Ah yes, the headers you expect to see for an official Nintendo sale: In all seriousness, Nintendo is very stingy with sales for its first-party stuff, so this is pretty big.
Ah yes, the headers you expect to see for an official Nintendo sale:
All deals
Best sellers
Customer Appreciation Sale
Crash Bandicoot
In all seriousness, Nintendo is very stingy with sales for its first-party stuff, so this is pretty big.
If I understand correctly they only did it because it's offset by the returns of the illegal tariffs they collected from customers but didn't refund them for. Still, one might as well take...
If I understand correctly they only did it because it's offset by the returns of the illegal tariffs they collected from customers but didn't refund them for. Still, one might as well take advantage of it.
The illegal tarrifs the US government charged Nintendo (as the importer), which the US government then ruled that the US government collected illegally, and the US government then forced the US...
because it's offset by the returns of the illegal tariffs they collected from customers but didn't refund them for.
The illegal tarrifs the US government charged Nintendo (as the importer), which the US government then ruled that the US government collected illegally, and the US government then forced the US government to return the money the US government illegally took from Nintendo and give it back to Nintendo.
While Nintendo may have offset prices with the tariffed amount, unlike the US government, private companies can price anything they sell at whatever they want - that's a right they have. Whereas the US government is quite bound in when and how they can tax, as the founding fathers were, as you may imagine, quite concerned about taxation.
And consumers can choose not to continue to spend money with these companies that increased their prices, paid the tariffs, then were refunded the tariffs, and subsequently kept their prices...
And consumers can choose not to continue to spend money with these companies that increased their prices, paid the tariffs, then were refunded the tariffs, and subsequently kept their prices raised.
Which is what they are doing and a temporary sale does not cause some of us to ignore the game they're playing.
Okay ACME. I don't really have much more to add to the argument. But that's pretty much the climax of the movie; a company abiding by the letter of the law, even when it's clear those customers...
While Nintendo may have offset prices with the tariffed amount, unlike the US government, private companies can price anything they sell at whatever they want - that's a right they have.
Okay ACME.
I don't really have much more to add to the argument. But that's pretty much the climax of the movie; a company abiding by the letter of the law, even when it's clear those customers ultimately paid the price.
It's not a loophole or something. There is zero moral or legal reason Nintendo should have to sell their toys at a particular price. Of course they can charge what they want for it.
a company abiding by the letter of the law
It's not a loophole or something. There is zero moral or legal reason Nintendo should have to sell their toys at a particular price. Of course they can charge what they want for it.
Okay, ACME. I think the moral reason is fairly clear here. Which is why much smaller companies have already started doing it. And even Costco isn't doing it directly but is considering ways to...
There is zero moral or legal reason Nintendo should have to sell their toys at a particular price.
Okay, ACME.
I think the moral reason is fairly clear here. Which is why much smaller companies have already started doing it. And even Costco isn't doing it directly but is considering ways to give back. Which I put a lot more stock into than Nintendo's display here of "giving back" with this old inventory cleanup disguised as a deal.
I figured the implication up the chain of Would already drive the main idea here, but sure. I can clarify further. The last 2-3 years have had cost of living explode and the spending power of the...
I figured the implication up the chain of
even when it's clear those customers ultimately paid the price.
Would already drive the main idea here, but sure. I can clarify further.
The last 2-3 years have had cost of living explode and the spending power of the average American fall. Trump's universal tariffs have only exacerbated this cost of living problem (let alone his extremely unnecessary, avoidable war). I hope I do not need to explain at this point in time that these tariff costs were ultimately passed onto the consumer, rather than being absorbed by the company.
Yet despite all of this, companies still report record or near-record revenues and profits throughout these last few years. There are many small businesses which died out over these policies and would not survive to receive such refunds. But overall the largest brands ultimatly came out on top before the refunds. I implore you to find any billion dollar company in 2024-2026 which bucked this trend.
With this lens, in an economic situation where customers took the pain and companies gained profits anyway, it would be a moral responsibility to relieve the ones who actually suffered for this illegal maneuver. Yet that is not what is happening. At least not without a litany of lawsuits.
And worst of all, the price hikes from the tariffs will likely not fall anyway in many cases. Costco seems to be one exception, but it technically did come after lawsuits were launched against them. Despite the reasoning being used for the hikes no longer being valid, and despite the companies being "compensated" for their not-losses, prices will at best fall much slower than they rose, and at worst will continue to further inflate. A moral dishonesty or outright lie depending on your lens.
So yes, I do find this decision immoral. And in Nintendo's case dishonest. The "sale" here is for a lot of older inventory and the only current gen listing here is the Switch 2 webcam. An accessory which was explicitly noted to be hiked in price in response to tariffs. Putting it on "sale" to what may have been its original price for a limited time is not the moral action the marketing of "customer appreciation" implies on the surface.
But honestly, I'm not even all that fussed specifically about video games doing this. It's much worse for inflexible goods from companies like Wal-Mart that stroke my ire. Making a chaotic evil argument of "well they can charge as much as they want for groceries" while knowing the techniques employed over decades to box out competition makes such discussion border on bad faith.
Thank you for the clarification. I agree, my outrage is conditioned on the goods in question. If Nintendo raised its prices and kept the tariff refunds, I'm not furious. When those prices come for...
Thank you for the clarification. I agree, my outrage is conditioned on the goods in question. If Nintendo raised its prices and kept the tariff refunds, I'm not furious. When those prices come for essentials and people are buying groceries on layaway I feel incredibly strongly that all of us should be made whole (even as I don't expect that justice will ever be served.) I think my disconnect was seeing the claim of moral failure on the part of companies when the discussion was about Nintendo. I agree that the government and corporations are experiencing a moral hazard, where they're getting the upside and we're all getting the downside. I'm just much angrier about food costs than about video games.
Yeah, that's fair. I still think it's an amoral move and wish those who are suing the best, but ultimately a Switch 2 being 100 dollars more was far from my breaking point in these times. I don't...
I think my disconnect was seeing the claim of moral failure on the part of companies when the discussion was about Nintendo.
Yeah, that's fair. I still think it's an amoral move and wish those who are suing the best, but ultimately a Switch 2 being 100 dollars more was far from my breaking point in these times. I don't think I really had a good chance to talk about the tariff refunds here yet, so I ended up generalizing my overall thoughts into this post.
Nintendo-wise, I'm extremely ambivalent. Since they are far from "the good guys", but pretty much everyone else in the industry is turning greedier much faster. So there's situations where Nintendo still ends up looking the best out of this.
Such as? Nintendo listed the switch 2 as $450. Tariffs are inside baseball - it’s a supply cost to Nintendo. For consumers, you saw the price, you saw what you got for it, and you had the decision...
