Support NeoGAF

[Harmondale]

Its probably the biggest reason why I have left Nintendo behind

I like to keep my games and I like to get them heavily discounted. Im all digital and never pay more than 20$ for a game. Usually that means Im 1 year LTTP

This model simply dont work with Nintendo

The other day I though I should pick up a Wii I saw for 30$, well lol the games I wanted to play Went for 50$ each so I bit my tounge and moved on

 

[Subtervotion]

I hate it because when I want to buy one of their games 2-3 years down the road, the prices are spiked by 3rd Party companies.

For example, I got a 3DS a few months before Pokemon XY came out. I wanted to buy Pokemon SoulSilver because I missed out on it, never had a DS. I went online to grab it real quick. Amazon had it, but it was $80+ from 3rd party companies. Gamestop didn't have it, Best Buy didn't have it. Ebay had it for high prices. It was insane. I couldn't buy a 3 year old game for cheap, let alone retail price.

I ended up borrowing it from a friend. It's a lose lose for me and Nintendo. I didn't get a copy of the game to keep forever and they didn't get a penny from me.

Soul Silver is currently $279.99 on Amazon new and $74.98 used. 6 year old games should be $10. And the worst part is, Nintendo won't see a penny of that money either.

 

[hurricanes]

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.

Oops. Thanks for clarifying. I only read Op and the last few pages. OP is lucky with GameCube because there are indeed quite a few GameCube games that has high/absurd prices. But that's certainly not the norm and assuming every Nintendo game to pull that is unrealistic.

 

[Poimandres]

Here's a question, what's better for a company? A consumer buying a brand new game for a discounted price, or a consumer purchasing a second hand title?

Because people who want to support Nintendo but have "high resale value" as a positive factor when purchasing their games are effectively taking money away from Nintendo by reselling games.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

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.

Of course there are games like Witcher 3 that give an exceptional amount of content for the asking price. And there are full priced Nintendo games that were lackluster and/or low on content.

In general, though, I feel that I almost always get my money's worth with full priced Nintendo games. Doesn't feel like I'm rolling the dice with my $60, or I'm going to get nickel and dimed later, as I do with many other studios. That's all I was saying.

 

[Jawmuncher]

I hate it because when I want to buy one of their games 2-3 years down the road, the prices are spiked by 3rd Party companies.

For example, I got a 3DS a few months before Pokemon XY came out. I wanted to buy Pokemon SoulSilver because I missed out on it, never had a DS. I went online to grab it real quick. Amazon had it, but it was $80+ from 3rd party companies. Gamestop didn't have it, Best Buy didn't have it. Ebay had it for high prices. It was insane. I couldn't buy a 3 year old game for cheap, let alone retail price.

I ended up borrowing it from a friend. It's a lose lose for me and Nintendo. I didn't get a copy of the game to keep forever and they didn't get a penny from me.

Soul Silver is currently $279.99 on Amazon new and $74.98 used. 6 year old games should be $10. And the worst part is, Nintendo won't see a penny of that money either.

Yep, I don't think it benefits Nintendo as much as some people are thinking.

 

[McGruber21]

Completely agree. If I buy a Nintendo game, even something like Chibi Robo, I know that it will be worth at least the price paid in a few short years. These kids who go all digital don't get the concept of investing in video games, I feel.

 

[Macleoid]

I like the reliability of prices post launch. My appreciation is based on a degree of trust in a quality product that some other publishers don't command. But I see how it acts as a barrier to new customers entering the ecosystem vs sony/ms or steam where there's a bank of cheap titles. I would prefer everyone priced a real product lifetime price like Nintendo and not a hype/launch price followed by discounts.

Also you should all visit the Vasa museum...

 

[Head.spawn]

Completely agree. If I buy a Nintendo game, even something like Chibi Robo, I know that it will be worth at least the price paid in a few short years. These kids who go all digital don't get the concept of investing in video games, I feel.

I personally don't buy games with the intention of selling them.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Completely agree. If I buy a Nintendo game, even something like Chibi Robo, I know that it will be worth at least the price paid in a few short years. These kids who go all digital don't get the concept of investing in video games, I feel.

