As a consumer, I like Nintendo's policy to maintain games' prices
- Thread starter walking fiend
- Start date
Psychoward
Banned
Whew
Frankfurter
Member
I get the OP's reasoning, in a way. I tend to buy Nintendo games when they launch and always retail. Then I play them and usually don't sell them until a year or two (or five+ in Mario Karts case) later and still get good value reselling them.
Of course, the idea only makes sense if you buy retail (i.e. resale value) and if you actually sell atleast some of your games sooner or later.
Of course, the idea only makes sense if you buy retail (i.e. resale value) and if you actually sell atleast some of your games sooner or later.
i really fail to see the problem here. they sold 11 million copies of super mario 64 ds. that means people saw the value in the game at that price and purchased it.
This is the reason i haven't owned a Nintendo system in many years.
In order for what the op said to be true you would have to buy all games that you play day 1 and sell them all at the very least several months after release.
Because for anyone else first they probably can't afford or can't justify spending 60-70 for every game and second if i buy a game a few months after or more then i would lose the same amount of money on a game as someone who would resell it (example buy it for 20, the other guy bought it for 60 sold it for 40), you also get to keep it forever and not have to go to the hassle of selling it (time is money).
In order for what the op said to be true you would have to buy all games that you play day 1 and sell them all at the very least several months after release.
Because for anyone else first they probably can't afford or can't justify spending 60-70 for every game and second if i buy a game a few months after or more then i would lose the same amount of money on a game as someone who would resell it (example buy it for 20, the other guy bought it for 60 sold it for 40), you also get to keep it forever and not have to go to the hassle of selling it (time is money).
hooijdonk17
Member
Should have been first reply.
Theognosis
Member
If a game launches at $60 and then after 2 weeks becomes $30, the publisher should be questioned why the game was priced at $60 in the first place. Was it to maximize the profits for those who waited patiently in line--you know, the die-hard gamers?
If you think that's good practice and pro-consumer, let's agree to disagree.
I think it all comes down to if you're someone who wants to buy a game on launch day.
With Nintendo I'll usually buy on day one as I know it'll hold it's value if I want to sell it.
With the PS4 I'll nearly always wait a few weeks or months as the prices drop so fast (the last few weeks being a clear example. The Last Guardian was barely released before its price was almost cut in half).
With Nintendo I'll usually buy on day one as I know it'll hold it's value if I want to sell it.
With the PS4 I'll nearly always wait a few weeks or months as the prices drop so fast (the last few weeks being a clear example. The Last Guardian was barely released before its price was almost cut in half).
I do think its a more sustainable business model.
With the rest of the industry consumers have every incentive to not buy games at launch. Launch day buyers generally get a more expensive and less finished product than those who wait for price drops and patches.
Nintendo games are usually very polished / bug free at launch and they dont drop in price as much, so it doesn't matter when you buy them.
With the rest of the industry consumers have every incentive to not buy games at launch. Launch day buyers generally get a more expensive and less finished product than those who wait for price drops and patches.
Nintendo games are usually very polished / bug free at launch and they dont drop in price as much, so it doesn't matter when you buy them.
everthustodeadbeats
Member
Don't care that a game drops in price after I buy it. In fact, I use a credit card with price protection for 60 days after purchase. Very easy to enter the sale and get my credit. They have it automated.
As for the rest, yes, this is Stockholm Syndrome. That Starfox game for the Wii U should be 10 bucks.
As for the rest, yes, this is Stockholm Syndrome. That Starfox game for the Wii U should be 10 bucks.
How so?
I thought AAA games sell the vast majority of their numbers very close to the launch period anyway. Is that not true anymore?
Theognosis
Member
The victim mentality of those crying Stockholm Syndrome is hilarious! If you think you're all being victimized by "greedy" corporations that hire some of the most talented programmers, artists, musicians and directors on the planet, you should probably stop playing video games altogether.
Psychoward
Banned
Haha, who's being victimized here?
Well one you're being hyperbolic, two if a supplier lowers the price of a good that's inherently pro-consumer because it gives the consumer more purchasing power. This is basic economics.
Theognosis
Member
Stockholm Syndrome implies a captor and victim scenario.
The game should have launched at $30. That is pro-consumer. Artificially inflating the price to exploit a segment of the market is not.
SomedayTheFire
Member
What are you even talking about lol
Silent Chief
Member
Not really. It's a free market. You can't control what people buy.
The way this works, Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft rent store shelves in stores like Walmart. When new games come in, older games have to be discounted to make room for them. Nintendo does not need to do that because they don't have that many games. When Ubisoft was releasing large amount of Wii software, those ended up in the discount bins rapidly.
Disclaimer: I bought 3 $20 3DS games as Christmas present.
Psychoward
Banned
That's not how people use "victimizing".
