher than the prices a reserved mind-state gamer might find hunting for discounts on 6 month+ old games. However, Nintendo has almost separated itself into another realm for its customers, and it is not nearly as impacted by their bad discount practices. Behavioural psychology would predict that because Nintendo only engages in small discounts for games released in the last 10 years (maybe up to 20 of the game is a remaster), that the full price is not nearly in as much conflict with the impulsivity of the purchaser: a future possible Breath of the Wild 3 is 70 dollars today, it will be 70 five years from now, and maybe in 7 or 8 years it will be 63 dollars, or 50 with a hardware pack-in deal. So, you can feel like you’re getting a 70 dollar product rather than being taxed 300% for buying it a few months early.
A lot of the problem breaks down to standard fiscal mindset and practices and looking for that easy revenue bump at the expense of longterm profitability.
As a note, I’m not arguing for what customers want. I’m arguing for what the data shows is healthy from a business standpoint. The companies that engage in unhealthy practices see layoffs while Nintendo doesn’t.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