The concept of investing in what are mostly mass produced media products is a bad one to begin with.

 

[blankempathy]

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.

How am I skirting that fact when I've never said you couldn't buy a game right now and resell it for nearly what you paid within a very limited time? My argument has always been that certain Nintendo games don't lose as much value over time compared to AAA third party games. Thats why I said lets check back in 6 months to a year to see how much you can resell those from now.

The concept of investing in what are mostly mass produced media products is a bad one to begin with.

And yet it still exists. Investment is not the best word to use but the simple fact is there is a lot of turn over regarding video games. People may finish a game and never replay it again and find that reselling a game and putting that money towards a new game is a better option than just having it sit on a shelf.

I personally don't buy games with the intention of selling them.

Me neither but the future is unknown and factors may pop up where reselling a product is a better choice for some people. Take for example my xbox 360. I have no need for it now that my x1 is backwards compatible. Or when a game gets a definitive edition. Do I really need a wii u version of mk8/splatoon if the new ones have content the old ones won't? There are too many variables. Especially this gen where you get extra stuff like upgraded consoles.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

How am I skirting that fact when I've never said you couldn't buy a game right now and resell it for nearly what you paid within a very limited time? My argument has always been that certain Nintendo games don't lose as much value over time compared to AAA third party games. Thats why I said lets check back in 6 months to a year to see how much you can resell those from now.



And yet it still exists. Investment is not the best word to use but the simple fact is there is a lot of turn over regarding video games. People may finish a game and never replay it again and find that reselling a game and putting that money towards a new game is a better option than just having it sit on a shelf.

That's fine, but:

1) You're right, investment isn't a good word for it.

2) Thinking that people who buy digitally don't understand the benefits of reselling is just underselling people. Those people understand what people are doing by reselling their games, but for some reason those people keep calling it an "Investment" which is a terrible argument. Mainly because those investments are lucky to break even (And would still be lucky to break even even if games never dropped in price) by using their buying/reselling turnover method.

And people trying to use it as reasoning of why keeping games at $60 a pop is beneficial to consumers are just crazy. That would have far more downfalls than benefits.

 

[Mael]

Pokemon is something else entirely and really shouldn't be part of this discussion as tPC decides what's going on really.
GameFreak is aware that people would like to play their old games, that's why they make remakes and made the bank system (after the horrible systems they put in place before).
I don't think anyone but hardcore fans would want to touch RSE over ORAS.
If you want Kanto, you can get that for a low price (compared to inflated second hand amazon prices) and you can play that on the same system you play the new games.
Sure it would be better if they still made new copies of the old ones or that the old ones went down in price or something but consider that they sell over 10mil at full price apiece I don't think they would want the extra 2mil the lowered price would give them.
On top of that it would train their customers to wait for a price drop as the "real" value for the customer would then be lower than the full price of entry they have right now.
You're not buying SunMoon because it's 40?
This is you :

and I'm unhappy having to fork 50bucks over old games as anyone here.

Also you should all visit the Vasa museum...

Done and agreed.

 

[nel e nel]

You're deluding yourself into thinking higher prices are better for you and calling video games an investment (they aren't), possibly due to an irrational love of Nintendo.

That's not Stockholm Syndrome. As far as I can tell, OP is not being held captive against their wishes.

 

[blankempathy]

That's fine, but:

1) You're right, investment isn't a goof word for it.

2) Thinking that people who buy digitally don't understand the benefits of reselling is just underselling people. Those people understand what people are doing by reselling their games, but for some reason those people keep calling it an "Investment" which is a terrible argument. Mainly because those investments are lucky to break even (And would still be lucky to break even even if games never dropped in price) by using their buying/reselling turnover method.

And people trying to use it as reasoning of why keeping games at $60 a pop is beneficial to consumers are just crazy. That would have far more downfalls than benefits.

Its beneficial for some consumers. Mainly the ones who buy their games at launch and want to sell a year or more from when they bought it. For others looking to pick up cheap games later on obviously its not the best for them.

 

[DriftingSpirit]

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.

Yep.

 

[whalleywhat]

That's not Stockholm Syndrome. As far as I can tell, OP is not being held captive against their wishes.

