Companies use the information they have at hand to make an educated guess as to what a fair market value would be for their product.  If they go too low, their product will sell out, like the Wii did when it was first released.  If they go too high, sales will be very low.  The market has shown that it loves 2D platformers from Nintendo.  So Nintendo prices their games accordingly.

It is simple supply and demand.

Exactly, people in this thread show zero comprehension of the most basic of economic princibles.  It's not like companies just charge whatever the fuck they want and people will buy it anyway, the world doesn't work that way.  Maybe, in the future, people will no longer see the comparative value and Nintendo won't be able to charge those prices, but as of now they would be crazy to lower them.

I don't like this kind of post. I don't have zero comprehension of supply and demand, but I tried to explain two principles I've noticed in this industry, especially with the Wii.

You don't have a proper grasp of the value of the product until you've paid for it. That's the problem with the "It's worth what they paid for it" argument. What happens if it left a sour taste in the consumer's mouth? What if, by the time they are pricing the follow-up, the market has changed (like I tried to describe in the OP)?

If they price it without considering these ideas, it will end up hurting them and that's what OP is all about.

You're going to talk about Nintendo's long term?   The oldest console maker and one of the oldest video game publishers  in the industry....And you're going to advise them about their long term?   Sorry, I trust the 130 year old company over random troll on the internet forums.

Then people won't buy it and it will be priced accordingly?

Hurting Nintendo tremendously for the learning period. It would be pro-active for them to take a deeper look at the new state of the market and see if there isn't an alternative pricing scheme they could look into before having the market tell them they were wrong.

Right or wrong?

The demand hasn't slowed at all though, and "higher quality 3D games," even HD ones, have been around for what, 7 years?  A price of a game can be dropped, especially if they don't put a lot of resources into it like you think.  The percieved value of a game can not be raised after you aritficially lower it.  If Nintendo starts selling Mario for a lower price, there is no going back.  It's a one way street, so no, they are still selling based on demand. 

So, with the lecture you gave me on supply and demand, you're telling me Nintendo couldn't higher the price again if they wanted to?

But other than that, you don't address the issue. Though 3D games have been around for many years, the 2D revival is somewhat new in terms of mainstream adoption (NSMB). The price is new, and we're not entirely sure how convinced consumers are of it, especially in USA & Europe.

USA

Europe

Also, there are games in the "Casual" space which are no longer convincing buyers, and this drastically hurts Nintendo, because they fail to meet their expected projections. It's easy to say "Oh, the market will just say whether the price is right or not", but what about insider knowledge helping to set a more reasonable or accurate price prior to getting hurt?

LOL is a flawed argument, I play SC2 but have zero interest in LOL to me the game doesn't look like the's much for me to keep interested comparing such a game to a 2d platformer which has a drastically different dynamic in how it plays and functions is a monumental flaw of an argument in itself. I'm not convinced at all that these games will create disruptions I remember hearing years back how Facebook games would hurt console gaming in future I see games like these as the usual once in a while blip on the radar.

SFIV is still a 2d fighter no two ways about it by your logic in the op it should be sold for the same price as the downloadable 2d fighters (some on PC are even free as well) and these have online as well which debunks Oni's mention of online. Detail on characters doesn't pertain value in cost otherwise games like The Bouncer should be sold at high prices and even then detail and all that come down to your personal preference as someone could easily knock LOL for not looking as good as other games, fact is the format of criticism here is flawed like it or not the quality and design in the first party games are consistently regarded top notch and consistent with a good amount of playtime with in the games. SFIV can charge more because the gameplay experience is of good quality and enjoyed by many same goes for the game's you're complaining about for a reference KOFXII had good character detail and was a wayward game.

Perceived value is part of demand.  If people see that you offered something lower once, it will hurt that facet of demand.  Trust me that Nintendo is fully aware of the market indicators that would warrant a price drop in a series.