Not to mention the fact that SF4 has online, thats more work and cost right there not to mention it extends replay value almost forever.

This is not true, PS1 had quite a few 2d games some of them were quite popular. Castlevania(did better than the n64 3d counterpart), Rayman, Crash(hybrid i know), Tomba, etc. The irony it was Ninty's own 64 that was lacking that department. Dont know what the hell happened after that.

I just checked Crystal Shards and, in comparison to Epic Yarn, it sold decently.

Donkey Kong Jungle Beat sold really badly though.

Metroid Fusion sold ok.

Super Princess Peach sold ok, less than 1m.

Yoshi's story did pretty well at 3m.

Paper Mario 64 sold 1.38m.

Dr. Mario 64 sold bad.

It's all hit and miss honestly.

spurgeonryan said: NintendoPie said: Sometimes, HappyD, I think you are too controversial. Thanks for showing up! Do you think Nintendo games are over priced?

I've posted on that matter already, several times. Just look through the thread!

Don't take this a personal offense, but you are just categorically wrong.  It's not an opinion thing, it's an ecnomic thing.  Nintendo charges what the market is willing to pay, so yes, the market sets the value.  If the market felt that Mario games were worth 200 dollars, you can bet Nintendo would charge that.

In anycase, I think you are a good poster, and this isn't an attack, but you are wrong and unwilling to understand that you aare wrong, so I'm done with this thread. 

Nope if I don't think a steak is worth 50 bucks, then I go and eat a hamburger, and when the steak doesn't sell at 50 dollars, it eventually goes down to 20 dollars, and then I and the rest of the market will buy it.

What you're talking about is equilibirum, when demand meets supply due to hitting the right price, which Nintendo does well with these games.  It's not about pushing maximum units, it's about maximizing profits.  If 5 million people buy Mario at 50 dollars, its better then  10 million buying at 20 dollars, right?

How do you define succes with a NSMB game? The new ones released to smaller userbases, it would be impossible for them to match the success of their predecessors. Attachment rate is probably better, so I would not say it is degrading success. Price seems to have done nothing for it.

Point is I think you are cherrypicking, and you cannot really blame it on pricing.

When you're opening with DK Jungle Beat, then you know there aren't many games from that era to choose from.

I love Donkey Kong Country. I waited 14 years for a sequel after the third SNES game. I suffered through DK64. I would not touch DK Jungle Beat with a bargepole. Bongos to play a platformer? No. Just, no. How's that for value?

What is value by the way? How would you define it? I have my own definition. I've played the vast majority of the games in your OP. The most recent game I played would be NSMB U, which took me over 20 hours of play to fully complete (meaning 5 profile stars, not just the quickest run through possible). As I claimed the fifth and final star for my profile, I did not feel robbed.

I also played Rayman Origins last year. It took me a similar amount of time to do everything in that game as well (collecting all the medals, stone teeth, etc). I didn't find it to be as good as a Nintendo offering, but I did not feel robbed.

Sticking with non-Nintendo efforts, I've played both LittleBigPlanet games. There's millions of levels available to play, be they the main story levels or user created efforts. Most of them are utter shit, but there's enough decent efforts out there to not feel robbed.

Now, on to the downloadable games. I played Limbo and did everything there was to do in a single, short 2.5 hour gaming session. I felt robbed.

Braid took me a little longer, but it was still over and done with in one evening. I felt robbed.

Trine was the most satisfying downloadable game by far, but it didn't launch at the same price as the others. It was a $40 game when it first released on PC, and was $20 at launch on PSN a while later. It may be $10 now, but that's a poor reflection of how it used to be priced.

I don't really think it's wise bringing up mobile platformers, given that the only ones that are adequately functional with a touchscreen are auto-runners, which do half of the work for you.

The thing is these games do sell at those prices. Look at the most recent example, New Super Mario Bros. U. At least half of all Wii U owners if not more own it. While it may seem unreasonable to a lot of people who aren't big fans of the genre, it's very reasonable for fans of the genre for the simple fact that we really don't see a lot of investments in high quality 2D or even 3D platformers anymore. Older core gamers buy those games because they miss those types of games. They're ideal for little kids because the learning curve is simple.

Also, someone on another site tried saying Nintendo has been flooding the market with these types of games, which simply isn't true. It all goes back to the fact that there aren't too many of them anymore. That means every time Nintendo releases and markets one of those games, it gets a lot of attention from the press.

If I thought a game like DKCR for 49$ was a ripoff then I would have abandoned gaming long ago.