No, it's not an actual textbook example of the syndrome, and yet non-pedants understand the context in which he's using the term.

 

[Subtervotion]

Pokemon is something else entirely and really shouldn't be part of this discussion as tPC decides what's going on really.
GameFreak is aware that people would like to play their old games, that's why they make remakes and made the bank system (after the horrible systems they put in place before).
I don't think anyone but hardcore fans would want to touch RSE over ORAS.
If you want Kanto, you can get that for a low price (compared to inflated second hand amazon prices) and you can play that on the same system you play the new games.
Sure it would be better if they still made new copies of the old ones or that the old ones went down in price or something but consider that they sell over 10mil at full price apiece I don't think they would want the extra 2mil the lowered price would give them.
On top of that it would train their customers to wait for a price drop as the "real" value for the customer would then be lower than the full price of entry they have right now.
You're not buying SunMoon because it's 40?
This is you :

and I'm unhappy having to fork 50bucks over old games as anyone here.



Done and agreed.

Yeah, I'm not really opposed to the games staying near retail price. But it's really annoying when you get the system 2 or 3 years down the line and the launch games are all above retail. It took me a long time to find Pikmin 3 for a reasonable price once I finally got a Wii U. Nintendo has been sort of good at releasing 'Select" titles and digital copies lately though. Same thing happened when OoT for 3DS came out. couldn't find it for a reasonable price until the Select version was available. Same thing for SMG as well. It's just a common thing with all Nintendo games and it really makes me unhappy because a lot of the times the games aren't even a generation old yet.

 

[brad-t]

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 the 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?

I'm not talking about whose problem it is or not. It's just reality that Nintendo has to carry its own platform with its own in-house titles, so of course their strategy would differ from companies with business models that are actually pretty different.

I don't really think that there are a lot people not buying Nintendo systems because the games are too expensive. It's more likely that the consoles Nintendo have had on the market for a few years just don't provide the kind of value or experience consumers are looking for.

For what it's worth, I'd rather pay a fair price for pretty much any product than scour around waiting for sales. I think there is value that knowing that when you buy a game like Mario or Zelda on release day, it's not going to be $20 cheaper a month from now, or that there won't be a GOTY edition with significantly different content a year later. Everyone gets the the same level of value.

I can get why people might not agree with this, but I think it's worth considering the upsides of the approach. Either way, if you don't agree, literally every other developer in the industry is happy to appease you.

 

[The Hamburglar]

An investment lmao.

The lengths people go to.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Its beneficial for some consumers. Mainly the ones who buy their games at launch and want to sell a year or more from when they bought it. For others looking to pick up cheap games later on obviously its not the best for them.

That's not pro consumer or beneficial for consumers. Thats pro reseller and beneficial for resellers. Once your role in the situation goes from the person buying a product to the person selling the product, the benefits change in reasoning.

 

[Chindogg]

Yeah, I'm not really opposed to the games staying near retail price. But it's really annoying when you get the system 2 or 3 years down the line and the launch games are all above retail. It took me a long time to find Pikmin 3 for a reasonable price once I finally got a Wii U. Nintendo has been sort of good at releasing 'Select" titles and digital copies lately though. Same thing happened when OoT for 3DS came out. couldn't find it for a reasonable price until the Select version was available. Same thing for SMG as well. It's just a common thing with all Nintendo games and it really makes me unhappy because a lot of the times the games aren't even a generation old yet.

Out of curiosity, why do you think those games needed to be discounted? Just because they're older titles?

No, it's not an actual textbook example of the syndrome, and yet non-pedants understand the context in which he's using the term.

It's a poor context and hyperbole. No one's ordering anyone to pay whatever prices. Someone justifying their purchase no matter how oddly worded doesn't mean they're somehow unconditionally attached to a company like an abused lover.

It's a difference of opinion, and many people in this thread have clearly declared that the OPs opinion is somehow equivalent of being abused. At best it's a gross over exaggeration.

 

[whalleywhat]

It's a poor context and hyperbole. No one's ordering anyone to pay whatever prices. Someone justifying their purchase no matter how oddly worded doesn't mean they're somehow unconditionally attached to a company like an abused lover.

