What is your opinion of Nintendo's pricing strategy with their software?

[Darknight]

I want a deal and would like to spend as little as I can as much as anyone else but I get why the prices are what they are and why it works for Nintendo. At least I can know buying a game at release won't make too much of a difference compared to waiting when it comes to the price so it's easier to swallow instead of waiting for a deal like most games you can with. It's like the opposite of Ubisoft games.

Unless you're a shareholder, not sure why anybody would be a fan.

Click to shrink...

Maintains high resale value is one reason.

 

[Hippopuncher12]

I think it sucks but it is what it is, I'll buy the games I want day 1 and wait for the others to go on some kind of sale even if it's years later, I have more than enough games from every other ecosystem to wait them out.

I do only buy Nintendo games physical so keep that in mind.

 

[FreddeGredde]

Unless you're a shareholder, not sure why anybody would be a fan.

Click to shrink...

I love it and it makes me more likely to buy Nintendo games than anything else.

Because: I like selling the games once I finish them, and since they retain their value, I get to play them basically for free. Other games are way harder to sell, and definitely at a loss.

 

[The Adder]

Unless you're a shareholder, not sure why anybody would be a fan.

Click to shrink...

1. My property retains a resale value should I choose to buy it early and sell it once I'm thoroughly finished instead of being worth pennies on the dollar six months later.

2. Healthy business practices results in a company that retains its developers for ~14 years on average with above industry standard pay in an industry known to churn and burn devs after each dev cycle. This means they retain institutional knowledge and experience, ensuring that their next eternally $60 game is of a quality that justifies the $60 I spend on it.

 

[Aaronrules380]

People do realize the ones in charge of the prices you pay are the stores, not Nintendo (at least as far as physical goes, digital is obviously different)? Obviously Nintendo can decide how much to charge retailers and than can affect the prices the retailers charge, but if retailers were sitting on copies of Arms or whatever Nintendo game for ages and they just weren't selling, they'd be put on discount. If stores are consistently stocking a game at $60, that means it's selling at $60. If it wasn't, they'd lower the prices to clear stock even if that meant taking a loss, because it's still a smaller loss than having it clog up space indefinitely for no profit. If Nintendo refused to lower the price they were selling to retailers even then, they just wouldn't restock on them.

 

[Celestial Descend]

I buy Nintendo games physical and resell them. The fact that they hold the price so well means I can resell my copies at a higher price, which is a good thing for me.

 

[Tavernade]

People do realize the ones in charge of the prices you pay are the stores, not Nintendo (at least as far as physical goes, digital is obviously different)? Obviously Nintendo can decide how much to charge retailers and than can affect the prices the retailers charge, but if retailers were sitting on copies of Arms or whatever Nintendo game for ages and they just weren't selling, they'd be put on discount. If stores are consistently stocking a game at $60, that means it's selling at $60. If it wasn't, they'd lower the prices to clear stock even if that meant taking a loss, because it's still a smaller loss than having it clog up space indefinitely for no profit. If Nintendo refused to lower the price they were selling to retailers even then, they just wouldn't restock on them.

Click to shrink...

I think there's a difference in what you're describing (stores having the ability to put things on clearance) and what this topic is about (Nintendo never discounting their games). Like, Nintendo does dictate the prices, a lot of companies do, or at the very least they can deny discount sales/non-clearance mark downs.

 

[Phendrana]

I just wish they were more flexible with sales. There's so many games from Nintendo that I'd be more willing to try at $20, but they never make it close to that price. What is the harm in doing sales like that 2, 3 years later? Especially for their lower profile IP's.

 

[Aaronrules380]

I think there's a difference in what you're describing (stores having the ability to put things on clearance) and what this topic is about (Nintendo never discounting their games). Like, Nintendo does dictate the prices, a lot of companies do, or at the very least they can deny discount sales/non-clearance mark downs.

Click to shrink...

I mean the point was that if there wasn't an audience for them at these prices they'd go on clearance or not be stocked. You can't say "nobody is buying Arms for $60" because if that were true nobody would be stocking it at that price

 

[TripleBee]

1. My property retains a resale value should I choose to buy it early and sell it once I'm thoroughly finished instead of being worth pennies on the dollar six months later.

