Yes, the game is retaining it's value under the historically lowest new price, but their whole point is that you can buy the game for full price at launch and still get most of your money back later on. If someone wanted to sell their copy of Splatoon they bought at launch they would be getting less than half of that back, which is not "almost all of the cost".
As a consumer, I like Nintendo's policy to maintain games' prices
- Thread starter walking fiend
- Start date
randomengine
Banned
I don't mean that every game is quality but that it creates the necessary framework for quality for the good games. I still rent my games. Call it garbage insurance.
This is the same "perceived value" trick that Apple and a lot of luxury brands use. Studies show that people rate wine as better when they're told it's expensive.
By keeping prices high and rarely (if ever) going on sale, brands create the impression of quality and value. Because if it costs the most, it must be the best, right?
This in turn affects resale value. But then again, resale value is offset by the fact you paid more in the first place.
By keeping prices high and rarely (if ever) going on sale, brands create the impression of quality and value. Because if it costs the most, it must be the best, right?
This in turn affects resale value. But then again, resale value is offset by the fact you paid more in the first place.
Unknown Soldier
Member
This is the Internet, every position is defended to the death no matter how ridiculous.
stinger009
Member
How often do you sell your Nintendo games OP? 1 in 5?
How much do you generally sell them for?
How much do you generally sell them for?
geordiemp
Member
Dont have a horse in this race bud, does that mean I cannot discuss it on GAF ?
I am not mad, dont really care lol, but find it interesting from a business marketing and profit point of view, and amusing from a Nintendo consumer defender point of view.
I can only think Nintendo hope to be "Wii" relevant again, and so keep the high price at wholesale strategy that may make them big profits if a console is a hit in the future.
But it must of hurt them with WiiU, maybe it could of done 20 million + as a secondary console if Nintendo really wanted higher adoption rates. The UK WiiU prices for console and games even when WiiU was nowhere to be seen in UK PAL charts or shops was something to behold.
If Swicth is not a big success, maybe Nintendo will have to adopt standard price strategies to get more hand helds in normal gamers hands - who I am sure wont cough up £ 400 for a console, controller and a couple of games in UK.....But what do I know ?
It is interesting to discuss....Personally I may pick up switch for a holiday console, but hell if I am paying through the nose. May go for a gaming laptop instead as my old one is on its last leg if the total cost can be justified.
How.
How does selling everything for full price all the time create this "framework"? Plenty of crap today is released at $60, and a lot of them make most of their sales at that $60 price point.
"I don't really care, but I have an opinion."
Now this is an actual discussion. I think we'll have to see what they determine as pricing strategies. They've already experimented with the tiered pricing where big games (Zelda, 3D Mario) are $60, smaller games (Captain Toad) $40, and experimental titles (Dillion's Rolling Western, Pushmo) and $20 or less.
That's a dangerous statement to make. I like Nintendo but if they started requiring personal info to access their games or to rootkit my phone to play their mobile titles I'd have serious problems with that.
DragonGirl
Member
I appreciate Nintendo's pricing too. I appreciate the fact that they want to keep games valuable rather than have them become throw away products. We've seen what happens when you go that route. Look at mobile, Where the most predatory practices are all but necessary to make a profit. I hold onto my games for years and rarely sell, but when I do, it's nice to get $30 or more dollars for my Nintendo games, VS pocket change for everything else that hit the bargain bin a month after they launched.
Whether Nintendo's pricing is really appreciated or not most likely comes down to whether you buy early or bargain hunt later. I would not want them to depreciate their games, but I do think they could stand to do more sales at significant percentages off.
Also I'd like to note people really think about recouping their costs via sell back in the wrong way. You either got your money's worth or not when you bought the game. I have never regretted dropping 50 or 60 bucks on a Nintendo title. I got my full enjoyment. I don't ever need that money back. But years later if I do decide to sell that game, whatever money I make on it is bonus. I get a higher bonus for Nintendo's games than most non Nintendo's games because they retain value.
Whether Nintendo's pricing is really appreciated or not most likely comes down to whether you buy early or bargain hunt later. I would not want them to depreciate their games, but I do think they could stand to do more sales at significant percentages off.