It's a difference of opinion, and many people in this thread have clearly declared that the OPs opinion is somehow equivalent of being abused. At best it's a gross over exaggeration.

Nah, it's entirely appropriate. The OP is proposing something entirely unfeasible (flipping Nintendo games for profit) in defence of the company's entirely self-serving practices. He's either a loon sitting on a basement of unsold Beanie Babies or he's defending their practices against his own interests.

 

[Mael]

Yeah, I'm not really opposed to the games staying near retail price. But it's really annoying when you get the system 2 or 3 years down the line and the launch games are all above retail. It took me a long time to find Pikmin 3 for a reasonable price once I finally got a Wii U. Nintendo has been sort of good at releasing 'Select" titles and digital copies lately though. Same thing happened when OoT for 3DS came out. couldn't find it for a reasonable price until the Select version was available. Same thing for SMG as well. It's just a common thing with all Nintendo games and it really makes me unhappy because a lot of the times the games aren't even a generation old yet.

Again Pokemon is its own thing.
They have fuckyou budget and gets fuckyou sells to go with it so they could increase the price of the game and increase their profit.
They can damage their brand by being worse than Disney if they want, the games are that good.
I really wish I didn't have to pay that much to get White/Black or their sequel when they sold THAT many copies but turns out that people don't really sell the games when they're done!

For Nintendo, it's different.
They're being assholes if you want physical copies after the initial shipments are gone and the game isn't popular.
BUT now they do digital and they're reasonable as far as prices go on digital when you want old games.
I don't buy them because fuck digital but I could have gone most of the great 3DS titles from early 2012 and before for a fraction of the price (like 20 or something) for quite some time now.
I don't even have to bother tracking a copy AND the store doesn't care that I'm in the US when making the transaction!

 

[Panajev2001a]

Yep.

and the push for iterative consoles can be better understood under this light too .

 

[Bishop89]

 

[PeakPointMatrix]

You don't pay more than what you need to though. If you pay $60 for a Nintendo game, you can resell it for $40 almost any time 'after' having played it, so you basically pay $20 for a game on average.

Of course if you want to hold onto your games, that is another story. But I don't feel the need to hold onto 10 year old games

The irony being if Nintendo games depreciated properly, you could buy the game outright for $20 (or less!) to begin with. And STILL resell it later to chip off from the price further. This thread is silly.

 

[Oersted]

Completely agree. If I buy a Nintendo game, even something like Chibi Robo, I know that it will be worth at least the price paid in a few short years. These kids who go all digital don't get the concept of investing in video games, I feel.

I got Chibi Robo + Amiibo for 8 bucks

Spoiler

sorry

 

[DriftingSpirit]

and the push for iterative consoles can be better understood under this light too .

Probably so. I still have my OG PS4.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Its probably the biggest reason why I have left Nintendo behind

I like to keep my games and I like to get them heavily discounted. Im all digital and never pay more than 20$ for a game. Usually that means Im 1 year LTTP

This model simply dont work with Nintendo

The other day I though I should pick up a Wii I saw for 30$, well lol the games I wanted to play Went for 50$ each so I bit my tounge and moved on

If you want to avoid all games becoming micro transactions based F2P designs, is it more sustainable for developers if customers were to buy lots of games only when they hit a crazy sale or fewer games but closer to launch?

I do realise we all have budget limitations and for the people who wait for sales there are people who preorder everything, but it is difficult to budget and make a modern game without being design constrained by F2P mechanics (you need to keep extracting money from people, games as services and not products) if the market pushes you and your competitors to a race to the bottom in terms of pricing, when game customers lose concept of games value/monwtaey worth. Not sure much can be done, but while I do not like companies pushing for 50% margins like Apple does, I also think that the mobile gamer mindset of £7 games being extortionately expensive really unsustainable.

 

[Macleoid]

If you want to avoid all games becoming micro transactions based F2P designs, is it more sustainable for developers if customers were to buy lots of games only when they hit a crazy sale or fewer games but closer to launch?

Hmm this sounds almost sensible. You must be brainwashed. Not foolin me with your Haparanda System, which as a fully qualified gag member I am qualified to memetically diagnose.

I pressrib my ten minutes of poking your tongue into power terminals. It's good for what ales ya!