I think the moral reason is fairly clear here.
Such as?
Nintendo listed the switch 2 as $450. Tariffs are inside baseball - it’s a supply cost to Nintendo. For consumers, you saw the price, you saw what you got for it, and you had the decision to buy it or not. It’s not like a switch 2 is anything remotely like an essential.
It’s not even like Nintendo lowered the price afterwards. $450 was the price, and it was the price afterwards.
It would be an even more absurd situation if the US government taxed a company, and then forced them to keep the price the same. Of course Nintendo is allowed to price as they wish.
I think that there is a case for price caps as a short term action paired with other governmental support for industry as part of a larger effort to maintain price stability for essentials, but...
I think that there is a case for price caps as a short term action paired with other governmental support for industry as part of a larger effort to maintain price stability for essentials, but games and most electronics don't qualify.
Well, it'd also be a bit rich to add a price cap when the supply side pressure is the same government applying a large blanket tariff. Said government should probably consider not randomly adding...
Well, it'd also be a bit rich to add a price cap when the supply side pressure is the same government applying a large blanket tariff. Said government should probably consider not randomly adding massive tariffs to improve price stability.
Price caps can be appropriate when it's a non-competitive market for an essential good that isn't supply limited (if it is supply limited, price caps just exchange high prices for shortages, which is arguably worse). An example is insulin, which mainly has a high price because of patent exclusivity killing competition and extremely inelastic demand (since people don't like dying).
Yeah, anything like that from the current administration would be a mess. I'm thinking of things like capping the price of bread for two weeks while grain is being distributed from a reserve. If...
Yeah, anything like that from the current administration would be a mess. I'm thinking of things like capping the price of bread for two weeks while grain is being distributed from a reserve. If the manufacturers know that supply will be restored shortly and they're being watched in the meantime, it can limit speculation and price gouging, as well as stopping price stickiness at the new higher price. But it's a small tool only of benefit when used as part of a larger set of actions. This administration has no sense for or ability to use subtle economic actions.
More broadly and regardless of this specific situation I would say there is moral reason to price things at a reasonable markup and to employ practices that leave the purchased product as the...
More broadly and regardless of this specific situation I would say there is moral reason to price things at a reasonable markup and to employ practices that leave the purchased product as the property of someone that bought it. The companies relationship with morality is a different debate I suppose.
Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze, a game that originally came out in 2014, for 42 dollars. Keep in mind, the original price then was 39.99, 69.99 for the switch re-release. Is this entire company a...
Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze, a game that originally came out in 2014, for 42 dollars. Keep in mind, the original price then was 39.99, 69.99 for the switch re-release.
Is this entire company a practical joke of some kind?
The original price was 49.99, and the switch price was 59.99. I agree that sucks, but a 10 dollar price hike is very different from a 30 dollar price hike.
The original price was 49.99, and the switch price was 59.99. I agree that sucks, but a 10 dollar price hike is very different from a 30 dollar price hike.
Has anyone here played Captain Toad Treasure Tracker? Thinking of maybe picking it up for playing with my wife, we’ve been looking for decent two player games.
Has anyone here played Captain Toad Treasure Tracker? Thinking of maybe picking it up for playing with my wife, we’ve been looking for decent two player games.
I'm so glad this game was part of the "thanks for being a loyal Wii U customer, now please re-purchase the entire catalogue on the switch, because we're not releasing anything but old Wii U games...
I'm so glad this game was part of the "thanks for being a loyal Wii U customer, now please re-purchase the entire catalogue on the switch, because we're not releasing anything but old Wii U games for a year".
That was such a great time to be a Switch owner. Thanks Nintendo.
Game was okay by the way. I played it on the Wii U
I've been playing it, genuinely a fun little puzzle game! Easy enough to play casually but not so easy that you're bored out of your mind. You can finish most of the story fairly easily but a lot...
I've been playing it, genuinely a fun little puzzle game! Easy enough to play casually but not so easy that you're bored out of your mind. You can finish most of the story fairly easily but a lot of the challenge comes from trying to 100% each level, i.e get all the diamonds and finish the extra challenge.
Echoing what others said, but I’ll add that it is quite short. Worth it IMO but it’s a relatively quick game. How Long To Beat has it at 7 hours to finish, ~20 hours to do absolutely everything it...
Echoing what others said, but I’ll add that it is quite short. Worth it IMO but it’s a relatively quick game. How Long To Beat has it at 7 hours to finish, ~20 hours to do absolutely everything it has to offer. I recall it being closer to 7-10 though I certainly didn’t do everything.
Such appreciation. Let's clear up our warehouses for the massive dump of Fire Emblem and Zelda cases we'll need for holiday season and disguise it as "generosity". It feels so weird to be...
Such appreciation. Let's clear up our warehouses for the massive dump of Fire Emblem and Zelda cases we'll need for holiday season and disguise it as "generosity".
It feels so weird to be simultaneously complaining about and defending a company in the same thread, just because they are the only console manufacturer to resist blatant enshittification. Like, this just feels weak, but Nintendo is still the most "generous" company despite this. such sad times for the AAA industry.
I haven't seen a single price drop on any of the Nintendo-published Switch 2 games since the hardware launch back in June 2025, too. Maybe a year and 3 months wasn't long enough for Nintendo to...
I haven't seen a single price drop on any of the Nintendo-published Switch 2 games since the hardware launch back in June 2025, too. Maybe a year and 3 months wasn't long enough for Nintendo to consider having such sales.
After all the years I spent watching for sales since March 2017 for their Switch 1 games, I found out that these can start occurring at least 6 months after their initial release date and if their current secondhand market value sits at around 30% of MSRP or lower. And when they do, they only cut 30% of its MSRP.
The Switch 1 version of Metroid Prime 4 Beyond is part of the sale, since its Complete-In-Box condition fetches nearly half of its initial MSRP according to PriceCharting. Meanwhile, Kirby Air Riders goes for $44 USD (vs $70 USD MSRP), and hasn't seen any temporary price slash yet. Both of these titles launched nearly 10 months ago.
The only Switch 2-related product that's actually part of the sale is Nintendo Switch 2 Camera, but that's not what people are generally interested in. Also worth noting is that some webcams that aren't designed for the device in mind can still work well with it, like my Logitech C922 Pro.
I had Yoshi’s Crafted World on my wishlist, and I had $43 in eShop credit, so I figured I might as well. As of May this year, I’ve decided to more fully embrace my low level Yoshi fandom. Also,...
I had Yoshi’s Crafted World on my wishlist, and I had $43 in eShop credit, so I figured I might as well. As of May this year, I’ve decided to more fully embrace my low level Yoshi fandom. Also, the kids will enjoy it!
