Support NeoGAF

[-Mutsukki-]

I mean... as a consumer I want to pay less obviously, even if I respect the devs and the fact that game development is not cheap. I don't want to screw them over, but if it's cheaper and they're not absolutely losing something with it I'm game.

What I do understand is that they want brand and quality value to remain constant

 

[Theognosis]

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.

Here's the win-win solution that favors the enthusiasts, the casuals and the publisher:

1. Publisher launches the physical game with a fair price that remains constant throughout the platform's lifetime or until a new iteration is released (i.e. NBA 2K18, FIFA 18, etc.). This will benefit the collectors and enthusiast who see value in games (not just a commodity).

2. Publisher releases game in digital form at discounted prices. This will entice people sitting on the fence to play the game. Publisher will have additional profits after the initial sale.

3. Those who enjoyed the game in digital form can go to the second-hand market for physical copies. Collectors can sell their items either higher or lower than SRP, according to market conditions.

 

[HotHamBoy]

Here's the win-win solution that favors the enthusiasts, the casuals and the publisher:

1. Publisher launches the physical game with a fair price that remains constant throughout the platform's lifetime or until a new iteration is released (i.e. NBA 2K18, FIFA 18, etc.). This will benefit the collectors and enthusiast who see value in games (not just a commodity).

2. Publisher releases game in digital form at discounted prices. This will entice people sitting on the fence to play the game. Publisher will have additional profits after the initial sale.

3. Those who enjoyed the game in digital form can go to the second-hand market for physical copies. Collectors can sell their items either higher or lower than SRP, according to market conditions.

You can't undercut the retailer! They'll just stop giving you shelf space!

Why do you think they don't do this already?

 

[Kaztinka]

oh god.....

 

[Theognosis]

You can't undercut the retailer! They'll just stop giving you shelf space!

Why do you think they don't do this already?

I'm talking about the price coming from the source and not retailers disposing whatever they have in their stock! If retailers want to sell their inventory at a loss, that's their business.

 

[Doc_Drop]

I'm talking about the price coming from the source and not retailers disposing whatever they have in their stock! If retailers want to sell their inventory at a loss, that's their business.

It is their business, have you never worked in retail? Loss leaders are a thing

 

[Theognosis]

It is their business, have you never worked in retail? Loss leaders are a thing

I own a business myself. Again, the pricing I'm talking about is the one that comes from the source, in this case the publisher. Retailers have nothing to do with it. They can sell at whatever price they want unless the items are on consignment. It's the publisher that ultimately decides how they want to VALUE their products.

If for example Adidas decides to release its NMD sneakers at absolutely rock bottom prices, how would the one ones who stood in line feel? Of course Adidas wouldn't do that as they want to maintain their products' perceived value among its customers.

 

[Mael]

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

Of course they did, that's still not why the Player's Choice editions exist.

It is their business, have you never worked in retail? Loss leaders are a thing

This is stupid, the retailers have no incentive to stock a product that the producers can sell to customers at a lower price.
On top of that you're training your customers to devalue your products.
And the reason retailers dump inventory through flash sale is because they value their shelf space at a premium, not because "the game isn't worth the price anymore".

 

[n0razi]

"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.

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.

Wow. I'm blown away at the logic I'm reading here.


This takes the cake.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. Its truly terrifying that there are Nintendo fans that actually think that way

 

[Cuburt]

I wouldn't go as far as looking at Nintendo games as an investment, since they won't increase in value, but OPs thinking does make sense if you know you'd plan to resell, which most of GAF seems to do anyways.

If don't want your games to retain their value and you often resell them, either you are a sucker or you don't care about reselling and only want games for as cheap as possible.

Games are all digital, so the only thing about them that decreases the value is how much demand there is and how old they are. There is no degredation in value since game plays the same day one as it does day 581. In fact, Nintendo games are more likely to run bug free on day one than most other developers, so that's another reason you are getting what you pay for.

 

[VillageBC]

I adjust my purchasing habits to account for publishers pricing habits. Which means, a majority of titles I wait until big discounts. But with Nintendo, I know it isn't going to happen so waiting doesn't really benefit me any if it's a game I want to play.

