Nintendo Switch Exclusives Get Big Price Cuts At Amazon, GameStop, And More

Here's the way I see it when it comes to Nintendo's pricing, publishers are going to get every single penny out of you that they can pure and simple and there are two main methods of doing so today:

1) Set the price and keep that price set at that amount for as long as people keep paying it

2) Set the price for a month or two, then deeply discount it and recoup that lost money by putting in microtransactions in the form of a cash shop

There are pros and cons to either option tbh. 2 is potentially cheaper but, otoh, it's also potentially much, much, much more expensive as well. Both can be at least anti-consumer if not outright predatory if done in the right way and both allows the publisher to use the extra profit from the successful titles to mitigate the loss of profits of the titles that don't rake in the cash as much as they want them to.

So, ultimately? It's all down to which you prefer. I'm not saying one is better than the other-- just that I have a preference as does absolutely everyone. Me? I just don't like what cash shops do to the rest of a game's design. There almost always seems to be waaaaay more padding and grind than needs to be there and it's just a flat out headache and a hassle to me that persists throughout the entire game.

So. For me. My personal preference is that, yes, I would much, much, much rather shell out more up front in order to get a game and have done with the whole idea of anything other than more content. If I want more content, I'll get it but, otherwise, I would prefer that the publisher/developer just leave me the heck alone to enjoy what I just bought.

Now, again, I am not saying that one way to monetize is better than the other, just that I have a preference.

I mean, way I figure it, if I'm going to get overcharged on those big blockbuster titles one way or the other but at least with the $60 up front cost, I know that it's going to end then and there. There is absolutely no way that I can possibly look back at my spending on any particular title over the last year and find out that I've actually dropped in several hundred in $5 here and $10 here amounts.

Other people are going to feel differently obviously. After all, $5 here and $10 is a much lower threshold for entry so, from their financial standpoint, it might very well be worth it to pay a little extra over the long term in order to be able to play the game now rather than struggle to try and come up with that $60 asking price.

So. TLDR;

Publishers aren't your friend. They're a business trying to sell you something. They are going to ask for their money one way or the other. Both methods have anti-consumer examples. Both methods have their advantages. It's up to you, the consumer, to decide on which method you prefer.

Lastly, I am only pointing out this pattern because I know that some people don't know this information or have just been too busy living life to muck about with researching it and/or figuring it out. So, I am hoping that this information helps clear some things up for them so that trying to navigate the muddy waters of how publishers get their money from games makes things a touch less frustrating and/or confusing. :D

The Apple of video games.

Nintendo can suck b****. Charging the same amount for old games forever. They are the worst in the industry. And their deals are just as much of a joke. From 60 down to 40? Like are you for real? Those games should always cost 40. And how about some real - Steam level - deals? From 60 down to at least 20-25?

Some of those games been out over 4 years. Why are they still over $60?!

Edit: It's Nintendo.....right.