No I don't mind that it's 45$, I just wasn't up to date with the news on this game, since it looks so boooooooring. When's that 3D Kirby? ):

A 3D Kirby game you say? It will never happen.. :(

You 3d evangelist are going to actually drive me insane one day. There is strong core fanbase of Nintendo that also beleives in production values and 3D are the elements that add value to a game. Crap on Wii Series, 2D mario and other 2D platformers while same time creating 100th hype thread on teaser trailer for 3D Zelda and some other high production 3D Mario game that is barely going to move consoles. 

But shooters and adventure games have improved tremendously since their early days. I would much rather play a modern game of those genres than an older one (bar nostalgia). Whereas 2D platformers haven't changed nearly as much. That's why playing early 2D platformers is pretty much just as enjoyable as modern ones. They're timeless because even early on they exploited most of the potential of the genre.

However much CoD games recycle from their predecessors they still require teams of 200-300 people working on it for 2 years or so. It's only a question of development budget. And those budgets are huge which then justifies a higher retail price.

So what about a game like warframe that is free to play and is a shooter? Or the fact that Call of Duty drops in price almost immediately? 

This conversation is taking a weird tangent.

The fact of the matter is that it is good that Nintendo is pricing their games lower because it makes it more attractive hence more people buying their games which would spur them to continue to price their products more competitively. I don't know how this could be seen as a negative unless the game is Sonic Boom bad, which is not going to happen. I mean, am I missing something?

And someone please start a new thread about this statement right here. Because this is definitely up for debate. 

Yeah you're missing that I never said it was a negative thing.

2D platformers having a more simple game design than shooters and adventure games is not debatable because it's a technical fact. And a simpler game design implies more restriction. That's why they eventually made 3D platformers. They could now explore a whole new side that offered many new opportunities.

I did NOT say that it would bankrupt Nintendo.  I was saying that some, if not many, companies would bankrupt if they all decided to go with your suggested pricing model. Which ones are debateable. We've already seen some gaming studios go bankrupt recently, the change you're talking about would only make the situation worse.

And for your second point, there's no proof that pricing it at half the price would double or more than double the sales. It isn't impossible, but it's unlikely that pricing DKC: TF at $20 or $30 (at launch) would have increased the sales enough to offset the profits it made with its current pricing. Believe it or not, the way these things work is NOT as clear as you think it is. 

Your example for NSLU is cherry picking at best, due to the fact that NSLU is coming from a MUCH more popular franchise.
See?

Also, NSLU actually DID have a retail release, despite it being "DLC."

Lol, now hold up right there. How am I doing any of that? I love 2D games! My GOAT is a 2D game (Metroid Fusion), and I don't crap on the Wii series (Which isn't even 2D) or the 2D Mario games because of the fact that they're 2D, I crap on games like NSMB2/U because I feel that they're shallow as heck. Super Mario Galaxy was a game that had so much effort put into it that you could feel it while playing, same thing with the likes of the original NSMB and Super Mario Advance 4, but NSMB2 lacks that feeling, It even uses the same soundtrack as NSMBWii for crying out loud!

Likewise, I don't give a crap about Zelda, but I do care about that high production Mario game. You know why? Not because it's 3D, but because it has actual effort put into it.