2. Healthy business practices results in a company that retains its developers for ~14 years on average with above industry standard pay in an industry known to churn and burn devs after each dev cycle. This means they retain institutional knowledge and experience, ensuring that their next eternally $60 game is of a quality that justifies the $60 I spend on it.

Click to shrink...

I get what you mean - but it is crazy that for all of their success, they are less than double the revenue of Electronic Arts for example. Hardly feels like Nintendo is maximizing their revenue as is considering how much they sell.

 

[julian]

My only issue is I want titles to go Nintendo Selects or a more obvious discount before they go out of print.

 

[Derbel McDillet]

I mean the point was that if there wasn't an audience for them at these prices they'd go on clearance or not be stocked. You can't say "nobody is buying Arms for $60" because if that were true nobody would be stocking it at that price

Click to shrink...

I think I can look at the unchanging sales number and say nobody is buying Arms for $60. I specifically cited games that have stagnated and we've been saying the same number for again, years, so I don't know why people keep making the Ubisoft comparison.

 

[mnk]

Vouchers and Costco eShop cards means I can grab first party games day 1 for $45, so the Switch era hasn't been so bad on that front.

 

[Kenny_Blankenship]

I hate it but I get it. They're so vertically integrated a large chunk of their margin has to come from software.

 

[The Adder]

I get what you mean - but it is crazy that for all of their success, they are less than double the revenue of Electronic Arts for example. Hardly feels like Nintendo is maximizing their revenue as is considering how much they sell.

Click to shrink...

I don't care about their valuation. I care that they pay the people who work for them well and keep them there making games for me to buy. EA has its valuation based on burning down studios, dropping devs, nickle and diming you in game, and all kinds of other bullshit I'm good without.

My only issue is I want titles to go Nintendo Selects or a more obvious discount before they go out of print.

Click to shrink...

I don't entirely disagree with this, though. I just don't think we live in a universe where these'll happen anymore. They were basically trying to boost Wii's attach rate and sell any software at all on the Wii U. Barring the next console being a failure, I don't expect to see them back.

I do think the vouchers are a better system, though.

 

[delete12345]

Nintendo has stated before that they try not to deflate the value of their games, and I think that they've been largely successful in doing so these last seven years.

Click to shrink...

This part is wrong. It's more than 15 years, since the days when Satoru Iwata stated:

After a piece of hardware is released, the price is gradually reduced for five years until demand has run its course. But since the demand cycle never fails, why bother reducing the price this way? My personal take on the situation is that if you lower the price over time, the manufacturer is conditioning the customer to wait for a better deal, something I've always thought to be a strange approach. Of course, this doesn't mean that I'm against lowering prices entirely, but I've always wanted to avoid a situation where the first people to step up and support us feel punished for paying top dollar, grumbling, "I guess this is the price I pay for being first in line."

Click to shrink...

Source from the Ask Iwata book. What this quote actually means:

• Their game design and their approach to fun justifies why they price their games at the high price of $30, $40, $50, $60, or even $70, depending on the level of efforts they came up with to produce the fun qualities the game will provide to the players. $30 is when the gameplay is fun, mediocre, but at least it's engaging (see Everybody 1-2-Switch! priced at $30 MSRP), while you can have an extremely high quality game they can offer to you to justify an expensive price tag (see Tears of the Kingdom priced at $70 MSRP for the amount of effort).
• The price also subsidizes the many groups of people involved in producing said game, to pay for the contractors, the software development, the audio and sound effects production, the quality testers, and many other roles. The involvement meant that Nintendo wanted the game to be seen as a product with a high value, with their skills to match what the pricing offers, and wanted to keep that price so that it can make the game worth that amount of money. That value should not be considered as part of the physical depreciation of goods, because you cannot put a price tag onto labor and passion.
• They have at least proven to be capable of producing high quality games for the most part, thus the owners of Nintendo games have high trust in the branding. Nintendo does not want said branding and reputation to tarnish through the price depreciation of goods they produce.

The thing is they can get away with it.

Click to shrink...

I thought this thread is asking why Nintendo can get away with their pricing strategy that's being used for a long time, probably since 3 or 4 console generations ago.