For context, Nintendo is currently facing a class action lawsuit over their decision to pocket tariff refunds they've received from the US government. They're probably doing this because they're...
They're probably doing this because they're spooked that the courts will rule against them, and want to show the judge they have been doing something to pass the savings back to consumers.
There is like a 0.000000000000000000000001% chance that the courts rule against them in that case. It's just for PR since they've gotten some negative press.
There is like a 0.000000000000000000000001% chance that the courts rule against them in that case.
It's just for PR since they've gotten some negative press.
Not available in the UK. And looking at the USA items for sale, single packs of right hand Switch 1 joycon? Lots of Switch 1 stuff they're probably trying to offload. I guess someone might make...
Not available in the UK. And looking at the USA items for sale, single packs of right hand Switch 1 joycon? Lots of Switch 1 stuff they're probably trying to offload. I guess someone might make use of it all. The few people who haven't yet bought a Pro Controller for their Switch 1.
I've already completed BotW on both WiiU and Switch, so I felt $10 for the Switch 2 upgrade was a little tough to justify, but when I heard about this sale I figured I'd pick it up and spend a few...
I've already completed BotW on both WiiU and Switch, so I felt $10 for the Switch 2 upgrade was a little tough to justify, but when I heard about this sale I figured I'd pick it up and spend a few more hours messing around in it with better visuals. But of course it isn't part of the sale. For pretty much everything else I feel like this sale price should be the normal price and a real sale price should be at most half of that. Nintendo has been my last console hold out but I think they've worn me down and I might give the Switch 2 to my kids to destroy and stick to PC for the sunset of my dwindling game time.
I'm curious why people still purchase from Nintendo with their poor track record of long-term support (e.g. repurchase the game on every generation or requiring a subscription for older libraries)...
I'm curious why people still purchase from Nintendo with their poor track record of long-term support (e.g. repurchase the game on every generation or requiring a subscription for older libraries) and blatant anti-consumer practices (e.g. paying for cloud saves, continuing issue of joy-con drift)
Anyway, I'll see myself out. Blocking "source.nintendo" should probably do the trick
Me personally: I like Pokémon and Animal Crossing, the consoles actually DO tend to have backwards compatibility for the most recent iteration (Switch was the first to break that trend since the...
Me personally: I like Pokémon and Animal Crossing, the consoles actually DO tend to have backwards compatibility for the most recent iteration (Switch was the first to break that trend since the GameBoy Advance and Wii), and the first-party games are consistently well-polished. Even if I end up not liking a game, they're still typically VERY well-made. Even the most barebones ones like Animal Crossing: New Horizons at launch, which DEFINITELY felt incomplete and lacking, still had a lot of clear effort and care into what did get into the game.
For all its issues, out of the AAA publishers and developers, Nintendo's games are the most consistently quality. Never heard of a disastrous launch from their first-party titles, while other AAA games these days seem to be a roulette spin on whether they'll live up to the hype or be a buggy mess. I have trust that a game made by Nintendo will be, at bare minimum, functional and playable.
(Note: I don't count mainline Pokémon games in that. Pokémon is developed by Game Freak, Nintendo handles publishing and I think QA. Theoretically, Nintendo COULD reject a Pokémon game for quality reasons since they co-own The Pokémon Company with GF and Creatures Inc, but the logistics of how it'd mess up all other media and merchandise, which are all produced by OTHER companies... Yeah, they can't really just reject or even delay it compared to the games Nintendo itself develops.)
Also, they have physical games, and I don't see that ending anytime soon, unlike Sony. (And yes, I know they now have Game Key Cards which are basically just glorified download-codes rather than physical games. But that's never bothered me because let's be real, most developers that go for that would have just made the games download-only anyway. At least this lets you resell or regift the games when you're done or if you don't like it. Also, it's WAY more fun for people getting presents to unwrap a game case rather than a gift card.)
Animal Crossing Amiibo Festival was a pretty terrible Nintendo release and it was pretty much the thing that made me realize where Nintendo was going - just looking for more ways to get more money...
Animal Crossing Amiibo Festival was a pretty terrible Nintendo release and it was pretty much the thing that made me realize where Nintendo was going - just looking for more ways to get more money out of its customers like every other publisher.
You don’t become one of the largest most profitable companies on the planet by being generous. Nintendo still has a great track record compared to everyone else but frankly it seems like a great number of people are all too willing to turn a blind eye to their less than savory practices because of it. It’s fandom, to put it simply.
I legitimately forget that one exists. It was a BIG failure (I don't think it even sold 500k copies worldwide). Though looking it up I found this interview where the lead developer said they just...
I legitimately forget that one exists. It was a BIG failure (I don't think it even sold 500k copies worldwide). Though looking it up I found this interview where the lead developer said they just wanted games to justify making Animal Crossing Amiibo. And... yeah, I can believe that, Amiibo was new and exciting. They definitely failed the idea with Amiibo Festival, the game was way too barebones from what little I know of it, and the pure dependency on Amiibo to play was just a bad decision. (Actually, the concept might've worked better with multiple franchises a la Smash Bros... and NOT strictly requiring Amiibo to play it at all.)
Anyways, while I'm obviously a Nintendo fan, I agree Nintendo is far from perfect and have plenty of my own grievances. The fact their first-party titles never go on sale for more than a ~$20 discount is pretty bad. (I still remember my shock seeing God of War for PS4 for sale at $15 like, a year later.) The Switch hardware, particularly the joycons, are incredibly flimsy given how dang expensive they are ($80 ffs—), and it gets even more annoying when considering how durable the older consoles were. They're notoriously litigious with fan projects and modding. There are plenty of fair reasons to criticize Nintendo.
What really irks me though is that I typically see people talking about it like Nintendo is the worst of all AAA developers and publishers. Most discourse seems to fall into the black-and-white worldview I hate: people are either diehard fans who see no wrong (as you described), or people who insist Nintendo has absolutely no redeemable qualities and should be reviled by all. I genuinely can't tell how much of the criticism against Nintendo comes from legitimate places like the points I mentioned, and how much is people just joining the "anti-hype" train and finding any trivial reason to complain and villify them.
Won't lie, at this point I get a bit defensive seeing people singling out Nintendo and asking "Why would anyone buy Nintendo stuff?" when that same question applies to pretty much all AAA developers and publishers. Like I said, even the worst games made by Nintendo are at least functional and polished at launch. I can't think of a truly disastrous launch like Assassin's Creed Unity or Cyberpunk 2077, or something as controversial as Overwatch 2 or Diablo Immortal. (Actually I recall in 2019, there was a string of HIGHLY anticipated games that had MAJOR technical issues, particularly the PC releases/ports. No joke, felt like every major release that fall had Reddit flooded with people being unable to play them.)
