Support NeoGAF

[Dr. Wilkinson]

I'm always baffled by obsession with Nintendo's prices. Nintendo doesn't discount games because games continue to sell at full price. Charging less than the market is paying is stupid.

Agreed. It's weird for us that someone would pay $50 for BotW 7 years after release, but apparently the copies are not just sitting there collecting dust. But, it's new for them if they just now buying a Switch . If Nintendo wanted to move the inventory at a lower margin, they always have that option. But in this particular generation, including the hardware itself, the business has been so strong there just has been no need to cut price on anything. Quite an enviable position to be in, and it will not last forever. And they know that better than any of us. So, yeah they are absolutely making their $500 millionth gross margin dollar on Mario Kart 8 Deluxe minus cost of sales, and laughing all the way to the bank. For sure.

 

[Lasha]

Agreed. It's weird for us that someone would pay $50 for BotW 7 years after release, but apparently the copies are not just sitting there collecting dust. But, it's new for them if they just now buying a Switch . If Nintendo wanted to move the inventory at a lower margin, they always have that option. But in this particular generation, including the hardware itself, the business has been so strong there just has been no need to cut price on anything. Quite an enviable position to be in, and it will not last forever. And they know that better than any of us. So, yeah they are absolutely making their $500 millionth gross margin dollar on Mario Kart 8 Deluxe minus cost of sales, and laughing all the way to the bank. For sure.

I don't think its weird. Nintendo's games are evergreen. New people enter the ecosystem and existing owners work their way around the library. Nintendo's profit is larger than Playstations with only 2/3 of the revenue because of its strong collection of IP. Customers are conditioned to wait for a sale because other stores and publishers drop a game to peanuts 6 months after launch. That strategy would damage Nintendo.

 

[Woopah]

Nintendo releases 2-3 games a year, you want them to price drop it so you can buy Splatoon 3 right now for 19.99$? That makes no sense.

They publish around 10 games a year, but your point still stands.

 

[Dr. Wilkinson]

I don't think it’s weird. Nintendo's games are evergreen. New people enter the ecosystem and existing owners work their way around the library. Nintendo's profit is larger than Playstations with only 2/3 of the revenue because of its strong collection of IP. Customers are conditioned to wait for a sale because other stores and publishers drop a game to peanuts 6 months after launch. That strategy would damage Nintendo.

*Might be Weird for some us who bought it for the same price 7 years ago. As explained, not weird for the person who is buying it new now and not concerned at all about the price models of the console business.

They also didn’t used to be that evergreen. That term was invented in relation to videogames and put into use by Iwata starting with the Wii / DS era. To explain the phenomenon of many games no longer following the traditional sales curve. There have always been major tentpole games on Nintendo systems that sell hardware through the entire lifecycle, but it used to just be Mario, 3D Mario, and Mario Kart. The list has grown a lot as their number of franchises with mass appeal has grown.

 

[LakeOf9]

Imagine pretending Microsoft is "pro-consumer" when they:

- invented paying for playing online with original Xbox Live
- tried to force paying for playing online on PC gamers with Games for Windows Live
- use proprietary storage since the OG Xbox until today
- tried to force always online and no more used games with Xbox One
- force you to buy your own batteries for Xbox controllers
- buy studios to deny exclusive titles to other platforms

Can you point to a single instance of me saying MS is pro consumer, thanks

 

[Dr. Wilkinson]

They publish around 10 games a year, but your point still stands.

It’s more than that. Maybe AAA scale ($60/ “premium” retail SKU) it’s only 5-10. But they publish games all the time. It’s basically their whole business outside of console manufacturing and internal software development

 

[Dr. Wilkinson]

Nintendo releases 2-3 games a year, you want them to price drop it so you can buy Splatoon 3 right now for 19.99$? That makes no sense.

Yeah, this isn’t true at all. They release way more than 2-3 games per year. They publish games from other software makers in certain territories all the time (Octopath, Harvestella). Then they make their cut on third-party games through licensing (Mario Rabbids, Just Dance, Fortnite). Then there’s recurring subscription revenue through NSO/ Expansion Pack. And then outside of that, a lot of their revenue comes from accessories and the hardware itself. Then there’s IP licensing, such as Universal Studios, movie licensing, merchandise, etc. And then there’s their cut of everything made by Pokemon Company.

But obviously, a new game released 6 months ago that’s selling well, yeah Nintendo is not going to do a price cut for a long time. Only when they have to.

 

[harrisk954]

Just wondering why they suck so much.

Don't get me wrong, I like their actual products. The games they make are some of the best in the industry. Their hardware is always cool (love Sony's emphasis on cutting edge, and Nintendo's emphasis on novelty and new paradigms). Their stuff is usually so good I'll always buy it to play the Sony and Nintendo games that interest me.

But why are these companies so anti consumer? Their policies are shit across the board. Terrible pricing for games (Nintendo refuses to drop prices, Sony led the charge to $70 games and is also starting to adopt Nintendo style lack of price cuts), bad online services (PS Plus Premium or whatever it's called is a joke, and Nintendo's online is like 1999 dialup level), bad backward compatibility records (both are so shitty and inconsistent at this), making you rebuy stuff you've already bought (Nintendo made you buy your VC stuff like 30 times, Sony refuses to honour PS Classics purchases, and also doesn't support cross-gen purchases, making you pay $10 to upgrade), not fully communicating with the customer (Sony hid the cross-gen status of several PS5 "exclusives" they announced to hype up the system until after people had already put in preorders, Nintendo had the audacity to charge $50 for their more expensive online service without telling anyone what's even on it).

Like, I love PlayStation and Nintendo consoles and games. But I hate their actual businesses.

P.S. before someone brings this up because I know they will 9000%, I have no shits to give for MS and Xbox here; Sony and Nintendo register for me because they at least make cool shit, I don't remember the last time MS did anything that interests me, so I don't even know or care if they are PS/Nintendo level bad with a lot of this stuff, they might as well not exist for me.

Don't know why you didn't include MS here. All corporations are designed to make as much profit as the market will allow. Historically, MS has to be one of the most anticonsumer companies ever. MS has been investigated and fined for anticonsumer actions more than almost any other company in any business sector. Specific to the games industry, when MS was market leader in the US, it was incredibly "anticonsumer" by your parameters. As many have mentioned here, what you believe to be "terrible pricing" by Sony or Nintendo is not anticonsumer. Rather than build studios itself or purchase studios that were "second party" or studios primarily associated with MS, MS purchased ZeniMax and Activision (which is still pending), HUGE umbrella companies that were completely multiplatform and which were heavily associated with Playstation, which is completely different than most of Sony's acquisitions. Just because MS is losing in its gaming business and marketing itself in a certain way does not mean that it is more "pro consumer" than Sony or Nintendo. If MS was in the lead, there would be no lip service coming from Phil Spencer about how MS wants everyone to just get along (i.e., see 360 era). As previously mentioned, all companies, especially publically traded ones, exist to make their investors profit. Period. MS taking some perceived "pro consumer" actions is just smoke and mirrors and is just PR to try and gain market share and move up from "last place" of the big three video game companies, just like any company in any business sectors "gives" incentives and lowers its prices when they are trying to gain market share. If MS was to become number one in market share, you would see a reduction in the actions that you believe to be "pro-consumer" by them and an increase in "pro-consumer" action by Sony and Nintendo. That's business.