 

[HK-47]

My desire is to get games as cheaply as possible. My opinion on Nintendo's strategy is that it works and it makes them a ton of extra money. Even if small hardcore titles suffer, the evergreens that maintain price point for years more than makes up for it.

 

[AstronaughtE]

With only a few exceptions I'm nearly always on the fence for buying their games in the first place. Price points are one of the few, if only levers they can use to tip the scales to purchase. I'm perfectly fine sitting out.

 

[blueredandgold]

What's the definition of 'evergreen' now?

As far as first party Nintendo software is concerned at least.

I don't know if would personally consider TOTK at almost a year old an evergreen title, as such, but I understand the industry can and probably does… if that makes sense.

I once got confused at some reporting that labelled a game this when it was only released six months prior, and wondered ever since. I think it was something like Splatoon.

 

[Undeniablybiased]

It's fine, and I think it's weird how upset it makes some people. If you gotta hunt for deals or can't afford it, I understand wishing it was different. I've been there. But the people who act like it's "wrong", or "bad", or worst "anti-consumer" for a company to ask a flat price for a product are weird as hell.

 

[Gavalanche]

their games sell really well so it works for them, and they will keep with their strategy as long as it continues to work. I don't have a personal opinion really; companies can set what prices they want t and it is up to the consumer if those prices are warranted.

 

[Derbel McDillet]

It's fine, and I think it's weird how upset it makes some people. If you gotta hunt for deals or can't afford it, I understand wishing it was different. I've been there. But the people who act like it's "wrong", or "bad", or worst "anti-consumer" for a company to ask a flat price for a product are weird as hell.

Click to shrink...

Sorry, my neck is just adjusting from the whiplash following the pushback from Star Wars Outlaws threads and people explaining why late PC ports at full price are bad for Square and Sony games.

 

[werezompire]

Not sure what you mean.
I think every Nintendo game is in the voucher shop.
As well as some games from other publishers.

Eligible Game Voucher games

Build your Nintendo Switch game library at a discount with eligible game voucher games. Some eligible titles are The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, Pokémon Scarlet, Pokémon Violet, and Fire Emblem Engage.

www.nintendo.com

Click to shrink...

They work on everything but the best deal you're getting is $50 regardless of how old the game is.

I get that they have perennial sellers like Mario Kart, but I can't imagine it would hurt them if they had a $30 line with stuff like ARMS, Three Houses, Famicom Detective Club, older ports and the like.

 

[PeakPointMatrix]

Completely classist against lower income households. The only reason I was able to even game as a kid was thanks to my dad spotting that Sony had the Greatest Hits line.

 

[Undeniablybiased]

Sorry, my neck is just adjusting from the whiplash following the pushback from Star Wars Outlaws threads and people explaining why late PC ports at full price are bad for Square and Sony games.

Click to shrink...

Ok? A thread that I haven't read or posted in is not relevant to my opinion on this subject.

 

[Derbel McDillet]

Ok? A thread that I haven't read or posted in is not relevant to my opinion on this subject.

Click to shrink...

It's not like this is the first time anyone has discussed pricing here.

Also, your take is just bizarre in general, not even in terms of gaming costs.

 

[Aadiboy]

Link's Awakening remake should not have been $60, and Advance Wars Reboot Camp sure as hell should not have been $60.

People always say that developers should be making more AA games and point to Nintendo as a successful example...but like they charge full price for them. No one else can do that, not even third parties on the Switch.

 

[Undeniablybiased]

It's not like this is the first time anyone has discussed pricing here.

Also, your take is just bizarre in general, not even in terms of gaming costs.

Click to shrink...

Ah yes, my take that it's ok to charge a price for a product is bizarre.

 

[Bishop89]

It's a joke.

 

[Elven_Star]

… it's the only way to get a lot of 3rd party/indie games in a truly portable format (outside of perhaps the more expensive Steam Deck).

Click to shrink...

At over 650 grams, I wouldn't call SD OLED truly portable. Switch Lite weighs less than half of that (~280 grams).