 

[Poimandres]

For what it's worth, I'd rather pay a fair price for pretty much any product than scour around waiting for sales. I think there is value that knowing that when you buy a game like Mario or Zelda on release day, it's not going to be $20 cheaper a month from now, or that there won't be a GOTY edition with significantly different content a year later. Everyone gets the the same level of value.

This wasn't true with NSMBU though. These days it comes with Luigi as well.

Interestingly, this gen it was cheaper to buy some Wii U games at launch then a few months later. Mario Kart 8 came with a bonus game AND could be had for AUS $59 at launch. Splatoon was the same price. Both games are now AUS $79. That's one way to get people to buy games at launch... offer real incentives to do so. I think both games are old enough now that they should be well below the $59 I paid and it's actually unfair to new customers, but prices actually rising after the launch window is kind of interesting.

 

[D.Lo]

Nintendo does not control the used market. The games maintain their value on the used market not because of some artificial price gouging by Nintendo, but because the latest Mario does not make the last one obsolete and people still want to play it. And if Mario 3D Land is still selling at 90% RRP used, why would any company drop the price of their new copy?

Really, why should a game be cheaper because it came out a year ago? It used not to be the case, partly because of the price of carts, but was true of most early CD stuff too. This really only started with yearly sports games, you don't want the 1995 game/rosters in 1997. Made sense for that, and to some extent for update games (like Street Fighter 2 Turbo vs the original). But Mario World, Mega Man X, Banjo Kazooie, Streets of Rage etc were still not half price 3-4 years after release.

Essentially the mainstream market with their hype machine has turned all gaming into yearly sports games. Except it's gone into overdrive now, and something just three months old is now bargain bin trash?

 

[Subtervotion]

Out of curiosity, why do you think those games needed to be discounted? Just because they're older titles?



It's a poor context and hyperbole. No one's ordering anyone to pay whatever prices. Someone justifying their purchase no matter how oddly worded doesn't mean they're somehow unconditionally attached to a company like an abused lover.

It's a difference of opinion, and many people in this thread have clearly declared that the OPs opinion is somehow equivalent of being abused. At best it's a gross over exaggeration.

I'm not even saying discounted. I'm saying they shouldn't be more than retail price.

Of course I want to pick up the game for 20-30% off if its a few years old and the sequels have already come out, but it's hard to find some of these games new for retail price. That's just ridiculous. And Nintendo isn't seeing that money at that point. It's all 3rd party sellers making the money.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Nintendo does not control the used market. The games maintain their value on the used market not because of some artificial price gouging by Nintendo, but because the latest Mario does not make the last one obsolete and people still want to play it. And if Mario 3D Land is still selling at 90% RRP used, why would any company drop the price of their new copy?

Really, why should a game be cheaper because it came out a year ago? It used not to be the case, partly because of the price of carts, but was true of most early CD stuff too. This really only started with yearly sports games, you don't want the 1995 game/rosters in 1997. Made sense for that, and to some extent for update games (like Street Fighter 2 Turbo vs the original). But Mario World, Mega Man X, Banjo Kazooie, Streets of Rage etc were still not half price 3-4 years after release.

Essentially the mainstream market with their hype machine has turned all gaming into yearly sports games. Except it's gone into overdrive now, and something just three months old is now bargain bin trash?

As a consumer I love Steam sales but I also know deep down it does have a negative impact. There are also suggestions Apple owners are more likely to pay more for apps and games as opposed to Android owners. So you have to hand it to Apple for keeping profits up much like what Nintendo has done.

 

[flak57]

Nintendo does not control the used market. The games maintain their value on the used market not because of some artificial price gouging by Nintendo, but because the latest Mario does not make the last one obsolete and people still want to play it.

Uh... when Nintendo releases a Player's Choice version of a game, the used price of the original version instantly tanks.

 

[Mael]

Uh... when Nintendo releases a Player's Choice version of a game, the used price of the original version instantly tanks.

the point of Player's Choice edition isn't to control the price of used or new games, it's to deliver a new shipment of games that people will buy.
that's why you usually don't see them for games no one wants to buy (like that chibi robot no one ever cared about).
It's usually also not for evergreens as that kinda goes against the point of evergreen games.