Also I'd like to note people really think about recouping their costs via sell back in the wrong way. You either got your money's worth or not when you bought the game. I have never regretted dropping 50 or 60 bucks on a Nintendo title. I got my full enjoyment. I don't ever need that money back. But years later if I do decide to sell that game, whatever money I make on it is bonus. I get a higher bonus for Nintendo's games than most non Nintendo's games because they retain value.
Or it's a combination of factors, like everything. Nintendo's games are generally good, although they've been cranking out their fair share of duds recently, they are always in low quantities, and the price from the original manufacturer is high. The combination of all those factors keeps the prices up over time.
Personally, I would be fine with it if Nintendo had more digital sales that felt like actual sales. They can afford to do things like make M and L: Dream Team $20 or add "Nintendo Selects" at a more reasonable rate without devaluing their games entirely. Their digital storefront as it stands is absolutely abysmal.
Ok people need to start tagging sarcasm in this thread. It's getting to the point where I seriously can't tell if it's sarcasm of Nintendo Brigade anymore.
Well, pricing has an impact on perception just like you said, and that shouldn't be ignored. If you price your product/services too low and/or aggressively discount, you or your product can be perceived to be inferior. You gotta find a happy balance between being competitive and not devaluing your brand, which is a balance I don't think Nintendo has found btw. Also, the strategy should be flexible, which is where I think Nintendo shoots themselves in the foot a bit. They are still operating like it's the Wii out there with an insane demand for hardware and software. Maybe they should be a bit more competitive with their pricing, but that does not mean following suit and dropping your prices 1, 2, 3 weeks after launch IMO. Again, gotta find that happy medium.
autoduelist
Member
High pricing that is maintained by essentially monopolistic practices [at least, within this specific ecosystem] is not 'good for the consumer'. The price reflecting what people actually want to pay is 'good for the consumer', and anything higher than that is not. This is not a particularly difficult concept.
The early post about 'Stockholm Syndrome' hit the nail on the head.
The early post about 'Stockholm Syndrome' hit the nail on the head.
I guess I could see how it would make you feel better about day one purchases, but this is what prevents me from ever taking a risk on Nintendo games (if I'm not 100% sure I'd enjoy them) or just catching up on games I missed, because there's no way I'm paying anywhere near the full launch price for a 5+ year old game.
As a result, the only Nintendo-developed games I bought in the past decade were a small handful of by-the-numbers sequels and ports of old games. It's basically a retro brand to people like me, which can't be a good thing for Nintendo.
As a result, the only Nintendo-developed games I bought in the past decade were a small handful of by-the-numbers sequels and ports of old games. It's basically a retro brand to people like me, which can't be a good thing for Nintendo.
Stallion Dan
Member
Is because next to no competition on Nintendo platforms except from themselves. Other platforms need drop price to be more attractive vs the rest of the library and vs new games. They never held price in the SNES days, as their third party support died Nintendo prices kept higher longer.
Is one of the reasons people say competition is good.
RecRoulette
Member
Their policy is why I've bought a lot less Nintendo games over the years. Over the 3 years I had a Wii U I think I bought a total of 10 games for it (including eShop games), compared to many many more on the other consoles and PC.
How the hell is it monopolistic? All these pro-consumer, anti-consumer labels are already stretching it, but monopolistic?
Major B.S.
Neo Member
As a consumer you might be slightly off on your assessment but in regards to being a retailer or entity that sells Nintendo product you would absolutely be right in comparison to other publishers and platforms. Nintendo always sells through eventually.
Huh, that's certainly an interesting way to look at it. Come to think of it I agree.
Admittedly, I have not been following the Nintendo game prices. I was pumped after the initial Switch reveal trailer but I play on PS4 and I pay around $30 for my games.
Maybe I'll just have to pass
Wanted to try out the new Mario games on the Switch but not at $60 a pop.
ronaldthump
Member
Read a review.
You know what's great? Buying a great game cheap and having fun with it.
Man this thread has some curious thinking.
killatopak
Member
Hell nah.
For me, it's the constant sales that matters and nintendo is the worst of all platforms.
Buying a game and testing it out shouldn't even take a few days and by that time you can resell it for almost as much as you bought them even in non nintendo platforms
Also, buying a 1-3 year old game should cost as much as it was sold on release. That's the least consumer friendly thing of the bunch.
As much as I like their games, their online policies, infrastructure and pricing is the worst and it shows.
For me, it's the constant sales that matters and nintendo is the worst of all platforms.
