Chris Trottier on Nostr: I often wonder why Nintendo games tend to be overpriced on the retro game market, and ...
I often wonder why Nintendo games tend to be overpriced on the retro game market, and I think it comes down to this: Nintendo not only cares about their past, they carefully curate it.
Why? Because they see it as a gold mine. With each successive console release, they get to re-sell pieces of their old library—but not their entire library so they can build demand for it. And yes, I’m including the mini-consoles and retro handhelds here.
Sony, on the other hand, doesn’t give a damn about their past. And we saw this with how they PlayStation Classic and how paint-by-numbers it was. Sony just doesn’t give a damn about their past because they’re too focused on what’s next.
Microsoft does care about its past but they mostly just focus on Halo and 90s Rare games. Also, I get the impression that they wish they were Nintendo as demonstrated by the fact they really wish they owned Nintendo. Maybe that will all change, though, now that they own Bethesda and Activision-Blizzard because now they own a huge archive of gaming history.
But then again, you would think that because they own Windows that they’d be protectors of PC gaming history in particular. Yet, so far they’ve shown no interest! And it’s wild that Valve and CD Projekt Red (who owns GOG.com) are really the ones curating PC gaming’s past.
But notice how both Steam and GOG.com are digital-only? And that’s fine since it keeps games cheaper and gets delivered faster. But that also means that they lack visibility in the physical world compared to anything related to Nintendo. For this reason, there is not much of a second-hand market for PC gaming.
If there’s one thing retro gamers are motivated by its social status. A digital asset will always have less social status than a physical asset. Nintendo very much knows this.
Why? Because they see it as a gold mine. With each successive console release, they get to re-sell pieces of their old library—but not their entire library so they can build demand for it. And yes, I’m including the mini-consoles and retro handhelds here.
Sony, on the other hand, doesn’t give a damn about their past. And we saw this with how they PlayStation Classic and how paint-by-numbers it was. Sony just doesn’t give a damn about their past because they’re too focused on what’s next.
Microsoft does care about its past but they mostly just focus on Halo and 90s Rare games. Also, I get the impression that they wish they were Nintendo as demonstrated by the fact they really wish they owned Nintendo. Maybe that will all change, though, now that they own Bethesda and Activision-Blizzard because now they own a huge archive of gaming history.
But then again, you would think that because they own Windows that they’d be protectors of PC gaming history in particular. Yet, so far they’ve shown no interest! And it’s wild that Valve and CD Projekt Red (who owns GOG.com) are really the ones curating PC gaming’s past.
But notice how both Steam and GOG.com are digital-only? And that’s fine since it keeps games cheaper and gets delivered faster. But that also means that they lack visibility in the physical world compared to anything related to Nintendo. For this reason, there is not much of a second-hand market for PC gaming.
If there’s one thing retro gamers are motivated by its social status. A digital asset will always have less social status than a physical asset. Nintendo very much knows this.