Really, that question SHOULD be asked about all the major AAA developers and publishers at this point. We've seen way too many big names completely fall from grace as they release poorly-designed flops and cash grabs (often due to being bought out by some corporation that lays off the true talent, or forces them to develop cash grab games), and all too many somehow survive despite being blatantly greedy and uncaring of fans or quality (looking at you, EA). Honestly, the AAA scene just kinda sucks in general right now.
It basically happens every time something both Nintendo is posted here, or on other sites. The Switch 2 was peak "no wireless, less storage than a Nomad, lame" on Reddit, which was fucking...
Won't lie, at this point I get a bit defensive seeing people singling out Nintendo and asking "Why would anyone buy Nintendo stuff?"
It basically happens every time something both Nintendo is posted here, or on other sites. The Switch 2 was peak "no wireless, less storage than a Nomad, lame" on Reddit, which was fucking hilarious because that's what happened with the first Switch too. Then it went on to become the best selling gaming device of all time, and the Switch 2 (last I checked) was selling at a faster velocity. Nintendo had one of the most popular movies this year...and it's not just because of 40+ year old people who used to play Nintendo games.
Honestly, I detest the general internet PC gamer culture. It's out of touch, invades every other gaming related space and it's just tiresome. Most people just want to play games, and don't care about overly meta nonsense about companies involved or that an overly large part of someone's identity is that they could snap a few commodity parts together.
Anyway, Splatoon Raiders is fun and I'm probably going to give Fire Emblem a try when the new one comes out.
Sad thing is, Nintendo is but a humble company even comparing it to Playstation these days in terms of raw profit. Let alone Sony as a whole. Let alone the behemoth that is Microsoft. We've seen...
You don’t become one of the largest most profitable companies on the planet by being generous.
Sad thing is, Nintendo is but a humble company even comparing it to Playstation these days in terms of raw profit. Let alone Sony as a whole. Let alone the behemoth that is Microsoft. We've seen the abyss that is the mobile market and even GaaS models when it comes to truly predatory dark arts in games. In that regard, it's a bit admirable that Nintendo ultimately chose to mostly back out of it after dipping their toes; instead, they doubled down on their console market and doing more of what they've always been known to do.
I'm more of a Sony person myself if I had to place a label. But seeing how everyone else is shooting themselves in the foot, Nintendo basically doing more of the same is somehow refreshing. I suppose this is the "Luigi wins by doing absolutely nothing" meme?
Also, a question: Isn't that how it basically works for ALL consoles...? Last I checked you need a PS Plus subscription to play a selection of older PlayStation games, and the compatibility with...
Also, a question:
e.g. repurchase the game on every generation or requiring a subscription for older libraries
Isn't that how it basically works for ALL consoles...?
And a cursory look at Xbox is even messier. A look at the Wikipedia page for Xbox 360 backwards compatibility says it had "466 games made backward compatible out of 989" Xbox games. And for Xbox One and Series X/S, it's just 63 Xbox games, and 632 out of 2,155 Xbox 360 games.
Nintendo meanwhile had backwards compatibility with the most recent console since the GameBoy Advance and Wii up until the Switch. They only broke the chain there because they went a whole new direction without having two screens.
I never get why I always hear people harp on Nintendo about this when the other consoles do essentially the same thing, but arguably worse. I guess that maybe PS and Xbox games also have digital versions, but...? Don't you end up needing to rebuy most of them for new generations anyway??
I mean, just look at The Last of Us. It came out for PS3 in 2013 right before the PS4 launched, and then next year people had to pay full-price for the PS4 version even if they already owned it for PS3. But I don't remember anywhere near the amount of complaints as I see about people needing to buy Pokémon FireRed/LeafGreen on Switch... Games from 22 years ago and 3 generations of consoles (GameBoy Advance, Nintendo DS, Nintendo 3DS—and GBA games were only playable until the DSi, so it's more like 3 and a half generations).
Seriously. Can someone please explain why Nintendo specifically gets so much flack for how it handles its older library compared to Sony and Microsoft? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I genuinely don't understand why people don't make the same complaints about the others. It feels like it's mostly just a talking point used to push hate at Nintendo.
I own hardware from every company (including a Switch), and generally dislike brand loyalty. Traditionally, yes. The OEM has to be involved to make their new hardware play old software. Where...
It feels like it's mostly just a talking point used to push hate at Nintendo.
I own hardware from every company (including a Switch), and generally dislike brand loyalty.
Isn't that how it basically works for ALL consoles...?
Traditionally, yes. The OEM has to be involved to make their new hardware play old software. Where that's starting to break down is Xbox's push for "everything is an Xbox" allowing you to play digital games across their consoles, PCs, and phones via streaming.
The critique of "poor track record of long-term support" is not exclusive to Nintendo. But is a significant contributing factor for gamers on budget who want to own their games and avoid unnecessary subscriptions. I don't want games that disappear when the hardware fails, and the saves go poof with it without cloud saves. There are better ways to spend $20, especially if the same game is on GOG or Steam.
A look at the Wikipedia page for Xbox 360 backwards compatibility says...
Certain parts fall on the developer, and others on the OEM. For example, 99% of PS4 digital purchases work on PS5. The handful that don't are listed here. That shortlist is not due to PS5 inaction or malice; it's due to the game developers, how they made the game, and licensed content like music. So it's difficult to judge lists like that at face value.
And a cursory look at Xbox is even messier.
Xbox is far and way leading the pack out of the top three. They recently announced their digital entitlement system which essentially let's you insert a disc and claim a digital copy. Though they've certainly had missteps over the years.
Not mentioned: When Nintendo closes storefronts those games become permanently unavailable unless you already own them. Sony and Microsoft have the same problem with aging digital stores, but Nintendo's more disparate consoles mean a larger portion of their catalog exists only as digital-exclusive releases. This creates a game preservation issue that goes beyond backwards compatibility. But Nintendo doesn't seem to care, and arguably makes it worse with their legal actions, which is a shame.
Not since the PS4/Xbone generation. Prior consoles used very bespoke hardware that varied wildly between generations, so there was absolutely no way games were going to work without studios...
I guess that maybe PS and Xbox games also have digital versions, but...? Don't you end up needing to rebuy most of them for new generations anyway??
Not since the PS4/Xbone generation. Prior consoles used very bespoke hardware that varied wildly between generations, so there was absolutely no way games were going to work without studios putting in work to port them. e.g. the PS3 has more in common with a late 90s or early 2000s Mac (PowerPC architecture) than with an Intel/AMD PC.