Buying a game and testing it out shouldn't even take a few days and by that time you can resell it for almost as much as you bought them even in non nintendo platforms
Also, buying a 1-3 year old game should cost as much as it was sold on release. That's the least consumer friendly thing of the bunch.
As much as I like their games, their online policies, infrastructure and pricing is the worst and it shows.
Everyone is quick to decry the mobile game industry's race to the bottom, but equally quick to condemn the creators at Nintendo decide what a fair price for their product is and maintain it. (Also quick to forget the unique position Nintendo is in as both platform holder and primary developer.)
I would prefer to see Nintendo release many different types of titles at multiple price points than to charge an early adopters' fee for their most anticipated releases as most AAA releases are doing now.
I would prefer to see Nintendo release many different types of titles at multiple price points than to charge an early adopters' fee for their most anticipated releases as most AAA releases are doing now.
killatopak
Member
Both platform holder and primary developer like every other of their competition. Righttt.
Psychoward
Banned
I don't understand how you can argue the reason that their games rarely get discounted because they're higher quality then go on to say you personally like the pricing because it helps resale value.
If they were such quality games in the first place why resell them?
Then there's the actual math behind it too, if I sell a game I bought for $60 at $40 I lose $20. If I sell a game I bought for $30 at $10 I still lose $20.
If they were such quality games in the first place why resell them?
Then there's the actual math behind it too, if I sell a game I bought for $60 at $40 I lose $20. If I sell a game I bought for $30 at $10 I still lose $20.
Psychoward
Banned
I would prefer Nintendo doesn't keep the prices the same they retailed for 5 years later even though the perceived value has depreciated.
Sony and Microsoft are the primary developers for the PS4 and XB1, respectively?
Nintendo's platforms rely almost totally on output from Nintendo, which can't be said for any other platform. Furthermore, there is no incentive for Nintendo to devalue their own software.
Cutting prices only makes sense if the increase in sales outweighs the lost revenue of discounting. Do you think Nintendo would sell more than twice as many games if they cut their prices in half? Nintendo's biggest issue is selling the console, not the games. Their attach rate for their major titles is already industry-leading.
Also, the suggestion that Nintendo cut prices for their titles at their most financially vulnerable moment is just asinine. If you're a fan of Nintendo, surely their ability to make a healthy profit, justify the continued to development of major titles and to continue to exist should mean something.
WhiskerFrisker
Member
FrenchToastDisciple
Member
This is not a complicated issue:
I like video games. I also like Nintendo games. Most video games (yes, ones that are even as good as those that Nintendo makes), receive decent price drops relatively quickly. They usually continue to drop in price as the years go on, eventually reaching a point in which my perceived risk of not having fun with the game or thinking it is good is overridden by the price*the amount of fun I think I am likely to squeeze out of the game.
This is a good system (and probably good for the industry as long as the price drop doesn't come very quickly) because I get into games, franchises and genres I wouldn't have otherwise because I took a small chance on a cheap game that came out many months/years ago that I wasn't sure I would like, but was quite cheap. During this process, I continue to pay more money (as my finances allow) for games withing genres I am certain I will like that come in a limited supply (I paid full price for Dark Souls 3, for instance). In this system, I also probably end up pumping more money into the industry than I would have otherwise, because I am more likely, for instance, to buy three twenty dollar games than one sixty dollar game (the risk of having a bad experience is spread out to three games instead of one). It might be bad for the AAA gaming industry (because a year old, twenty dollar AAA game is pretty price competitive with a six-month old fifteen dollar indie game), but it's good for everyone else.
Nintendo, unfortunately, does not really seem interested in engaging with me as a consumer of video games, but instead as a consumer of Nintendo brands and properties. It makes sense to release one Zelda game every three or four years and keep the price up during that entire time if you want to sustain the Zelda brand, but, since I am not a Nintendo fanboy and am just trying to have fun playing games I like, it makes no sense for me. Why, for instance, would I spend forty dollars on Link Between Worlds, when Hyperlight Drifter is twelve dollars? Why would I spend 250 dollars on a game platform when I can spend slightly more on a game platform where I get access to a lot more games with which to decrease the risk of my video game money backfiring on me?