 

[balohna]

I'm annoyed to pay the prices but I respect that they can do it and aren't going to replace the game with a quick iterative sequel or an upgraded SKU a year later. That game is gonna be the best/only version of that game for a long time, and the only game in its franchise/gameplay style for the foreseeable future (with some exceptions, historically). I physically cannot but a Ubisoft game full price, for example, because I KNOW it will be much cheaper within a year.

 

[PianoBlack]

All of whom are laying off their devs in droves.

Wonder why.

Click to shrink...

Lol. Yeah there's totally a market for every game to never go below $40, consumers would definitely not buy fewer games causing the overall market to contract, and we should valorize corporate profits. You got me.

 

[Lotus]

Link's Awakening remake should not have been $60, and Advance Wars Reboot Camp sure as hell should not have been $60.

People always say that developers should be making more AA games and point to Nintendo as a successful example...but like they charge full price for them. No one else can do that, not even third parties on the Switch.

Click to shrink...

Ngl part of me does kinda like that Nintendo can actually convince people that a game like Metroid Dread is worth $60, when virtually every other metroidvania out there can't get away with that

Granted that's a new game and not a remake, but hey, they gotta be consistent I guess given the customer base they cultivated

 

[mrbogus]

I think Nintendo is now catering to a more adult audience with their unwavering game prices.

I know if I was a kid now without income I'd be just fine with a Playstation or Xbox and a subscription to play a bunch of stuff or some good physical game sales rather than get just a few Nintendo titles per year.

 

[TGB86]

I wish there was a little more nuance to their prices. I find it odd that they're asking me to pay the same price for Yoshi's Crafted World that I paid for Breath of the Wild. But I get why they've adopted this strategy and I'm sure it helps them maximize revenue. I do think the one-size-fits-all approach hurts some smaller titles that would benefit from price cuts or sales that extend beyond the typical 30% Nintendo tends to top out at. Nobody is buying ARMS or Astral Chain in 2024 at their current prices. I think introducing a Nintendo Selects line could help grow IPs like those and create some excitement for potential sequels.

 

[The Adder]

valorize corporate profits

Click to shrink...

"Don't have an actual argument, so let me ignore the point that one company is taking care of their employees while everyone else is laying theirs off and say some buzzwords that will win me the argument."

 

[blueredandgold]

I think Nintendo is now catering to a more adult audience with their unwavering game prices.

I know if I was a kid now without income I'd be just fine with a Playstation or Xbox and a subscription to play a bunch of stuff or some good physical game sales rather than get just a few Nintendo titles per year.

Click to shrink...

I always wonder how many people can now legitimately say their first memorable childhood game is something like a GTA.

 

[Wil Grieve]

It sucks but the vouchers are a pretty sick deal with our family deal

 

[Wil Grieve]

I always wonder how many people can now legitimately say their first memorable childhood game is something like a GTA.

Click to shrink...

My siblings and I were only a couple years off. We're SNES kids but 100% the game I associate with PS1 is the original Grand Theft Auto. My dad had it, Frogger and Wheel of Fortune.

 

[ChitonIV]

They work on everything but the best deal you're getting is $50 regardless of how old the game is.

I get that they have perennial sellers like Mario Kart, but I can't imagine it would hurt them if they had a $30 line with stuff like ARMS, Three Houses, Famicom Detective Club, older ports and the like.

Click to shrink...

I understand $50 games don't feel low enough to you. But, $40 off two games, is significant deal. The vouchers are pretty dang nice.

 

[Renna Hazel]

As a business strategy I think it would be better for Nintendo to drop the price of some of their older games that don't enjoy the evergreen sales of games like Mario or Animal Crossing. It's also better for the consumer to prop up some of these games because the online for some of them is dead.

 

[St. Eam the 3rd]

voucher and gold points are pretty good deal inside that ecosystem.
If this means no mtx inside full priced title or "ultimate" edition practices(basically being more upfront and not trying to be scummy) it's more than welcome.
Also knowing this is probably part of why their internal devs are not treated like expendables like all other big companies right now is quite good

 

[TheAggroCraig]

If the game doesn't seem worth it to me to buy at full price I don't, that's really it. If it's a game I really want I'll spend the $60, or wait for a deal, which happen more than you might think.