The PS5 happily plays PS4 games, including any you purchased online on the PS4, and the PS4 titles are still available on the store. Because both share the same x64 architecture and are generally pretty similar to commodity PC hardware and run on a BSD-derived OS. Likely, the PS6 will continue to play PS5 and PS4 games, though in the future, I wouldn't be surprised to see a move to an ARM system.
They've got beloved game franchises with a broad appeal and focus on casual gamers more so than Xbox and Playstation. While Playstation and Xbox do have casual games, the focus on their biggest...
They've got beloved game franchises with a broad appeal and focus on casual gamers more so than Xbox and Playstation. While Playstation and Xbox do have casual games, the focus on their biggest games are these ultra-realistic cinematic campaign games with massive online multiplayer networks. It's hard to pick-up-and-play a lot of Xbox/PS games because you'd stop in the middle of some mission and lose hours of context that you've built up as you play.
Honestly, Nintendo games are less casual, on average, than the other platforms. Something like a 3D Mario requires explicitly engaging with the mechanics of the game. Meanwhile, a lot of AAA games...
Honestly, Nintendo games are less casual, on average, than the other platforms. Something like a 3D Mario requires explicitly engaging with the mechanics of the game. Meanwhile, a lot of AAA games infamously essentially babysit you through the entire game, acting more like a playable movie. There's a reason "Focus, M" was such a meme - and why Mario specifically was used to juxtapose against AAA games. There's nothing wrong with the latter, a lot of people who play games want that kind of experience and there's nothing wrong with it, but they are the definition of casual.
Kinda funny. Thinking about it, you're right that Nintendo games can have more punishing mechanics (especially with platforming), but they DO feel more "casual" than PlayStation and Xbox games....
Kinda funny. Thinking about it, you're right that Nintendo games can have more punishing mechanics (especially with platforming), but they DO feel more "casual" than PlayStation and Xbox games.
Maybe it's because so many AAA games (minus live service games) feel like a playable movie. They tend to be more intense story-wise and have a big focus on action sequences. They can also be VERY long, and can have all sorts of miscellaneous mechanics to keep track of. If you stop playing for a bit, it can be harder to get back into it as you need to relearn the specific skills and mechanics, or try to remember what goals need to be accomplished to advance the game.
Nintendo games meanwhile, you can usually pause pretty easily and put down for a bit. Even after putting it down for a while it's easy to replay levels or specific parts to refamiliarize yourself with the gameplay.
It's more that Sony/Xbox skew more "mature". But the thing is that while in the PSX era, "more mature" meant targetting college age rather than 10-16, by now it means targetting 30-50 year olds....
It's more that Sony/Xbox skew more "mature". But the thing is that while in the PSX era, "more mature" meant targetting college age rather than 10-16, by now it means targetting 30-50 year olds. Working adults. Working adults are ultimately one of the most casual audiences, they don't have the time or patience to die over and over again, or be frustrated. A streamlined experience like the more recent God of War games, or the Sony Spiderman games, is made for them.
The casual vs hardcore spectrum varies with age - it apexes around college age, and falls back towards casual the older, and more responsibilities, the audience.
Depends on what you mean by "long term support". No, it's not going to be like GTA V where they support a game for 20+ years. But the games come in a complete package (usually) and will be...
Depends on what you mean by "long term support". No, it's not going to be like GTA V where they support a game for 20+ years. But the games come in a complete package (usually) and will be playable decades later. You can choose to purchase a remaster every other generation, but odds are your older console and game still works just fine, without any internet connection whatsoever.
Ah yes, the headers you expect to see for an official Nintendo sale:
In all seriousness, Nintendo is very stingy with sales for its first-party stuff, so this is pretty big.
If I understand correctly they only did it because it's offset by the returns of the illegal tariffs they collected from customers but didn't refund them for. Still, one might as well take advantage of it.
The illegal tarrifs the US government charged Nintendo (as the importer), which the US government then ruled that the US government collected illegally, and the US government then forced the US government to return the money the US government illegally took from Nintendo and give it back to Nintendo.
While Nintendo may have offset prices with the tariffed amount, unlike the US government, private companies can price anything they sell at whatever they want - that's a right they have. Whereas the US government is quite bound in when and how they can tax, as the founding fathers were, as you may imagine, quite concerned about taxation.
And consumers can choose not to continue to spend money with these companies that increased their prices, paid the tariffs, then were refunded the tariffs, and subsequently kept their prices raised.
Which is what they are doing and a temporary sale does not cause some of us to ignore the game they're playing.
Okay ACME.
I don't really have much more to add to the argument. But that's pretty much the climax of the movie; a company abiding by the letter of the law, even when it's clear those customers ultimately paid the price.
It's not a loophole or something. There is zero moral or legal reason Nintendo should have to sell their toys at a particular price. Of course they can charge what they want for it.
Okay, ACME.
I think the moral reason is fairly clear here. Which is why much smaller companies have already started doing it. And even Costco isn't doing it directly but is considering ways to give back. Which I put a lot more stock into than Nintendo's display here of "giving back" with this old inventory cleanup disguised as a deal.
As not the person you were responding to, would you like to actually lay out your moral case as opposed to leaving it as an exercise for the reader?
I figured the implication up the chain of
Would already drive the main idea here, but sure. I can clarify further.
The last 2-3 years have had cost of living explode and the spending power of the average American fall. Trump's universal tariffs have only exacerbated this cost of living problem (let alone his extremely unnecessary, avoidable war). I hope I do not need to explain at this point in time that these tariff costs were ultimately passed onto the consumer, rather than being absorbed by the company.
Yet despite all of this, companies still report record or near-record revenues and profits throughout these last few years. There are many small businesses which died out over these policies and would not survive to receive such refunds. But overall the largest brands ultimatly came out on top before the refunds. I implore you to find any billion dollar company in 2024-2026 which bucked this trend.
With this lens, in an economic situation where customers took the pain and companies gained profits anyway, it would be a moral responsibility to relieve the ones who actually suffered for this illegal maneuver. Yet that is not what is happening. At least not without a litany of lawsuits.
And worst of all, the price hikes from the tariffs will likely not fall anyway in many cases. Costco seems to be one exception, but it technically did come after lawsuits were launched against them. Despite the reasoning being used for the hikes no longer being valid, and despite the companies being "compensated" for their not-losses, prices will at best fall much slower than they rose, and at worst will continue to further inflate. A moral dishonesty or outright lie depending on your lens.
So yes, I do find this decision immoral. And in Nintendo's case dishonest. The "sale" here is for a lot of older inventory and the only current gen listing here is the Switch 2 webcam. An accessory which was explicitly noted to be hiked in price in response to tariffs. Putting it on "sale" to what may have been its original price for a limited time is not the moral action the marketing of "customer appreciation" implies on the surface.
