Yes a Nintendo game drops in price when it sells under expectations. Which is why a game like DKC doesn't drop, yet if a Pokémon game sold the same you could guarantee its price would drop like a rock. They don't have unrealistic expectations for even there modest titles so it's a rarity.

For the life of me I have never been able to understand how Nintendo fans are able to, so proudly, brag about the fact that they buy games at full price years after their release. Like seriously, how can that be seen as a good thing?

And before anyone comes at me with the "quality" rethoric, I bet you cannot objectively name ONE THING that makes Splatoon 2 better than GoW or Spiderman.

And before anyone comes at me with the "It´s because Nintendo games keep selling for years" rethoric, GTA V is still popping up on almost every Top 10 list and you don't see Rockstar charging $60 for it.

Don't worry we just saw Ludicrous confessing he think MS games aren't good so they drop in price =p

"As a consumer it can certainly be a good thing that the prices stay high because that means quality is there. If a Nintendo game is shit, the price drops. A vast majority do not drop."

Since you quoted me specifically, I'll ask where in my post I "bragged" about anything?  I don't recall mentioning my own personal buying habits anywhere, but was instead countering a statement that had been made.

Maybe your intention was not to brag, and if so, I apologize, but everytime this topic comes up that is the general vibe I get from it (and the vibe I got from this list as well), but again, my apologies if that was not your intention.

I'm going to offer some counter-points, because I think you are grasping for anything you can use to defend Sony in this post. Kind of like when a guilty party hires a lawyer; that lawyer will come up with the best case they can to spin things in their favor, and that's what this seems to be.

Your first point is that the Horizon numbers are out-dated while God of War had a disadvantage because it came out a year earlier. It's kind of hypocritical, because Horizon launched before Splatoon 2, so how can that be a disadvantage. Even the timeframe discrepancy offsets the release dates in favor of Horizon.

Your second point is that you are tired of hearing about how every Nintendo game is $60 for eternity while each Sony games ends up at a garbage bin price in a few months. Is has been said before that Nintendo values their IPs by not lowering the price of their games very much. This is just a true statement, good or bad. It is what it is. But no one is saying what you said. You are putting words into other people's mouths.

The odd thing is that you state that the aforementioned point is not true, but then go ahead to say that Sony games are on sale because digital is pure profit. So they are selling for a cheap price? Or aren't they? See my point?

Going back to digital games being pure profit, wouldn't a digital sale at $60 be pure profit also? Who makes more money?

And something you probably didn't consider... I can only assume you are referring to used games when you refer to those "cheap" Splatoon 2 copies you say you can find in stores. Those don't count as a sale for the purpose of the numbers we are looking at. And you can bet that Nintendo loses a lot more money to used game sales by keeping their games at full price for so long.

I apologize if I have offended you, as that is sincerely not my goal. In fact, I have lived long enough to come to terms with the fact that some people are willing to defend their platform of choice on any grounds. It doesn't matter what the debate is, you will always be there for Sony, and I respect that. And no, I'm not trying to sound condescending or to patronize you. I truly, truly mean well. I don't know how to express my most profound sense of gratitude other than to extend my metaphorical hand out to you in friendship.

It really wasn't.  I'll also share this 2 year old post I read on Reddit today which makes a convincing argument for Nintendo's policy:

