Rol not stop love the all out attack on you XD.

But your argument is flawed because you omitted the time it took to have these games. It’s easy now to look at the games that were released on the Wii U and say that there’s alot of quality titles, but the release window of each games were pretty scarce and even if you have the best games in the world, it won’t attract customers to the hardware.

And to add to Rol’s point. I’ve seen people here saying that Nintendo doesn’t drop their price even if their game doesn’t sell. That’s true, but not because they’re greedy, but because they lower the offer. If there’s one thing they’re good at it’s to ship their software accordingly to the demand. If the title is not looking to be a “evergreen title” like they call it, they’ll just stop producing it or reduced the amount shipped and lost money in the long run.

I guess this is a few days late, but there have been many quality games that didn't sell well. Beyond Good & Evil is a good example, System Shock 2 is another one.

Wii Play isn't generally considered to be a great game itself.

OK, what about the Just Dance games then? Those sold year after-year.

Nintendo and Blizzard are masters at IPs. Theres some sort of magic they add to there games that only they can pull off.
Rare use to be like that aswell before they got old.

As long as the games have legs and there are 1-2 game per franchise per console the prices wont fall.

Quality.

This thread has gone to some weird places, but as far as the main question is concerned there are probably a number of different reasons. One could very well just be Nintendo's philosophy in selling their games, that maybe they simply consider the games to worth a certain price regardless of how old they are, to a certain point at least, and price them accordingly.

However, there are other aspects I would consider such as the fact that more often than not Nintendo's games are the main reason to buy a Nintendo console, and they know this. Hence, they know that even if they don't drop the prices of their games people will still buy them because they are the main attraction so to speak. People look for Nintendo games on their platforms, and in general there's no reason not to since they are usually among the platforms best titles.

This can lead to the issue that has often plagued Nintendo's consoles (not always of course), that third parties never see the kind of sales even when they release excellent games on the platforms. People are just satisfied with Nintendo's own output, and the rest of the game library often gets overlooked as a result. This might be another reason for the disparity between the price of the 1st and 3rd party titles on Nintendo consoles. Nintendo doesn't need to lower the prices to achieve great sales, while other companies need to drop them to get better sales.

Still, it could very well just be a difference in the ideology between Nintendo and other video game companies. Other companies may see it as a useful marketing tool to lower the prices of their games, and achieve higher profit that way, while Nintendo could see things in a different light, that the game's quality and name value is enough.

 "What do you mean, Wii U owners got tired so quickly? There are games like Mario Kart 8 that have sold well throughout the system's life. You might as well attack the Nintendo 64 at this point and talk about the current lack of sales for its software as proof that Nintendo 64 games aren't quality."

That is not true and you know it.  Most of the games I mentioned were released 3 years ago (some even two years ago).  And you are the one who keeps repeating that long term sales = quality to justify the price. Well, if that's the case then these games should be selling today.

And I'm not denouncing the quality of those games at all.  I'm just pointing out how flawed your  "long term sales = quality" logic is because, hey, if we're gonna go there, Black Ops 3 (which launched in the same year than some of these games) sold 400,000 units in 2017.  Should we conclude that BO3 is of better quality than these games? I mean, it showed better legs, didnt it?

"Your argument to denounce the quality of games that haven't sold 2m copies on a 13m userbase because 11m didn't buy them is mightily backfiring when you apply the same logic to PS and Xbox consoles. About 60m PS4 owners didn't buy Horizon Zero Dawn, so according to your logic it can't be a quality game."

Of course the same logic can be applied to all games/devs/publishers.  That's why you don't see me saying that it would be ok for them to keep the prices high forever.

NOW, WITH AL THAT BEING SAID.  I just went back to re-check the prices on Nintendo's website and I verified that they DID indeed lower the price of the games I mentioned earlier.  Which makes all of our discussion moot.