Sheo_Dagana said:
I'm saying that it's the exact same model. People level all kinds of complaints at EA Origins, but because Nintendo is Nintendo, they can get away with doing what they're doing. They aren't really doing anything different at all. So why is one succeeding where the other isn't?
It's the exact same
principle, what differs is the products, the execution, the demographics, the branding, etc.
Why it works so well for Nintendo? That's something you should ask an economics professor or a business analyst, really, but I think that a lot of it comes down to Nintendo games mostly competing against other games on their system. If a certain kind of game, like "wave your arm at sports 3!" is usually priced $10, and a major Mario title is usually priced $60, selling the Mario game for $10 could make a consumer equate it with $10 quality and pass it over.
EA on the other hand, competes with Steam as a service, which has already established a standard of insanely cheap game sales. Also EA's catalogue is far less unique and recognizeable, and speaks to a more hardcore and knowledgeable consumer base.
You might not agree, because (spoiler alert) people have different values. It's not rocket science - if I'm not getting a box or instructions or anything extra with the game, I shouldn't have to pay as much. If I value the game more, I'm going to want all the trimmings, so I'll pay more for a physical copy. That's it.
Personally, I'm an educated consumer and know enough about games and my tastes in them to not equate the price tag with the actual quality and/or my enjoyment of a product. But Nintendo isn't using this strategy to sell games to me, because I'm likely a part of a small minority of their customers. (actually, I haven't owned a nintendo product in 10 years, but you get my point).
Ipsen said:
chikusho said:
More like: We are charging retail price because if the games were cheaper they would be perceived as less valuable, which would hurt the product and/or our brand.
CORPORATE SHILL!
Kidding aside, I think a legitimate question is, between the consumer and the industry,
who should determine value? Or reworded,
whose measure of value weighs more?
I mean, on the one hand, it's always the consumer who determines value, because if the perceived value doesn't equate with the price then they won't buy it.
Left to the consumer, many factors are considered (price, features, quality, etc.). They often tell a truer story than marketing, and out of experience, have to be after the game releases. No one goes around thinking that because a game costs less, it's less enjoyable. Normal people don't go into stores intending to buy the most expensive products, and if the price could be lower for what they've intended to purchase, they'll take that.
I'm guessing their market research suggests otherwise. Besides, if a game is usually priced a certain thing and you see it somewhere for less, you'll jump at it to make a good deal. That won't happen if it's cheap to begin with. Most of Nintendos consumers aren't educated or interested enough to really know everything about every game, so the price tag may very well be a label of "higher quality game".