But honestly, I'm not even all that fussed specifically about video games doing this. It's much worse for inflexible goods from companies like Wal-Mart that stroke my ire. Making a chaotic evil argument of "well they can charge as much as they want for groceries" while knowing the techniques employed over decades to box out competition makes such discussion border on bad faith.
Thank you for the clarification. I agree, my outrage is conditioned on the goods in question. If Nintendo raised its prices and kept the tariff refunds, I'm not furious. When those prices come for essentials and people are buying groceries on layaway I feel incredibly strongly that all of us should be made whole (even as I don't expect that justice will ever be served.) I think my disconnect was seeing the claim of moral failure on the part of companies when the discussion was about Nintendo. I agree that the government and corporations are experiencing a moral hazard, where they're getting the upside and we're all getting the downside. I'm just much angrier about food costs than about video games.
Yeah, that's fair. I still think it's an amoral move and wish those who are suing the best, but ultimately a Switch 2 being 100 dollars more was far from my breaking point in these times. I don't think I really had a good chance to talk about the tariff refunds here yet, so I ended up generalizing my overall thoughts into this post.
Nintendo-wise, I'm extremely ambivalent. Since they are far from "the good guys", but pretty much everyone else in the industry is turning greedier much faster. So there's situations where Nintendo still ends up looking the best out of this.
Such as?
Nintendo listed the switch 2 as $450. Tariffs are inside baseball - it’s a supply cost to Nintendo. For consumers, you saw the price, you saw what you got for it, and you had the decision to buy it or not. It’s not like a switch 2 is anything remotely like an essential.
It’s not even like Nintendo lowered the price afterwards. $450 was the price, and it was the price afterwards.
It would be an even more absurd situation if the US government taxed a company, and then forced them to keep the price the same. Of course Nintendo is allowed to price as they wish.
I think that there is a case for price caps as a short term action paired with other governmental support for industry as part of a larger effort to maintain price stability for essentials, but games and most electronics don't qualify.
Well, it'd also be a bit rich to add a price cap when the supply side pressure is the same government applying a large blanket tariff. Said government should probably consider not randomly adding massive tariffs to improve price stability.
Price caps can be appropriate when it's a non-competitive market for an essential good that isn't supply limited (if it is supply limited, price caps just exchange high prices for shortages, which is arguably worse). An example is insulin, which mainly has a high price because of patent exclusivity killing competition and extremely inelastic demand (since people don't like dying).
Yeah, anything like that from the current administration would be a mess. I'm thinking of things like capping the price of bread for two weeks while grain is being distributed from a reserve. If the manufacturers know that supply will be restored shortly and they're being watched in the meantime, it can limit speculation and price gouging, as well as stopping price stickiness at the new higher price. But it's a small tool only of benefit when used as part of a larger set of actions. This administration has no sense for or ability to use subtle economic actions.
More broadly and regardless of this specific situation I would say there is moral reason to price things at a reasonable markup and to employ practices that leave the purchased product as the property of someone that bought it. The companies relationship with morality is a different debate I suppose.
Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze, a game that originally came out in 2014, for 42 dollars. Keep in mind, the original price then was 39.99, 69.99 for the switch re-release.
Is this entire company a practical joke of some kind?
The original price was 49.99, and the switch price was 59.99. I agree that sucks, but a 10 dollar price hike is very different from a 30 dollar price hike.
Sale ends 9/26 at 8:59 p.m. PT.
I'm sure they appreciate their customers by giving them more stuff to sell.
Has anyone here played Captain Toad Treasure Tracker? Thinking of maybe picking it up for playing with my wife, we’ve been looking for decent two player games.
I'm so glad this game was part of the "thanks for being a loyal Wii U customer, now please re-purchase the entire catalogue on the switch, because we're not releasing anything but old Wii U games for a year".
That was such a great time to be a Switch owner. Thanks Nintendo.
Game was okay by the way. I played it on the Wii U
I've been playing it, genuinely a fun little puzzle game! Easy enough to play casually but not so easy that you're bored out of your mind. You can finish most of the story fairly easily but a lot of the challenge comes from trying to 100% each level, i.e get all the diamonds and finish the extra challenge.
Echoing what others said, but I’ll add that it is quite short. Worth it IMO but it’s a relatively quick game. How Long To Beat has it at 7 hours to finish, ~20 hours to do absolutely everything it has to offer. I recall it being closer to 7-10 though I certainly didn’t do everything.
My wife absolutely loved it, but she played it solo. Yoshi's Crafted World as well
Not a single Switch 2 game on sale?
Such appreciation. Let's clear up our warehouses for the massive dump of Fire Emblem and Zelda cases we'll need for holiday season and disguise it as "generosity".
It feels so weird to be simultaneously complaining about and defending a company in the same thread, just because they are the only console manufacturer to resist blatant enshittification. Like, this just feels weak, but Nintendo is still the most "generous" company despite this. such sad times for the AAA industry.
I haven't seen a single price drop on any of the Nintendo-published Switch 2 games since the hardware launch back in June 2025, too. Maybe a year and 3 months wasn't long enough for Nintendo to consider having such sales.
After all the years I spent watching for sales since March 2017 for their Switch 1 games, I found out that these can start occurring at least 6 months after their initial release date and if their current secondhand market value sits at around 30% of MSRP or lower. And when they do, they only cut 30% of its MSRP.
The Switch 1 version of Metroid Prime 4 Beyond is part of the sale, since its Complete-In-Box condition fetches nearly half of its initial MSRP according to PriceCharting. Meanwhile, Kirby Air Riders goes for $44 USD (vs $70 USD MSRP), and hasn't seen any temporary price slash yet. Both of these titles launched nearly 10 months ago.
The only Switch 2-related product that's actually part of the sale is Nintendo Switch 2 Camera, but that's not what people are generally interested in. Also worth noting is that some webcams that aren't designed for the device in mind can still work well with it, like my Logitech C922 Pro.
Meanwhile I got Metroid Prime 4 (switch 2) physical from Costco for $30 a few months ago.
I had Yoshi’s Crafted World on my wishlist, and I had $43 in eShop credit, so I figured I might as well. As of May this year, I’ve decided to more fully embrace my low level Yoshi fandom. Also, the kids will enjoy it!
For context, Nintendo is currently facing a class action lawsuit over their decision to pocket tariff refunds they've received from the US government.
They're probably doing this because they're spooked that the courts will rule against them, and want to show the judge they have been doing something to pass the savings back to consumers.
There is like a 0.000000000000000000000001% chance that the courts rule against them in that case.
It's just for PR since they've gotten some negative press.