 

[flak57]

the point of Player's Choice edition isn't to control the price of used or new games, it's to deliver a new shipment of games that people will buy.
that's why you usually don't see them for games no one wants to buy (like that chibi robot no one ever cared about).
It's usually also not for evergreens as that kinda goes against the point of evergreen games.

Wind Waker HD and Pikmin 3 for example stayed around the same used price for years, then the Player's Choice release instantly dropped them.

https://www.pricecharting.com/game/wii-u/pikmin-3
https://www.pricecharting.com/game/wii-u/zelda-wind-waker-hd

 

[DeuceGamer]

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".

A smart shopper would probably have Gamers Club Unlocked, especially if they purchased Nintendo games frequently. In that scenario they would have paid $48 and a couple years of play later sell it for $30-35. That's much better than the majority of games from other publishers.

I definitely wouldnt buy games as an investment but I do fully believe the majority of Nintendo games hold their value better in comparison to other Third Party publishers.

 

[D.Lo]

Wind Waker HD and Pikmin 3 for example stayed around the same used price for years, then the Player's Choice release instantly dropped them.

https://www.pricecharting.com/game/wii-u/pikmin-3
https://www.pricecharting.com/game/wii-u/zelda-wind-waker-hd

So essentially that proves that at least these games are worth their full RRP even years after launch. When the RRP drops via the players choice line, so does their value, obviously.

But they don't have to do that. It's the same game in 2015 as it was in 2013. It hasn't been made obsolete. Why should Wind Waker HD have cost less in 2015 than in 2013? How does the two years make it worth less? It's not cutting edge but still looks fantastic, it could have been released in 2015 and would have been received the same.

 

[ronaldthump]

Nah, it's entirely appropriate. The OP is proposing something entirely unfeasible (flipping Nintendo games for profit) in defence of the company's entirely self-serving practices. He's either a loon sitting on a basement of unsold Beanie Babies or he's defending their practices against his own interests.

Unsold beanie babies made me laugh...

 

[SmokedMeat]

Nintendo does not control the used market. The games maintain their value on the used market not because of some artificial price gouging by Nintendo, but because the latest Mario does not make the last one obsolete and people still want to play it. And if Mario 3D Land is still selling at 90% RRP used, why would any company drop the price of their new copy?

Really, why should a game be cheaper because it came out a year ago? It used not to be the case, partly because of the price of carts, but was true of most early CD stuff too. This really only started with yearly sports games, you don't want the 1995 game/rosters in 1997. Made sense for that, and to some extent for update games (like Street Fighter 2 Turbo vs the original). But Mario World, Mega Man X, Banjo Kazooie, Streets of Rage etc were still not half price 3-4 years after release.

Essentially the mainstream market with their hype machine has turned all gaming into yearly sports games. Except it's gone into overdrive now, and something just three months old is now bargain bin trash?

The difference is that the gaming market has grown considerably since then. Of course videogames went on sale back then, but now retailers are getting far more competitive with their pricing and use videogames as a means to drive more traffic to stores. In my area alone there was no such thing as a Best Buy or Walmart. There were no online giants like Amazon. Now you've got these giants battling it out for your business and prices drop in ways they didn't back when you had a smaller market with smaller retailers and toy stores competing.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

As a consumer, I usually pass up all but the games that I know I really want from Nintendo for cheaper games on other consoles because of their game prices.

I still haven't bought the DS version of SM64, for example, because at $30-$40 USD, I'd rather bust out the N64 and play it there. I didn't even bother getting a 3DS partly because the Vita, dying as it was, also had kickass sales regularly.

The thing about Nintendo is that if they want to keep their software highly priced, they should make the barrier to entry for those games as low as possible. They value their hardware far too much on launch if the recent history of the WiiU and 3DS is to be believed. Make your dirt-cheap tech actually cheap when it hits the shelves because if both your console AND games are at high prices for a long time, I'll skip you. There are so many good games out there at this point that the competition makes Nintendo unappetizing as a value proposition.

 

[flak57]

So essentially that proves that at least these games are worth their full RRP even years after launch. When the RRP drops via the players choice line, so does their value, obviously.