I still, very reluctantly, buy Nintendo consoles (I just bought a 3ds for the first time), but only when there are several games with a sterling reputation (or a few that have actually been discounted which I want to play )which I know I definitely will like. I have never bought a WiiU, nor will I ever, because, as someone who is not super invested in Nintendo as a brand and company (which you shouldn't be), it is a stupid use of my leisure funds.
I like video games. I also like Nintendo games. Most video games (yes, ones that are even as good as those that Nintendo makes), receive decent price drops relatively quickly. They usually continue to drop in price as the years go on, eventually reaching a point in which my perceived risk of not having fun with the game or thinking it is good is overridden by the price*the amount of fun I think I am likely to squeeze out of the game.
This is a good system (and probably good for the industry as long as the price drop doesn't come very quickly) because I get into games, franchises and genres I wouldn't have otherwise because I took a small chance on a cheap game that came out many months/years ago that I wasn't sure I would like, but was quite cheap. During this process, I continue to pay more money (as my finances allow) for games withing genres I am certain I will like that come in a limited supply (I paid full price for Dark Souls 3, for instance). In this system, I also probably end up pumping more money into the industry than I would have otherwise, because I am more likely, for instance, to buy three twenty dollar games than one sixty dollar game (the risk of having a bad experience is spread out to three games instead of one). It might be bad for the AAA gaming industry (because a year old, twenty dollar AAA game is pretty price competitive with a six-month old fifteen dollar indie game), but it's good for everyone else.
Nintendo, unfortunately, does not really seem interested in engaging with me as a consumer of video games, but instead as a consumer of Nintendo brands and properties. It makes sense to release one Zelda game every three or four years and keep the price up during that entire time if you want to sustain the Zelda brand, but, since I am not a Nintendo fanboy and am just trying to have fun playing games I like, it makes no sense for me. Why, for instance, would I spend forty dollars on Link Between Worlds, when Hyperlight Drifter is twelve dollars? Why would I spend 250 dollars on a game platform when I can spend slightly more on a game platform where I get access to a lot more games with which to decrease the risk of my video game money backfiring on me?
I still, very reluctantly, buy Nintendo consoles (I just bought a 3ds for the first time), but only when there are several games with a sterling reputation (or a few that have actually been discounted which I want to play )which I know I definitely will like. I have never bought a WiiU, nor will I ever, because, as someone who is not super invested in Nintendo as a brand and company (which you shouldn't be), it is a stupid use of my leisure funds.
killatopak
Member
It's not microsoft or sony's problem that the 3rd party aren't coming to Nintendo as both of them outputs just as much games as nintendo on their own.
You don't seem to think that it's precisely because of the prices of nintendo's games is why there's a group of people that aren't interested in the console itself. There's no clear cut answer because it's basically the same as why nintendo won't bring the price of the wii u down right now. Do you bring down thr price so people on the fence would buy it or do you stay with the current price so you can sell less units but earn more?
Maintenance
Member
I never expected this thread to gather so much people. It's like a Bat Nintendo-signal.
hurricanes
Member
That should be in relative time frame, like buying launch and selling in 6-12 months. Nobody should expect a used game to sell 3/4 of MSRP forever.
Yea... Never understand this "pricer is better" mentality.
I don't get this.
You can buy The Witcher 3 for $19.99 on steam right now. That game is widely regarded as the most content rich, quality story telling experience available this gen. That price does not reflect it's quality or amount of content available.
That seems like a pretty poor buying habit to assume that just because a Nintendo game costs more, means that it's justified by quality or amount of content. The high price tag is merely for Nintendo's bottom line... not to denote quality. That's laughable.
edit: Whoops! Thought I hit "last" page and hit "next" instead. Didn't mean to respond to a post from 15 pages ago.
I don't necessarily agree that it's a good system overall for the industry. If you look in the "this generation taught me" thread, one of the biggest responses was "wait til prices drop." When customers become accustomed to every game dropping, it becomes a strain on companies making larger games or even indies making smaller games to hold the price that they need to recoup the costs.
This race to the bottom gives us unfinished games with awful microtransations or just fewer games as options to choose from in general, at least in the non-indie front. B and C studios are all but dead and AAA studios release maybe 3 games a year with two of them being annual franchises. It's great for us because games have become disposable commodities but this kind of market is unsustainable for the long term.
