FINALFANTASYDOG said:
This would take a ton of data work to prove, but Donny what do you say for idea that this generation Nintendo has taken to the belief that spending money on more commercials-extremly long drawn out ad campaigns, even so much as to commercials more then a year after the game is released-(mario-kart) rather then reducing the price is more effective tactic.
It's definitely worked with Mario Kart. Pretty sure we've seen rises to its sales with new ads in the Japan off and on. But at a cost of a budget line of games for series that they've stopped advertising? I think Nintendo used to advertise a bit with the games in their Player's Choice lineup in the U.S. before, but I may be misremembering.
Nintendo may be trying that tactic, but if they're applying it carte blanche to all series equally, then I don't think it's a sound tactic, at all. Mario Kart has become a once-a-generation game. No console has had two (unless you count VC/BC). Therefore, keeping it priced high throughout the generation makes sense. More content-driven games (i.e. "core" game, e.g. Mario Galaxy, Zelda) that also are usually single-player and often get some form of sequels on the same console would likely benefit much more from the Player's Choice price drop tier. Twilight Princess dropping to $30 when Skyward Sword comes out. Mario Galaxy at $30 around Mario Galaxy 2's launch. If the buyer likes the game they got for a lower price, they may be willing to go to the higher price for the sequel sooner rather than wait for a possible drop later.
On a Wii-ecosystem note, it's been discussed before that there is a tier of buyers that buy late and buy cheap. Those buyers are thus stuck with mostly third-party games in their price range, and it probably doesn't do Nintendo any good for those customers to have their opinion of Wii games formed by the typical third-party game on the shelf. It could be argued that those consumers probably also don't care a great deal about the depths of quality that traditional gamers would care about, though, so that may be a wash. There's also a question of how would a consumer know the type of game that would eventually drop in price (e.g. single player, content games) from the type that wouldn't (e.g. once-a-generation games). There could be confusion resulting in waiting for a price drop on a game that isn't going to get one.
In short to your question, I think Nintendo might have done long-term advertising in previous generations, but if so, they've also coupled it with a PC line. Therefore, it could be another experiment where they're trying long-term ads without a PC line. However, the games that don't continue selling and don't get the long-term ads end up with the short stick this generation. On an "interesting" note, though, we can see if that ends up affecting the eventual next-generation sequels in any appreciable manner.