 

[Kenai]

It makes sense to buy Nintendo stuff at MSRP since they don't usually slash them, so you aren't losing money you would have otherwise saved by waiting. It's not a surefire thing, but it happens a lot less often than anyone else in the industry, and "seems' healthier than slashing and deep discounts.

But I do like paying less for discounted stuff. In reality, I'm not sure that's unhealthy enough to stop companies making games since they have been doing this for decades with no sign of stopping. I won't begrudge Nintendo doing what they are doing, but they aren't saving the industry or anything by doing this particular thing, don't be silly.

 

[Syf]

As a consumer I love that I'll never get a discount praise Nintendo the only dev stupid enough to do this just look at how it's paid off! What an outstanding gen Nintendi has had

 

[Doc_Drop]

This is stupid, the retailers have no incentive to stock a product that the producers can sell to customers at a lower price.
On top of that you're training your customers to devalue your products.
And the reason retailers dump inventory through flash sale is because they value their shelf space at a premium, not because "the game isn't worth the price anymore".

Retailers have loss leaders in order to get people in the door or to encourage spending on multiple products, the incentive is business. Never said anything about "the game isn't worth the price anymore", not really sure where you're pulling that from. If a retailer believes that by selling certain products at a loss or close to a loss they can bring in extra business to try and push premium priced products they will, this is retail 101

 

[autoduelist]

How the hell is it monopolistic? All these pro-consumer, anti-consumer labels are already stretching it, but monopolistic?

You removed the context of my statement. First, I didn't say they were monopolistic, I said 'monopolistic practices', which simply means they use some of the methods monopolies use. Second, I didn't say they are a monopoly in general, I clearly stated those practices are used 'within their ecosystem', where they have the level of control necessary to do such. That is, Nintendo can maintain price levels due to their control over their ecosystem by using some practices common to monopolies. Price control, for example. That is why they are able to maintain prices significantly higher than found in other, similar, markets. But no, you're correct that Nintendo is not a monopoly. Which is why I didn't call them one.

The idea that higher prices - especially prices higher than a free market would normally dictate - benefit the consumer is about as backwards as it gets.

 

[Panajev2001a]

You removed the context of my statement. First, I didn't say they were monopolistic, I said 'monopolistic practices', which simply means they use some of the methods monopolies use. Second, I didn't say they are a monopoly in general, I clearly stated those practices are used 'within their ecosystem', where they have the level of control necessary to do such. That is, Nintendo can maintain price levels due to their control over their ecosystem by using some practices common to monopolies. Price control, for example. That is why they are able to maintain prices significantly higher than found in other, similar, markets. But no, you're correct that Nintendo is not a monopoly. Which is why I didn't call them one.

The idea that higher prices - especially prices higher than a free market would normally dictate - benefit the consumer is about as backwards as it gets.

The free market could push for a market crash too by pushing for a race to the bottom in terms of prices and the higher uniformity it would create.

 

[D.Lo]

You removed the context of my statement. First, I didn't say they were monopolistic, I said 'monopolistic practices', which simply means they use some of the methods monopolies use. Second, I didn't say they are a monopoly in general, I clearly stated those practices are used 'within their ecosystem', where they have the level of control necessary to do such. That is, Nintendo can maintain price levels due to their control over their ecosystem by using some practices common to monopolies. Price control, for example. That is why they are able to maintain prices significantly higher than found in other, similar, markets. But no, you're correct that Nintendo is not a monopoly. Which is why I didn't call them one.

The idea that higher prices - especially prices higher than a free market would normally dictate - benefit the consumer is about as backwards as it gets.

Nintendo do not sell a commodity, or have anything like control of a market. They have a shop. They sell their art in a completely free market, and can set the prices however they choose. There are no elements of monopolistic practices to that, unless you are going to an insane level and claim an artist selling their own paintings is being 'monopolistic' because nobody else gets to sell their painting and others sell other pictures cheaper.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

This.

What a sad example of corporate loyalty/fanboyism. Nintendo fanboys honestly make me like the company less. Sony and MS fanboys are obnoxious too, but Nintendo's take the cake for absurd levels of loyalty and apologism.

Personally I detest corporations, have no loyalty to any and only begrudgingly give them as little of my money as possible.