I'm not saying that Nintendo should be praised for keeping their games at launch prices, but at the same time we shouldn't hold such expectations that publishers drop their prices just because we've grown accustomed to software being disposable.
Darkroronoa
Member
Nintendo game pricing is keeping me away from their consoles. Buying a console is a one time investment, ok so far, but i never pay full price for games so i prefer to not "invest" in nintendo games. After wii and DS i dont want to buy anymore expensive games. Why pay so much money for a nintendo game, even years after its release, when i can buy 3-4 PC games for the same money? I have a tight budget so i prefer to spread it out.
I understand that its working for nintendo because their games are popular but they have lost me as a customer.
I really dont care if a game keeps the price. For people that buy a game, play it (for a long time) and then sell it i guess its golden.
I understand that its working for nintendo because their games are popular but they have lost me as a customer.
I really dont care if a game keeps the price. For people that buy a game, play it (for a long time) and then sell it i guess its golden.
FrenchToastDisciple
Member
Yeah, we basically agree. We've certainly dipped below the middle ground and need to pull ourselves up a bit. In no world, however, should a game be 60 dollars three years after it has been released.
Poimandres
Member
I buy less Nintendo games because they are more expensive. Why would I buy one 2 year old game for Wii U when I can buy multiple 2 week old games for the same price? I'm not even exaggerating. I picked up Dishonored 2 + Titanfall 2 for the same price that Wind Waker HD retails for. A remaster of a 10+ year old game. I mean really, that's just absurd.
Perhaps that is so. Doesn't change the fact that the games generally continue to sell at a high rate, without appreciable discount, long after launch. Thus clearly the market hasn't rejected Nintendos pricing model, and even when their consoles don't sell well their software is still amongst the best selling. You could make the argument that if their games were more aggressively discounted more people would buy their hardware, but I'm not sure that's defensible. There isn't too much of an argument to be made in terms of software though, it sells too well for too long to believe that slashing the price in half would be beneficial to either Nintendo or to Retailers.
Sparkedglory
Member
Eh, no. It's a shame that Nintendo games can come out and 5+ years later be the same damn price. Doesn't matter how good they are.
I can see where the OP is coming from on this - certain car manufacturers do similar things to maintain resale values on their cars (eg minimizing incentives and fleet sales), which is a selling point for their customers.
However, for folks who buy almost exclusively digital like me (and I imagine a large portion of Gaffers), that does not matter so I want to get my games as cheaply as possible. Your use of the term "investment" was a poor one though
However, for folks who buy almost exclusively digital like me (and I imagine a large portion of Gaffers), that does not matter so I want to get my games as cheaply as possible. Your use of the term "investment" was a poor one though
blankempathy
Member
Did you just buy these games? Care to see how much those games sell for in 6 months? A year from now?
Jinfash
needs 2 extra inches
It's what some men use to inject into their scrotums to give the illusion of bigger balls.
ViolentP
Member
You seem to continually skirt the fact that both sets of games can offer similar margins of return but the premium price of Nintendo games force a higher cost of entry. Same end result, one is just more expensive than the other. Simple as that.
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
To be fair, this is where the OP's logic could factor in.
That game may be $60, but used copies on the Amazon marketplace, Ebay etc. are probably going for $40-50 depending on game. So you're out $10-20 if you hate it.
Vs. say some PS4/X1 game that you can buy for $30, but is reselling for $20ish so you're still out $10 or so if you hate it.
So the risk isn't that much greater with the full priced Nintendo game vs. discounted other platform game if you don't mind reselling yourself instead of taking shitty trade in values.
At the same time, the benefit isn't as great as the OP suggests as he's focused on day 1 purchases dropping in value before people resell on other platforms, ignoring that the wise wait for price drops before buying and thus can resell for less and still be out about the same as the person who resells a $60 Nintendo game for $40-50.
Ironically that's one of the few Nintendo-published games where this thread's topic doesn't apply, because it used to come with Bayo1 for free and now it doesn't anymore.
And yet, the OP is implying the opposite. They even said earlier in the thread that they plan to sell GameCube games to help fund a Switch. The two they mentioned were Pikmin and Melee, one of which goes for under $20 on eBay, and the other is kept afloat by the tournament scene. They're working under the assumption that just because it's a Nintendo game that it will hold in value, but there are a lot more factors that go into what value the game will hold on the secondhand market years down the line.
Similar threads
- Poll