Not available in the UK. And looking at the USA items for sale, single packs of right hand Switch 1 joycon? Lots of Switch 1 stuff they're probably trying to offload. I guess someone might make use of it all. The few people who haven't yet bought a Pro Controller for their Switch 1.
I've already completed BotW on both WiiU and Switch, so I felt $10 for the Switch 2 upgrade was a little tough to justify, but when I heard about this sale I figured I'd pick it up and spend a few more hours messing around in it with better visuals. But of course it isn't part of the sale. For pretty much everything else I feel like this sale price should be the normal price and a real sale price should be at most half of that. Nintendo has been my last console hold out but I think they've worn me down and I might give the Switch 2 to my kids to destroy and stick to PC for the sunset of my dwindling game time.
I'm curious why people still purchase from Nintendo with their poor track record of long-term support (e.g. repurchase the game on every generation or requiring a subscription for older libraries) and blatant anti-consumer practices (e.g. paying for cloud saves, continuing issue of joy-con drift)
Anyway, I'll see myself out. Blocking "source.nintendo" should probably do the trick
They make fun games. No more, no less.
Me personally: I like Pokémon and Animal Crossing, the consoles actually DO tend to have backwards compatibility for the most recent iteration (Switch was the first to break that trend since the GameBoy Advance and Wii), and the first-party games are consistently well-polished. Even if I end up not liking a game, they're still typically VERY well-made. Even the most barebones ones like Animal Crossing: New Horizons at launch, which DEFINITELY felt incomplete and lacking, still had a lot of clear effort and care into what did get into the game.
For all its issues, out of the AAA publishers and developers, Nintendo's games are the most consistently quality. Never heard of a disastrous launch from their first-party titles, while other AAA games these days seem to be a roulette spin on whether they'll live up to the hype or be a buggy mess. I have trust that a game made by Nintendo will be, at bare minimum, functional and playable.
(Note: I don't count mainline Pokémon games in that. Pokémon is developed by Game Freak, Nintendo handles publishing and I think QA. Theoretically, Nintendo COULD reject a Pokémon game for quality reasons since they co-own The Pokémon Company with GF and Creatures Inc, but the logistics of how it'd mess up all other media and merchandise, which are all produced by OTHER companies... Yeah, they can't really just reject or even delay it compared to the games Nintendo itself develops.)
Also, they have physical games, and I don't see that ending anytime soon, unlike Sony. (And yes, I know they now have Game Key Cards which are basically just glorified download-codes rather than physical games. But that's never bothered me because let's be real, most developers that go for that would have just made the games download-only anyway. At least this lets you resell or regift the games when you're done or if you don't like it. Also, it's WAY more fun for people getting presents to unwrap a game case rather than a gift card.)
Animal Crossing Amiibo Festival was a pretty terrible Nintendo release and it was pretty much the thing that made me realize where Nintendo was going - just looking for more ways to get more money out of its customers like every other publisher.
You don’t become one of the largest most profitable companies on the planet by being generous. Nintendo still has a great track record compared to everyone else but frankly it seems like a great number of people are all too willing to turn a blind eye to their less than savory practices because of it. It’s fandom, to put it simply.
I legitimately forget that one exists. It was a BIG failure (I don't think it even sold 500k copies worldwide). Though looking it up I found this interview where the lead developer said they just wanted games to justify making Animal Crossing Amiibo. And... yeah, I can believe that, Amiibo was new and exciting. They definitely failed the idea with Amiibo Festival, the game was way too barebones from what little I know of it, and the pure dependency on Amiibo to play was just a bad decision. (Actually, the concept might've worked better with multiple franchises a la Smash Bros... and NOT strictly requiring Amiibo to play it at all.)
Anyways, while I'm obviously a Nintendo fan, I agree Nintendo is far from perfect and have plenty of my own grievances. The fact their first-party titles never go on sale for more than a ~$20 discount is pretty bad. (I still remember my shock seeing God of War for PS4 for sale at $15 like, a year later.) The Switch hardware, particularly the joycons, are incredibly flimsy given how dang expensive they are ($80 ffs—), and it gets even more annoying when considering how durable the older consoles were. They're notoriously litigious with fan projects and modding. There are plenty of fair reasons to criticize Nintendo.
What really irks me though is that I typically see people talking about it like Nintendo is the worst of all AAA developers and publishers. Most discourse seems to fall into the black-and-white worldview I hate: people are either diehard fans who see no wrong (as you described), or people who insist Nintendo has absolutely no redeemable qualities and should be reviled by all. I genuinely can't tell how much of the criticism against Nintendo comes from legitimate places like the points I mentioned, and how much is people just joining the "anti-hype" train and finding any trivial reason to complain and villify them.
Won't lie, at this point I get a bit defensive seeing people singling out Nintendo and asking "Why would anyone buy Nintendo stuff?" when that same question applies to pretty much all AAA developers and publishers. Like I said, even the worst games made by Nintendo are at least functional and polished at launch. I can't think of a truly disastrous launch like Assassin's Creed Unity or Cyberpunk 2077, or something as controversial as Overwatch 2 or Diablo Immortal. (Actually I recall in 2019, there was a string of HIGHLY anticipated games that had MAJOR technical issues, particularly the PC releases/ports. No joke, felt like every major release that fall had Reddit flooded with people being unable to play them.)
Really, that question SHOULD be asked about all the major AAA developers and publishers at this point. We've seen way too many big names completely fall from grace as they release poorly-designed flops and cash grabs (often due to being bought out by some corporation that lays off the true talent, or forces them to develop cash grab games), and all too many somehow survive despite being blatantly greedy and uncaring of fans or quality (looking at you, EA). Honestly, the AAA scene just kinda sucks in general right now.
It basically happens every time something both Nintendo is posted here, or on other sites. The Switch 2 was peak "no wireless, less storage than a Nomad, lame" on Reddit, which was fucking hilarious because that's what happened with the first Switch too. Then it went on to become the best selling gaming device of all time, and the Switch 2 (last I checked) was selling at a faster velocity. Nintendo had one of the most popular movies this year...and it's not just because of 40+ year old people who used to play Nintendo games.
Honestly, I detest the general internet PC gamer culture. It's out of touch, invades every other gaming related space and it's just tiresome. Most people just want to play games, and don't care about overly meta nonsense about companies involved or that an overly large part of someone's identity is that they could snap a few commodity parts together.
Anyway, Splatoon Raiders is fun and I'm probably going to give Fire Emblem a try when the new one comes out.
Sad thing is, Nintendo is but a humble company even comparing it to Playstation these days in terms of raw profit. Let alone Sony as a whole. Let alone the behemoth that is Microsoft. We've seen the abyss that is the mobile market and even GaaS models when it comes to truly predatory dark arts in games. In that regard, it's a bit admirable that Nintendo ultimately chose to mostly back out of it after dipping their toes; instead, they doubled down on their console market and doing more of what they've always been known to do.
