Sheikah

Same with most games though, right? Usually regular enemies are a breeze, it's often all about the bosses. Except Demon's/Dark Souls. :p

On the one hand I do want it...on the other hand, it's £200... :p

These alter egos could easily be translated to Mafia...Moogle in a thief role, definitely.

Ahahaha, Khumman. I don't even.... Totally forgot about that. Moogle you sly little...you know I only have one move (totally blue steel) Naturally the only path to redemption after that embarrassment was to take out the traaash.

@Ashley At UCL in the Biosciences department.

I am an academic, none of us wear ties. :p

It basically sends out the message that they are out of touch with with customer expectation. They obviously don't know what we want from the next series of consoles so keep having to change things they've announced after there's been a backlash.

Yeah I agree. There's nothing hugely stand out to make me want to get one at launch. I'd rather wait.

Please, sign me up.

£31 with an unused code off eBay.

That commercial wasn't bad at all. In fact what they presented (possibility to play games off screen while your girlfriend watches something, quick menu access, etc) is exactly what the selling point of the gamepad is.

£34 Amazon D1 edition.

Just ordered this on Amazon. Pretty good, 33 quid.

Couldn't be further from the truth for the last part.

Yeah, I don't expect any market is 'perfectly competitive', but the assumptions of the Supply and Demand model mean that the closer to being true that is, the more applicable it is. I think in this case with Nintendo selling their own games, on a system they own, that the Supply and Demand model (where consumers want one of a limited number of a product, and there are usually other companies offering the same/very similar product at different prices), I just don't think it fits very well.

(Also, just so people know where I was coming from on the Supply and Demand thing): The bolded part basically proves what I was saying - I was arguing that the supply part didn't count here as the availability of online downloadable titles means the 'supply' is almost inexhaustible, and therefore it's not a case of consumers paying more because there are fewer available copies. Obviously though, the links you posted Rummy seem to present it a different way, and I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on this. Also, one of the assumptions of a Supply and Demand model requires markets to be perfectly competitive: ...which makes sense, since the whole concept wouldn't be possible otherwise. Which the current situation really isn't (Nintendo have a monopoly), which means the assumptions of the model are invalidated, which means Zechs can't apply it to this setting.

You presented what seemed like a 'counter' point to me, but I was never in disagreement that this isn't something Nintendo formulated. That's without doubt - they set these prices because they will still sell, and to give them a false perception of value. I've never argued that, sorry for derailing on that misunderstanding. Of course, when I'm making this topic I'm making a statement. I'm making the statement that Nintendo games are priced at near RRP for most of their sale life, and asking what people think about this. And I'm asking why you think Nintendo do this, and whether you think it's a good idea. I personally don't think it's a good idea. Both you and Rummy have said that they continue to sell well throughout their life - I don't believe they sell as well as they could if they had occasional sales. I don't know how accurate this link is, but Ocarina of Time 3DS isn't even in the Top 40 (understandably). Surely a short sale would help boost sales of the game, and cause people who might not normally have bought it in the next few years to splash on it. I mean, Nintendo just have loads of games sitting there that are probably making barely any sales on a week-to-week basis. What harm could reducing the price, temporarily or permanently, really do?

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. You and I clearly have different interpretations of supply and demand, and this is just going to go on and on. Basically though, I think Nintendo could afford to drop the price. I reckon they could sell more (and make more) if they did, but I don't think we'll see them do it to prove this.

You guys are missing the point. If you're arguing that this is a case of supply and demand as one reason for the expense of Nintendo games, then you're basically saying that because of a low copy number of their games, Nintendo can afford to sell them for more. For one, I don't believe there is a low copy number of many expensive Nintendo titles. There are shed loads of them in shops. It's very rare (in fact I doubt it has ever happened) that I shouldn't see these games in shops when I go. And second, some of the games that I'm referring to as being expensive are also available online. This really is an unlimited supply. This is not a case of supply and demand; Nintendo are well supplied, they just choose to sell their games for more.

Agreed. This is how you use gold. Box art really doesn't get any better than that.

Yup, was gonna say that. It's just the Xbox that used propriety storage. I would much rather have an internal, standard hard drive like the PS3 than an external. Usually cheaper, faster transfer rates, and less lead and device clutter.

AMAZING! I remember this show, it was awesome. Why can't they make shows like this anymore?

Thanks Danny. Have to say, thought it was a bit shameful that no RNG was used on N1 to kill Dohnut! Unless I was mistaken and the two guys had info to go on.

I for one am glad that both Peeps and Yvonne had win conditions that removed them from the game. :p It would have been so awesome if we recruited Danny.

Well, it's easy enough when you know you're telling the truth. :p