When I call a game a retro game, I'm talking about a recent game with a "retro" concept or theme or experience, in this case 2D Mario. So if it released in 2007 that serves the idea.

I don't think it's elitist, I think it's pragmatic and realistic, and quite reasonable. I think it's pretentious to price a cheap game at a hefty price.

When games like that were cutting-edge, that was understandable. Not today.

I read page one and I have to say your argument is weak on many points.

Value is relative. To me, there's very few games this generation that I liked more than Donkey Kong Country Returns, it had challenge, amazing level design, awesome gameplay, tons of replay value. To me, this is a game I'll keep for years to come and that I will replay many times. So I feel in no way robbed, DKCR has tremendous value and if my game disc were to scratch, I'd buy it again.

Comparing platformers to League of Legends makes absolutely no sense at all. LoL lives on microtransactions, what do you propose platformers should do? Forcing you to buy new lives when you're game over? Replace Toad Houses by a store where you buy power ups?

How is Street Fighter 4 not a "retro" concept?  The original roster was even mostly comprised of Street Fighter 2 characters.  Should this game be priced the same as a Tekken game, which has more complex models and chracters with many more moves and animations?  Hell, a lot of people think that it only sold so well because of nostalgia of all things!

so lets go with happy dolphins idea of nintendo gamesbeing overpriced is right.. The roi ( return on investment) is waaaay too high.. They spend not enough on their games to justify their price.. Right?

Think of this, if this was true then clearly, judging by the latest financial results of other companies are asking not enough for their hyper advanced expensive games.. They ain't making money.. Call of duty should be 100 bucks, DmC 90 bucks, GTA 5 should be like 140 bucks.. Not many games are making a good roi.. Heck looking a the numbers a few do.. Even worse.. Gaming is like the only thing that affected by inflation.. Which is insane but good for us..

You should ask yourself the question why other companies aren't asking more for their games.. Would you buy GTA 5 for 140 buck?

Yes, and if the game do infact cost so little to make, how much damage would actually be accrued if they did not sell and Nintendo had to lower to price?  None.  But they would lose money by selling it less to begin with.

It doesn't work that way though. We know for a fact that Nintendo invests a lot of money in its R&D and amortizes that by its profit on SW sales. It also doesn't help selling the consoles at a loss.

Having said that, I also believe that reducing the price will increase the volume pushed. It will quell the threat of competing offerings, and as well give them reasonable profit. If Angry Birds can get 250m downloads, I don't see why NSMB couldn't. What makes Angry Birds so much better than NSMB?

Wait, so you think it takes the same man power to make Angry Birds as NSMB?  That's what I think this implies.

No, in my opinion SFIV is a very high quality game despite being retro and it's my understanding that it cost them a lot to make, both artistically, in terms of balancing and gameplay mechanics and what have you.

I don't think that's a fair way of judging SFIV. I do think it's fair with NSMB.

You do realize that the vast majority of Angry Birds downloads are the free ad-supported version right? NSMBW generated a lot more revenue than Angry Birds.

Something similar I presume.
But the point of my post was to show that if a game is marked down, depending on what increased volume the markdown could lead to, the revenue could be higher.