Because they are evil, greedy and don't care for the consumers. Out of touch with reality.
Nintendo games should drop in price after 1 month of release, no matter if the next game bombs at launch and thus have to drop the price faster, increasing losses, and finally, giving a lower budget to the next iteration.

They should be more like other companies giving us pathetic annual unfinished upgrades with a lot of patchs every week.

There is a lot of grey area here and I wouldn't say someone else's perspective is "invalid", plus, it's not very nice.

When you consider the install bases of these two games 9.1m and 19.1m respectively, you see that they both penetrate about 14%...  depending on how one looks, the numbers ebb and flow.  At the end of the day, there is a higher demand for Windwaker and people pay the higher price.  But none of these numbers are truly indicitave because they are different games.  But there are many other old Wii U games that people are willing to pay more for and do.  Call it greed or call it business savvy, but Nintendo is successful and needs to sell software where it doesn't sell hardware; their system is working.

Your response to #1 makes no sense, since I didn't say that the Wii U had a lot of 3rd party support.  However, of the 3rd party support the Wii U DOES have, they do the same thing as they do on other consoles (drop quickly in price).  I was also giving you a hypothetical situation, saying that IF the Wii U did have a lot of 3rd party support like the XB1 and PS4 had, it wouldn't actually change anything.  It's irrelevant to Nintendo's pricing. 

For #2, you fail to realize that it's ridiculous to think that a 20-50% price cut will result in a 20-50% overall increase week on week when the Wii U is already the cheapest console, on top of having sold for a loss.  Price cuts tend to have temporary boosts in sales, not permanent.  Especially for systems like the Wii U.  I think Nintendo would rather see a substantial increase in its sales first before giving it the cut (or if sales drop enough WoW that a price cut would be justified).   Another thing you're completely ignoring is that SEVERAL people have already mentioned here that Nintendo DOES cut the price on some of their software.  It's mostly their key titles that don't get dropped, since they keep selling anyway.  If they cut the price, they probably could see higher sales numbers, but lower profits most likely.  Other publishers price cut for multiple reasons.  One obvious reason that you seem to not be able to grasp after everything everyone has already said is that Nintendo games often have legs, but most 3rd party publishers have heavily front-loaded game sales.  In order to have people coming back, they would have to lower the price and move more units.  This also goes onto my second point - Nintendo games often already have established fan bases.  Many 3rd parties are starting from 0 (or less than they want) so they want more copies in peoples hands so they can grow their fan bases.  It doesn't work quite the same way with Nintendo (and again, other Nintendo published/developed games DO get price cuts.  You can easily find this by looking up some of Nintendo's non-key franchises).  

edit: Also the sales would need to increase MORE than the 20-50% for it to be worth while anyway.  Increasing the installed base can be helpful for some software sales and 3rd party support, but given how deep in the hole the Wii U is, the help would be marginal. 

The comments I'm seeing are ridiculous.

I'd much rather pay full price for a game knowing its quality is high and have the opportunity to sell it, at any point in time, for essentially the same value if I wanted. You know what sucks? Buying a Call of Duty game within a week of launch and it being $20 after said week. That's what the industry has conditioned people to realize: games don't retain their value. So, rather than getting mad at Nintendo for keeping their prices stable (which benefits both the industry as a whole and their bank account), why don't you get mad at shitty publishers like EA or Activision who don't have any confidence in their products or the video game market?

Yeah, they did, but they waited until each console was pretty much dead, dropping the prices of games that pretty much everyone who was interested had anyways.  Also from what I remember, most of the Gamecube games were $30  Every other publisher doesn't wait four years to drop the price on their games, months away from unveiling their next console.

Not necessarily.

$60x2,000,000=$120,000,000

$60x1,500,000=$90,000,000

$20x1,500,000=$30,000,000

$90,000,000+$30,000,000=$120,000,000

$120,000,000=$120,000,000

So dropping the price and getting more sales doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as getting more money.

It's a business strategy. Just like companies who put out annual releases will lower prices on their old software in order fo it to behave as a kind of paid demo for their new and up to date software.

Like RolStoppable pointed out, if all interested people will eventually buy the game at full price than what benefit is it to drop the price in the first place?

It's a formality.  Nintendo is doing it because they have to.  It's the reason why they do it on the systems death bed.  This way they can squeeze every penny from their fanbase and come out looking like the good guys to those very same people.

From some reason, on GS's website the vast majority of the wii u's new and used game prices are oddly very close. If you compare the wii u's games to other consoles, you might not notice it but if you compare the wii u's games to each other, there's something really off about it. Here's some examples of what I mean.

Just to let ya know, I chose mainly older games because I would suspect that a relatively new game's new and used price to be close to each other. There's a mix of third party and first party games.  

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4 

Example 5