Talk about being picky, I said "each of these games". I'm pretty sure Wikipedia says the word 'game' next to every other game I and seiya19 mentioned except that Mario Paint-type one, so, well, still 23 left aren't there? If you really want something that was 100% developed by Nintendo themselves instead of 'just' co-developed, then how about you comment on that iQue I mentioned as well, which is a project that's still ongoing. Or how about that 'Quality of Life' platform they're developing as we speak. Recent enough?

And I copied that quote right out of one of your own posts, perhaps you refer to the second part of the original sentence so let's clarify on that. Fact is, Nintendo is willing to and has branched out towards other ventures if need be and there have now been plenty of examples, so no, in this instance at least, OP is not correct.

This is the last thing I will say about this part, because it's going nowhere. I have better things to do, like actually playing those wonderful things Nintendo has given me over the past few decades.

Or, sleep. It's late.

And I said "some": "I appreciate your effort, but listing programs that aren't developed by Nintendo and some are not even considered games".

iQue and Quality of Life aren't games. These "other ventures" prove the OP is wrong how exactly?

I'm glad you found it to be useful. ^_^ For the record, I do consider the likes of Mario is Missing and Time Machine pointed out before to count as videogames though, regardless of their intent to be educational. The way they operate fits the cathegory in my opinion, and the fact that they appeared on NES/SNES is something to consider here, as it shows at least how Nintendo didn't think of them as being out of place in said platforms.

As for your question, no, I can't think of more examples from the 90s onwards, outside of the CD-I games, the examples S.Peelman mentioned, and Pokédex 3D on iOS (which is arguably more of an app than a game). There's also versions of Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr. and Mario Bros. on the Atari 7800, but those were released on 1988.

As others have stated before, these games you allude to keep selling at full price because the demand is there. They are usually refered to as "evergreen" titles, capable of selling for long periods of time, yet having relatively low sales at launch compared to other "AAA" games. Not every game from Nintendo's lineup follows this trajectory though, as other games with less demand like Metroid: Other M, Paper Mario: Sticker Star, Wii Play: Motion, and Sin and Punishment: Star Successor evidence. Basically, only those Nintendo games that find mainstream success in the long run or the rare cases of niche games that get low shipments get to keep their price. The rest drops just as much as your average game or more.

Furthermore, Nintendo has been reprinting many of their most popular games through budget labels like "Player's Choice", "Minna no Susume" and "Nintendo Selects" since the SNES era, and through the E-Shop they have done sales and promotions on 3DS and WiiU, even if most of them are for Virtual Console and download-only games.

And your point about NES cartridges ignores the fact that said media was much more expensive to manufacture than the optical media we use these days, which naturally makes it more of a risk to overship, not to mention the condition of the market at the time. Nowadays, with the current move to digital media, this issue is becoming more and more irrelevant anyway.

The first party lineup of both Sony and Microsoft (Xbox) is largely exclusive, so I don't see how they aren't doing the same here. Sure, Microsoft has allowed a few of their exclusives to be ported to Windows later (part of them being 2nd party games), Rare has developed a few games on Nintendo handhelds, and Sony has SOE for MMOs on PC, but all this is more of the exception than the rule. And since Windows is also a Microsoft platform as you mentioned, it's not much of a counter-point for them here.

As for Playstation Now, that's a service through streaming, so I don't think it's of much relevance in this context. This model is not only dependant on your internet bandwidth, but you're also "renting" the games (as far as I know at least). Personally, I prefer to own my media and physically if possible, and I don't have any confidence in playing games through streaming, so I'm definitely not interested... And I doubt I'm in the minority here...

Thanks for the article baldie, was quite extensive but pretty informative. Since PS one came out I found those Nintendo rats very obnoxious. I remember their policies of not sex ,religion symbols, violence in their games and the first Mortal Kombat was affected that way so you can't have uncensored fatalities on them, and at the end, for what? Next they have to put them in the next MK. They really want to create a untouchable and dictatorial monopoly, only what they say have to be done. Thankfully Sony came out to beat the crap of them. I always now that they are such a greedy bastards but not at that kind of  level.

My hate for these Scrogge's copycats fellows wasn't never unfound,nobody nows the truth right away, but only time speak for itself.I just hope that all fanboys just don't turn away from the truth just because they like so much that dumb Mario clown and reach for better choices,they exist, so go for 'em.

O...

Your gonna not last long here with that attitude.

Welcome to VGChartz.  

Time to drop this charade zod95, the trolling has gone too far now, we are reaching 40 pages with this thread.

You really are a good poster. Clever comments and right to the point. However, I think you're wrong on 2 things:

- "these games you allude to keep selling at full price because the demand is there...The rest drops just as much as your average game or more" - That's not correct. The demand is not there to keep the full price. I have been following for several years both videogame sales and prices at online stores of games from all home platforms and many different publishers, and I assure you Nintendo games don't drop as they should. Could I prove it? Of course but, given the accuracy demanded here, that would take me dozens if not hundreds of hours. I can only suggest you to take a look at some recent charts and compare them against the price of the same games you see on 2 or 3 online stores. With a good sample, and comparing what it is comparable, you will easily see the difference between Nintendo and the others.