 

[werezompire]

I understand $50 games don't feel low enough to you. But, $40 off two games, is significant deal. The vouchers are pretty dang nice.

Click to shrink...

How are you getting $40 off? Unless you're buying Tears of the Kingdom, you're saving $20 max.

 

[vio55555]

What's the definition of 'evergreen' now?

As far as first party Nintendo software is concerned at least.

I don't know if would personally consider TOTK at almost a year old an evergreen title, as such, but I understand the industry can and probably does… if that makes sense.

I once got confused at some reporting that labelled a game this when it was only released six months prior, and wondered ever since. I think it was something like Splatoon.

Click to shrink...

I don't think TotK is an evergreen yet. Obviously BotW is but it proved that over years. Zelda is new to the evergreen thing unlike say Mario 2D where I'd automatically assume that Wonder is an evergreen now in place of NSMBUD.

I think we really need to see multiple years of >1 million FY sellers for a title to label it an evergreen. That's the definition to me: "does a title keep showing up in the list of FY 1 million sellers, 2+ years after release?" TotK likely will achieve that with an upscaled Switch 2 release (perhaps with a DLC added).

If you look at the current list of evergreens on Switch, it's basically: Kart, Smash, Mario 2D/3D mainline, Mario Party (both), Animal Crossing, BotW, Super Mario 3D World+Bowser's Fury, Luigi's Mansion 3, and Ring Fit Adventure.

Titles that are likely to be evergreen over the next ~3 years: TotK, Nintendo Switch Sports

I would exclude Pokemon because they are quite JRPG-like in terms of having explosive initial sales with smaller tails. Splatoon hasn't quite proven to be evergreen yet either.

 

[mrbogus]

I always wonder how many people can now legitimately say their first memorable childhood game is something like a GTA.

Click to shrink...

Honestly that seems very possible. I got GTAV for $10 for the PS5.

 

[HK-47]

Link's Awakening remake should not have been $60, and Advance Wars Reboot Camp sure as hell should not have been $60.

People always say that developers should be making more AA games and point to Nintendo as a successful example...but like they charge full price for them. No one else can do that, not even third parties on the Switch.

Click to shrink...

The fact that LAR is gonna end up the best selling 2D Zelda of all time probably means $60 was the right price point as far as Nintendo sees it

 

[LinkStrikesBack]

I get what you mean - but it is crazy that for all of their success, they are less than double the revenue of Electronic Arts for example. Hardly feels like Nintendo is maximizing their revenue as is considering how much they sell.

Click to shrink...

I'd happily take them not degrading in to all the bullshit EA pulls both to its staff and in what they expect our of consumers, and all it costs me is they don't do bargain bin sales long term? That's the deal of the century from the consumer perspective as far as I care.

 

[Anustart]

It's created one of my favorite things to see here. The sale topics like

HYPER MAX SWITCH SALE!!! Over 3000 games on sale, with at least 10 of them not being shovelware!

But, it's led to me not even paying attention to my switch. I'm not interested in $60 for games most of the time, but if I am, I'm grabbing them on PC.

 

[HK-47]

I don't think TotK is an evergreen yet. Obviously BotW is but it proved that over years.

I think we really need to see multiple years of >1 million FY sellers for a title to label it an evergreen. TotK likely will achieve that with an upscaled Switch 2 release (perhaps with a DLC added).

If you look at the current list of evergreens on Switch, it's basically: Kart, Smash, Mario 2D/3D mainline, Mario Party (both), Animal Crossing, BotW, Super Mario 3D World+Bowser's Fury, Luigi's Mansion 3, and Ring Fit Adventure.

Titles that are likely to be evergreen over the next ~3 years: TotK, Nintendo Switch Sports

I would exclude Pokemon because they are quite JRPG-like in terms of having explosive initial sales with smaller tails. Splatoon hasn't quite proven to be evergreen yet either.

Click to shrink...

Evergreens don't have some strict amount they need to sell a year. Games like Tropical Freeze or Three Houses or Clubhouse Games sell hundred of thousand of copies every year under the radar and I'd definitely call that evergreen behavior. Also I don't see how you could reasonably exclude Splatoon or Pokemon. How much they sell up front doesn't matter