Nintendo is exploiting a segment of the market that don't mind paying $50 for 5 year old games
Nah, the game launched at the correct price,those that agreed bought said game on release. Then prices are cut to get those on the fence to get involved,rinse,repeat. funnily enough that brings in lots of customers over a prolonged period, with the potential to attract new people in as well.
Nintendo sells to Nintendo fans and barely convinces those who are not entirely dedicated to the brand/company,people like me. It's good that Nintendo have a great deal of whales,but they might want to diversify their customers in the longterm.
Yes, they absolutely put quality products I'm willing to pay full price for. So what's the problem again? Why a price drop should be expected? And you are wrong, developers put love in their work, and I support that.
Waiting for a price drop for something like The Last Guardian is not being supportive of that kind of creative vision. What's the last game you paid full price for?
Oppo
Member
or a platform in this metaphor.
they didn't know the demand yet. they are reacting to demand afterwards.
Nintendo doesn't react to demand. numerous examples.
Theognosis
Member
That's not how people use "victimizing".
Nintendo is exploiting a segment of the market that don't mind paying $50 for 5 year old games
You make it sound like I was the one who shouted Stockholm Syndrome (and even connecting 2 separate points).
Cut the crap.
It's the worst part about Nintendo and kills the chance for many people to experience their games. Nobody in my country owns a Nintendo system (Czech Republic). I'm probably one of the 12 Wii U owners here. It sucks and it makes it incredibly hard to obtain their games because of it. Every other company here does a much better job of being relevant and actually being consumer friendly with prices. I look at my PS3 collection and while it's 3 or 4 times as big as my Wii U collection it probably cost me the same amount of cash. No praise for Nintendo on this aspect. Also, region locking. Get fucked.
ChronotriggerJM
Member
I think it's a double edged sword. I don't like physical media, and Nintendo's platform will always be too expensive to interest me. Their pricing structure boxed me out of the market.
When games go on sale, my range on what I will play expands. If they always retained their peak price, I'd barely play anything.
When games go on sale, my range on what I will play expands. If they always retained their peak price, I'd barely play anything.
Yep Nintendo would implement a way to kill used sales tomorrow if they thought they could get away with it. Thanking them for keeping resell value high is just silly.
Theognosis
Member
I don't think they are reacting at all. They've already made the pricing scheme ahead of time (i.e. high at launch, then decrease after weeks), which has became the de facto standard. As consumers, let's not pretend that we're not anticipating the prices to go down. It's a given.
The prices are constant because Nintendo has already valued their products prior to release. They do not adhere to the de facto pricing model. They want to place a premium to their products. It is a reflection of how they see themselves as movers of the industry. They are a proud company.
Stone Ocean
Member
I sure love paying full retail prices on year old games.
Im not sure if you live in the US or not, but Tropical Freeze is a nintendo selects here and SFZ can be gotten for 30 or less and comes with Guard.
The Nintendo Selects line is pathetically small and its sad that their games have to flop to drop in price. (Other M, SFZ, Chibi Robo Zip Lash)
I don't think nintendo's policy is good but I can understand why OP likes it.
I feel buying games at launch nowadays is a waste of time (in 3 or 6 months you can get it for 50% less) but a nintendo game you can buy it for a good price at launch and not feeling bad for losing money in a few months.
At least in europe launch games are 70 on ps4 or One but you can find nintendo games around 35-40 at launch.
I feel buying games at launch nowadays is a waste of time (in 3 or 6 months you can get it for 50% less) but a nintendo game you can buy it for a good price at launch and not feeling bad for losing money in a few months.
At least in europe launch games are 70 on ps4 or One but you can find nintendo games around 35-40 at launch.
dragonfart28
Banned
This isn't Nintendo 'policy'.
They do market research and know they can maximize profit for certain games by leaving prices high and selling less rather than selling more at a discount.
For the games that rarely go on sale, they know that the demand remains at a specific level until it just drops off completely so it's actually bad for their business if they discounted those particular games.
They do market research and know they can maximize profit for certain games by leaving prices high and selling less rather than selling more at a discount.
For the games that rarely go on sale, they know that the demand remains at a specific level until it just drops off completely so it's actually bad for their business if they discounted those particular games.
Fixed that for ya
I think it's a crazy scenario and highly anti consumer. Almost everything falls in value these days over time - that's normal. Obvious extremely rare stuff like collector's editions, where supply is limited, don't tend to fall in value, but you only need to look at films, books and CDs to see where the norm is - stuff starts out at one price then gradually falls.
I don't see why Nintendo should be any different aside from a pig headed desire to try and cream as much money out of it's rabid fanbase as possible. Threads like this only back up the notion of many Nintendo fans simply excusing anything and everything they do.