But they don't have to do that. It's the same game in 2015 as it was in 2013. It hasn't been made obsolete. Why should Wind Waker HD have cost less in 2015 than in 2013? How does the two years make it worth less? It's not cutting edge but still looks fantastic, it could have been released in 2015 and would have been received the same.

I was getting at that I think Nintendo is controlling the used prices to some extent, just like any other company.

How much do you think Pikmin 3 was selling 1.5-2 years out, still near full price? Probably not much. Nintendo was content to squeeze out as many full price purchasers as possible that think similarly to the OP, before pulling the rug out and re-entering the game to the mass market with a sudden massive price drop.

A lot of other companies chase the market all the way down, then release a GOTY version (or something) not long later and continue chasing it down. I don't think Pikmin 3 is necessarily more "evergreen" (intrinsically) then something like Witcher 3, it's just a different way of doing things.

 

[walking fiend]

Here's a question, what's better for a company? A consumer buying a brand new game for a discounted price, or a consumer purchasing a second hand title?

Because people who want to support Nintendo but have "high resale value" as a positive factor when purchasing their games are effectively taking money away from Nintendo by reselling games.

I know, which is what boggles my mind when people say I'm experiencing a Stockholm Syndrome. I like a functioning used game market cause it is in my own favor

 

[Psychoward]

I know, which is what boggles my mind when people say I'm experiencing a Stockholm Syndrome. I like a functioning used game market cause it is in my own favor

If Nintendo games are such high quality why would you want to trade them in?

How can the used game market be in your favor if you get the same amount of capital loss whether you buy a $50 game and then sell it for $30 vs. getting a $30 game and selling it for $10?

 

[SirNinja]

OP what happened to your 5 year media blackout?

Oh man, this just keeps getting better and better. DetectiveGAF on point today.

 

[Dereck]

OP what happened to your 5 year media blackout?

lol

 

[redcrayon]

Here's a question, what's better for a company? A consumer buying a brand new game for a discounted price, or a consumer purchasing a second hand title?

Because people who want to support Nintendo but have "high resale value" as a positive factor when purchasing their games are effectively taking money away from Nintendo by reselling games.

People wanting to buy a brand new copy of most AAA games discounted, say a year after launch, can usually find multiple second-hand copies of the same game in the same shop for £5 less in my experience. Whereas Nintendo stuff, while it might have 'high resale value', tends to get traded in less.

I agree with you that discounted copies are better for the developer than Second-hand sales, but Second-hand racks are mostly full of western AAA games that have multiple sequels and huge print runs that have put millions of copies of multiple recent games in the same franchise in circulation. Nintendo tends to be much more conservative with print runs outside of their big hitters like Mario Kart, and even then second-hand racks aren't overflowing with it. It's easier to find GTA second hand, a much more popular series (and more commonly discounted) even amid the top sellers, due to the vast gap in the physical print run.

Ultimately people reselling Nintendo games because they retain their value works because the print runs aren't huge and a large portion of customers seems to keep hold of them more than most popular stuff, which stops huge amounts of second-hand Nintendo games being available at any one time. I don't know, I agree with your general point it just doesn't seeem to work that way in practice.

I find Nintendo incredibly frustrating with tiny print runs for their mid-tier stuff like Fire Emblem.

 

[wbEMX]

That is false though.Buy a Nintendo console and a game, play the game, finish it, sell it at why you paid for it, buy another game and so on. As I said, you people want to collect games, you don't want to play them

I am waiting for anyone to actually come up with an econicimal reason explaining why Nintendo policy is not in favor of the consumers that are not into collecting games, but actually playing games.

You know, I kind of understand where you're coming from with the OP, but concerning the outright hyperbolic quotes I put in bold here... here's a big shocker. There are people who like to collect AND play their games. I play through my stuff and I keep it in my collection when I'm done. Maybe I want to replay some stuff years down the line and with keeping them I don't have to rebuy them.

I agree with one thing though: Fuck buying other big titles at €60 or even €70. It's not worth it anymore with all the price drops and pre-release sales happening. I got Titanfall 2 for €27 three weeks after release and FFXV for €50 at release day. Why even bother anymore?