- "The first party lineup of both Sony and Microsoft (Xbox) is largely exclusive, so I don't see how they aren't doing the same here." - I guess what you fail to perceive here is that, when a company sets a strategy, all actions must be aligned according to it or it will not succeed. One pawn out of place and the battle is lost. Sony and Microsoft have surely a lot of pawns out of place so there's no way their strategy can be about blackmailing the market. They drop the price of their games much more often than Nintendo, they produce games for other platforms, they have never engaged into inventory management policies and Sony is even willing to provide their games on every device with PlayStation Now (it doesn't matter if you can only rent games, the "pawn" is out of place anyway). On the other hand, Nintendo has all the pieces in place to not let any breakout point (the blackmail is real).

Does it matter if some niche games from Nintendo drop the price a bit faster? Not much. Does it matter if Nintendo has let (not produced) a very limited amount of software (and some are not even games) to be released on other platforms decades ago (not at the moment or in recent years)? Not at all. Does it matter the fact that when it was a good opportunity to apply inventory management they did it and now that it's a good opportunity to apply "onlive" tech they did not? Sure it does.

This is the message the OP passes on the text mentioned previously and that was considered by many people on this thread a blatant lie (because of details that don't affect the logic described) but so far it was proven not to be a lie at all. What is your position and why?

Dude, Zod. You don't like Nintendo. We get it. You don't need to make a nearly 40 page thread about your own personal opinion. What is the point of all this anyway?

If you don't like Nintendo, then just go fuckin' play PS or XB, or PC. It's that simple.

Thanks, I appreciate it. ^_^  I try to be... For the record, despite my previous criticism of bias, I do recognize your competent writing as others did before me, and the considerable work it must have took you to write the OP. And being biased myself as a Nintendo fan, let me just state here that it's not my intention to criticize others for the same, just point out the argument flaws I see here and there that I believe are due to that. Feel free to do the same, if you must.

Without a proper criteria and enough reliable data, we can't prove anything here either way, as you recognize yourself. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree... What I can tell you here is that I've also been following software sales for many years and I have a good idea of how much Nintendo games cost compared to the rest, being a fan and all... And that between the capacity of these "evergreen" titles to sell millions (many of them above 10m, some even over 20m, without forgetting about bundles of course) and the pattern they follow of relatively slow, yet consistent sales over long periods of time, I believe the demand is significant enough. Is it enough to justify full price ? Well, that will always be debatable, as it's impossible to quantify to that level. Either way, we know the games keep selling a good amount (retailers wouldn't keep stocking them otherwise), and Nintendo would be doing a disservice to themselves if they were losing a considerable number of sales for keeping the price up. Besides, the intentions you assign to them are hard to prove here, even if you were right about the demand.

It's important to keep in mind here that most of the best selling games on Sony/Microsoft platforms have considerably larger launch sales, with significant drops afterwards. The nature of said games often encourages that kind of pattern, like with the yearly (and not so yearly) installments of FPS franchises that focus on multiplayer gameplay, which people get as soon as possible to be competitive online, and then drop in exchange of the improved sequel. And the type of audience you're aiming for also matters here, as certain type of gamers are more likely to get the game at launch or close than others.

When I claimed they were doing the same, I wasn't refering to "blackmailing the market", as I don't agree with said premise. I was just pointing out their strategy regarding exclusive content. The differences here have to do with the kind of objectives they have as companies, as well as the industries they're involved. In Microsoft's case, keeping Windows as the prefered OS for gamers is of relevance to them, so releasing a few late ports from time to time benefits them, without getting in the way of Xbox. And in Sony's case, SOE is a profitable venture for them, founded in 1995, way before MMOs were possible on consoles. All 3 of them use exclusives to sell their platforms, even if Nintendo depends more on them.

Both do drop their prices more often and sooner than Nintendo in general, but their games sell less comparatively, which combined with the things I stated above explains why that happens, to me at least. And they also got into online distribution earlier of course, which is something to consider here.

I think the first one here is quite relevant. Your arguments refer to an "integrated and long-term strategy", yet all these exceptions don't matter much ? In fact, considering the number of games Nintendo releases every year, I would estimate that the games that do get price reductions are actually the majority.

The second point, I agree. The software we mentioned is more anecdotal than anything, being largely a product of their respective times, and even arguably unimportant there.

In the third point, we'll have to agree to disagree. You already know what I think of how representative the NES policies are of Nintendo today (or even SNES onwards), the situation of the market at that time, and my earlier point on the use of cartridges as media.

I wouldn't describe it as a lie per se, but I would say it's a case of confirmation bias. The facts are largely true (with perhaps a few details omitted as you mention, and some elements being outside my knowledge to be able to confirm/deny entirely) and there's an internal consistency in your arguments, but you seem to be starting from a particular premise and then selecting data to prove it instead of taking into account other hypothesis. I just don't see enough evidence to validate your arguments, while I see more plausible hypothesis and other data being dismissed.

But of course, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm not trying to change that. The issue here is how you presented said views as facts, when there's other valid interpretations and data to consider. Without leaving much room for disagreement, the general tone of the OP feels antagonistic as someone else mentioned before me, despite the praise you gave.

Ok, I think I'm done now... >.<  If you have a question for me I'll answer it, but otherwise, I won't post again.

PS: I made a mistake before when I mentioned the "Minna no Susume" label. That budget label was for 3rd party games on Wii in Japan, not 1st party.