If Ubisoft or EA were still insisting on selling all of their 4+ year old games at full retail price then I'd be willing to bet that the OP wouldn't feel the same way. It's this whole "it's Nintendo so it's fine" thing which somewhat puzzles me.
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
Jesus fucking Christ, this conversation has become a god damn joke. Anti-consumer and pro-consumer discussions on pricing in video games? Now it's suddenly anti-consumer if a product goes on sale from its launch price of $60 because "they should have released it cheaper anyway." No shit they released it at $60, that is the standard and they are in the business to make money. This sounds like that terrible motto that the customer is always right when in fact the customer is often a fucking idiot.
Some of you are so quick to mislabel shit as anti-and-pro-consumer based on how much you feel you should pay for a product. This whole idea that anything can be anti-consumer if the consumer doesn't get the best deal always or never sustains a loss is wrong. Shit is embarrassing. Now I sound like a corporate apologist because I actually had to defend the notion that it is not your right to pay whatever the hell you want for someone else's product. Considering the topic we are in, it Is also not my right nor is it anti-consumer that Nintendo games are as expensive as they are. I'm not entitled to their shit but admittedly it is annoying.
The only anti-consumer thing about people buying games at launch nowadays when most of them quickly go on sale is the consumer himself. Have some foresight and restraint and fucking wait.
Some of you are so quick to mislabel shit as anti-and-pro-consumer based on how much you feel you should pay for a product. This whole idea that anything can be anti-consumer if the consumer doesn't get the best deal always or never sustains a loss is wrong. Shit is embarrassing. Now I sound like a corporate apologist because I actually had to defend the notion that it is not your right to pay whatever the hell you want for someone else's product. Considering the topic we are in, it Is also not my right nor is it anti-consumer that Nintendo games are as expensive as they are. I'm not entitled to their shit but admittedly it is annoying.
The only anti-consumer thing about people buying games at launch nowadays when most of them quickly go on sale is the consumer himself. Have some foresight and restraint and fucking wait.
That's not how people use "victimizing".
Nintendo is exploiting a segment of the market that don't mind paying $50 for 5 year old games
If they don't mind, then how are they being victimized?
Red Blaster
Member
worst thread of all-time
nintendo people are approaching kellyanne conway levels of 'this bad thing is actually good'
nintendo people are approaching kellyanne conway levels of 'this bad thing is actually good'
Infinite_Daremo
Member
I like it too. So much in fact it's saved me a lot of money not late adopting any Nintendo console or handheld since the GameCube.
I was looking to get a 3DS purely for MH and the prices are a joke for something to be replaced very soon.
I was looking to get a 3DS purely for MH and the prices are a joke for something to be replaced very soon.
Of course giving consumers choice is good for them. You have the money and can`t wait? Buy at launch. You do not have the money for the launch price? Wait and buy discounted. This way, both consumers get what they want; in Nintendo's case, only the first consumer can play it, that is certainly less consumer friendly.
This is my thought exactly. I thank you for posting this, as I am a little to hung over to put it in words.
lyrick
Member
There is absolutely no situation where one can't wait to buy a completely unneeded item.
This is a very privileged point of view. While I think that it's ridiculous and very, very unhealthy for the industry to demand huge sales fast and complain about $10 dollar games, a price of 30 vs 60 can be the difference between affording a game or not.
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
It's also that they have little competition among their niche. People are buying their hardware mostly to play Nintendo games, be it their diehard fans or those buying it as a secondary platform. The former will lap up anything they dish out and the latter will pony up for their major franchises as that's what they bought the console for. Add in poor third party support and there's little competition to drive down prices.
So really all they're maybe losing out on is some B-tier title sales to the secondary platform crowd who maybe would buy more than just the A-list IPs if games were cheaper. I doubt many people really go below the A-list titles on their secondary platforms anyway though as they're probably overwhelmed by their main platform and the A-list titles on their secondary.
dragonyeuw
Member
Pretty much. That's a choice I made about 10 years ago. The only game I recall paying more than $40 for in the last 5 years was Smash Bros U, and I think I got that for $45 CAD ( whatever that came to in USD at the time) on amazon.ca as a black friday special the year it came out. And that was a gift for my son. Otherwise, absolutely no reason as a primarily single mode player to rush out and buy at launch prices.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
As a consumer I value that Nintendo puts a premium on region lock
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
Unless you're told that you will be brutally murdered in one day unless you beat FFXV at launch in 24 hours. Then that's understandable.
His crazy what?
Wow...is this a new meme? Jeez some people are just delusional. Please say your being sarcastic you simply forgot the /s right?
Because you have consumers like OP and above... Yes most understand they can wait and get games for cheaper but don't because they want it now. Then there's those that buy because its "premium" and believe they're sitting on a future goldmine (i.e. a good "investment") lmao wow.