I'm more of a Sony person myself if I had to place a label. But seeing how everyone else is shooting themselves in the foot, Nintendo basically doing more of the same is somehow refreshing. I suppose this is the "Luigi wins by doing absolutely nothing" meme?
Also, a question:
Isn't that how it basically works for ALL consoles...?
Last I checked you need a PS Plus subscription to play a selection of older PlayStation games, and the compatibility with older physical games seems pretty variable. The PS4 can't play older games at all, only "fat" PS3 models could play PS2 games and the PS2 was variable based on both the model and when said model was produced.
And a cursory look at Xbox is even messier. A look at the Wikipedia page for Xbox 360 backwards compatibility says it had "466 games made backward compatible out of 989" Xbox games. And for Xbox One and Series X/S, it's just 63 Xbox games, and 632 out of 2,155 Xbox 360 games.
Nintendo meanwhile had backwards compatibility with the most recent console since the GameBoy Advance and Wii up until the Switch. They only broke the chain there because they went a whole new direction without having two screens.
I never get why I always hear people harp on Nintendo about this when the other consoles do essentially the same thing, but arguably worse. I guess that maybe PS and Xbox games also have digital versions, but...? Don't you end up needing to rebuy most of them for new generations anyway??
I mean, just look at The Last of Us. It came out for PS3 in 2013 right before the PS4 launched, and then next year people had to pay full-price for the PS4 version even if they already owned it for PS3. But I don't remember anywhere near the amount of complaints as I see about people needing to buy Pokémon FireRed/LeafGreen on Switch... Games from 22 years ago and 3 generations of consoles (GameBoy Advance, Nintendo DS, Nintendo 3DS—and GBA games were only playable until the DSi, so it's more like 3 and a half generations).
Seriously. Can someone please explain why Nintendo specifically gets so much flack for how it handles its older library compared to Sony and Microsoft? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I genuinely don't understand why people don't make the same complaints about the others. It feels like it's mostly just a talking point used to push hate at Nintendo.
I own hardware from every company (including a Switch), and generally dislike brand loyalty.
Traditionally, yes. The OEM has to be involved to make their new hardware play old software. Where that's starting to break down is Xbox's push for "everything is an Xbox" allowing you to play digital games across their consoles, PCs, and phones via streaming.
The critique of "poor track record of long-term support" is not exclusive to Nintendo. But is a significant contributing factor for gamers on budget who want to own their games and avoid unnecessary subscriptions. I don't want games that disappear when the hardware fails, and the saves go poof with it without cloud saves. There are better ways to spend $20, especially if the same game is on GOG or Steam.
Certain parts fall on the developer, and others on the OEM. For example, 99% of PS4 digital purchases work on PS5. The handful that don't are listed here. That shortlist is not due to PS5 inaction or malice; it's due to the game developers, how they made the game, and licensed content like music. So it's difficult to judge lists like that at face value.
Xbox is far and way leading the pack out of the top three. They recently announced their digital entitlement system which essentially let's you insert a disc and claim a digital copy. Though they've certainly had missteps over the years.
Not mentioned: When Nintendo closes storefronts those games become permanently unavailable unless you already own them. Sony and Microsoft have the same problem with aging digital stores, but Nintendo's more disparate consoles mean a larger portion of their catalog exists only as digital-exclusive releases. This creates a game preservation issue that goes beyond backwards compatibility. But Nintendo doesn't seem to care, and arguably makes it worse with their legal actions, which is a shame.
Not since the PS4/Xbone generation. Prior consoles used very bespoke hardware that varied wildly between generations, so there was absolutely no way games were going to work without studios putting in work to port them. e.g. the PS3 has more in common with a late 90s or early 2000s Mac (PowerPC architecture) than with an Intel/AMD PC.
The PS5 happily plays PS4 games, including any you purchased online on the PS4, and the PS4 titles are still available on the store. Because both share the same x64 architecture and are generally pretty similar to commodity PC hardware and run on a BSD-derived OS. Likely, the PS6 will continue to play PS5 and PS4 games, though in the future, I wouldn't be surprised to see a move to an ARM system.
They've got beloved game franchises with a broad appeal and focus on casual gamers more so than Xbox and Playstation. While Playstation and Xbox do have casual games, the focus on their biggest games are these ultra-realistic cinematic campaign games with massive online multiplayer networks. It's hard to pick-up-and-play a lot of Xbox/PS games because you'd stop in the middle of some mission and lose hours of context that you've built up as you play.
Honestly, Nintendo games are less casual, on average, than the other platforms. Something like a 3D Mario requires explicitly engaging with the mechanics of the game. Meanwhile, a lot of AAA games infamously essentially babysit you through the entire game, acting more like a playable movie. There's a reason "Focus, M" was such a meme - and why Mario specifically was used to juxtapose against AAA games. There's nothing wrong with the latter, a lot of people who play games want that kind of experience and there's nothing wrong with it, but they are the definition of casual.
Kinda funny. Thinking about it, you're right that Nintendo games can have more punishing mechanics (especially with platforming), but they DO feel more "casual" than PlayStation and Xbox games.
Maybe it's because so many AAA games (minus live service games) feel like a playable movie. They tend to be more intense story-wise and have a big focus on action sequences. They can also be VERY long, and can have all sorts of miscellaneous mechanics to keep track of. If you stop playing for a bit, it can be harder to get back into it as you need to relearn the specific skills and mechanics, or try to remember what goals need to be accomplished to advance the game.
Nintendo games meanwhile, you can usually pause pretty easily and put down for a bit. Even after putting it down for a while it's easy to replay levels or specific parts to refamiliarize yourself with the gameplay.
It's more that Sony/Xbox skew more "mature". But the thing is that while in the PSX era, "more mature" meant targetting college age rather than 10-16, by now it means targetting 30-50 year olds. Working adults. Working adults are ultimately one of the most casual audiences, they don't have the time or patience to die over and over again, or be frustrated. A streamlined experience like the more recent God of War games, or the Sony Spiderman games, is made for them.
The casual vs hardcore spectrum varies with age - it apexes around college age, and falls back towards casual the older, and more responsibilities, the audience.
And then some of us, no matter how the years and seasons of life change, just want to play a cartoon. Nintendo forever for me!
Depends on what you mean by "long term support". No, it's not going to be like GTA V where they support a game for 20+ years. But the games come in a complete package (usually) and will be playable decades later. You can choose to purchase a remaster every other generation, but odds are your older console and game still works just fine, without any internet connection whatsoever.