Pangotron 166 points 2 years ago
There are a few main factors that lead to Nintendo games retaining high value over time.
1. They are not published on non-Nintendo platforms. This means all revenue for the publisher, (which is Nintendo), can only be generated from sales of the software on one platform, and will not be supplemented by high volumes of sales at a discount on other platforms (like Steam sales) or likely to be ported even to later Nintendo consoles for years.
2. Individual Nintendo software sales are more important to Nintendo than Microsoft or Sony. Microsoft, Sony, and Steam primarily sell software that was created by other companies, and thus rely on volume of games sold to make income, as they get a cut from each title sold from platform licensing fees. Thus, it is in their best interest to discount games as early as possible to increase sales numbers, even if the developers or publishers would make more money at a higher price point. Nintendo, however, is both the developer AND the publisher, and thus prices their software as a developer first and a publisher second. Nintendo as a developer is not monolithic, (having some 11 to 14 different software development teams), and will likely not discount a particular Nintendo published title (in the form of Player's Choice, Nintendo Selects, etc.) until sales of that title have generated sufficient income for that particular development team.
3. Retained value is a stated goal of their late President and CEO, Satoru Iwata. Mr. Iwata contemplated the trends of gaming as a whole over a decade ago, and was concerned by mobile gaming causing other developers to under-value their efforts to compete with the rise of mobile gaming, while simultaneously ramping up the scale of their projects to hundreds of people. He did not want Nintendo to adopt the same unhealthy practices of other developers that led to the burnout of their workers or unfinished projects that still launched to the public. He personally took a pay cut when the board of directors considered firing programmers to cut costs, and cautioned the rest of the industry of the dangers of not presenting a "perception of value" to consumers that their software was worth the costs needed to maintain a sustainable and happy life for their workforce.
Nintendo is a very conservative company. They do not like selling even their hardware at a loss, and thus are more likely to under produce initial software printing rather than have thousands of copies sit in warehouses or warming the racks of retailers. It would catastrophic to their branding for Mario to be placed in the bargain bin. And incidentally, they are very good at making accessible, well-made software (few if any bugs and glitches, very few games have or need day-one patches (or ever)), that naturally keep their value as complete products.

It has nothing to do with bragging, it's just that video games are Nintendo's livelihood as a company.  I wouldn't say it's greed on Nintendo's part, while Sony and Microsoft are altruistically generous.  It's a business model that has allowed them to remain the only hardware manufacturer who is primarily in the business of making video games.

(Why i am being quoted twice for a comment i made almost a month ago??, have something happened today??....)

Well, like always i'm going to answer whatever the question people throw at me. Let's start...

1. What i stated first, and was most important was that Horizon numbers were sold to consumers while Splatoon 2 were shipped numbers. You're right, Horizon and Splatoon 2 have more or less the same time period of aligned sales for both, around 2 years exactly. Is just that for a moment when i wrote that i forgot that Splatoon 2 launched in July, so yes...my bad. My point about God of War still exists though. So the comparison with Horizon is unfair just because the sold vs shipped argument only and GOW because it had a year less of sales. Better this way?

2. I already gave an answer about that point just today before, so you are free to read what i said there, i'm not going to repeat myself again. 

3. What i meant to say is that Sony uses way more digital sales for their benefit than Nintendo does. Nintendo for whatever reason don't use the tactic of make 30$ deals on the store like Sony does. Of course, 60$ digital game is more than 30$ digital game, but i was saying that because a 30$ digital game sold digitally is more for Sony than 40-50$ retail game sold in a shop too, so there's where the benefit comes to Sony.

4. When i meant "cheap" games, i didn't meant used copies..., i just meant cheaper units on sale than for 50-60$. If you search, you can find Splatoon 2 for less than 60 or 50 bucks, that's what i meant, and i'm pretty sure there must be Splatoon 2 sold at 30 or less somewhere or sometime.

5. As for the last point....., well, you can be as polite as you can writing that, but it's always the same story. I'm not defending "my platform of choice on any ground". Each time someone here do not agree with me they use the "biased/fanboy" card. Curiously they don't say anything when i say a positive thing for Nintendo or a bad thing for Sony.... but it is what it is because i "have lived long enough to come to terms" with that too. 

I mantain my comments about what i said about God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn, The Last of Us and Uncharted 4 in that post. This thread was created on the basis that Splatoon 2 "sold" as many as God of War and Horizon. I just gave my opinion on that.

If you consider "nearly as much" around 8-8'5M sold to consumers for Splatoon 2 as 10-11M sold to consumers for GOW and Horizon like the OP thinks..., then i don't agree with you or the OP. That's all.

lol, I'll take that blame for that!  This thread showed up on my main page when I clicked to "Latest Charts", so it was my first time reading through.  Now it's showing up in everybody's "Hot Topics".

Yep, idk why, but people love buying it. One of those situations where critics were way out of touch with consumers.