30 dollar tops. Then again, I think 70 dollars for ANY game is way too much. So something like Mario Tennis costing THAT is beyond ridiculous to me.

I'm not buying it at $70 or $20, but the fair price is whatever they charge for it. which is $70.

About tree fiddy.

I like Nintendo sports games, but it's difficult to buy them at full price because they usually don't have a robust story mode, and after a few months I already have trouble finding players in multiplayer here in South America.

Not consistently. Games that sold well used to get Player's Choice/Nintendo Selects discounts.

I don't think Nintendo will bring back Gold Points or Vouchers (just ended) because they made such a big deal about ending them.

Nintendo might bring back Nintendo Selects or rebrand it Switch Selects for Switch games and a few Switch 2 games. I don't think they would bother with mediocre to poor selling games. 

Nintendo only adjust their prices when their collective bussines are on decline. They release dozens of games, and they can get away with many of them failing to break even as long their major sellers keep selling 

It's not Mario Tennis sales that define the 70 USD price tag, it's the Mario Kart World sales that are huge enough to recover any minor flop they release 

And they want to keep the evergreen premium status. A lot of Nintendo's Switch games were and still are $60. It's clear $70 is their new $60, as it was for many publishers.

I feel Nintendo thinks if they offer good to steep discounts (or price cuts) a year or two into a game's life, it will hurt the early sales. Yeah, $70 is a lot for a game. But it's a game that will hold its price.

I don't think $80 will be as standard as $70 for Nintendo's Switch 2 games, but it's going to happen more than a few times.

Their games usually don't sell poorly; if it got to the point where it was signficantly hurting their bottom line, then they would have no choice.

Some perform worse than others and I think the point is they don't apply flexible pricing on a game by game basis as long as they're doing well as a whole.

They instead focus on broadly maintaining high software price perception and high profit margins, rather then increasing sales of lessor performing games at a lower margins. 

By comparison Ratchet sold several million but can be found right now on PSN for a 50% (timed) discount. I've been waiting for Xenoblade X remaster to be decently discounted and it just ain't happening despite the game disappearing from global charts the weeks after its release

Some of their games sell quite poorly, and yet they never lower the prices. Nintendo wants to maintain the perception that their games never drop in price, for them this is more important than make their games profitable

You can see how Wii U games were still $50 even when their hardware business was collapsing

But this is beyond the point. The notion that demand is a mechanic law that dictates prices enters in the realm of economic denialism

Higher prices can increase perceived value, even for products that are selling poorly and failing to keep the business afloat. Nintendo's market decisions during the Wii U era reflect that. They refused to consistently lower their prices to the same level as other publishers because they believed (correctly) that if people saw their games selling for less, it would signal lower quality. As a result, those customers might never buy their newer games at full price and would instead wait for deep discounts

By keeping their prices high, they could also keep the margins high when a finally successful console (Switch) arrived