Spoiler NINTENDO SWITCH ONLINE GAME VOUCHERS ARE COMING BACK IN NORTH AMERICA

[em]

What was the notification process like when these vouchers went away (in the US)? Was there much advance warning or did Nintendo just pull the plug on new purchases?

Edit: Nevermind. Last time it was announced as a limited time program, so we knew the end date right from the start.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Are they a great deal?
To me they feel rather greedy.

You pay $100 upfront for a total discount of up to $20 on two games from a relatively small selection, and the money expires after a year.

Some games in the selection aren't full priced to begin with (WarioWare, Sushi Striker, Bayonetta 2 etc) and some of the others get their own $20 discounts a couple times a year anyway (Paper Mario, Luigi's Mansion, Mario Odyssey etc). If you choose any of those you effectively get an even smaller discount and potentially even lose some money.

It may be stupid and pointless to spend a voucher on those games, but it would be even worse if they just started removing old games from the list of eligible titles. If you just spend it on new releases, it's simply $10 off any full-price first party game.

 

[Deleted member 1896]

It may be stupid and pointless to spend a voucher on those games, but it would be even worse if they just started removing old games from the list of eligible titles. If you just spend it on new releases, it's simply $10 off any full-price first party game.

Then why not just offer that instead? It's far more transparent, after all.
I think the reason is because it would be much less profitable, which is why I find the voucher system greedy.

 

[VegiHam]

Then why not just offer that instead? It's far more transparent, after all.
I think the reason is because it would be much less profitable, which is why I find the voucher system greedy.

What? That doesn't make sense. The vouchers mean all new Nintendo releases are £42 instead of £50 (or £60 for Smash and Zelda), but if you have one spare to use you have a huge selection of games to spend it on. In what world is that greedy?

Greedy would be if they only let you buy certain selected games, instead of the entire first party catalogue.

 

[meatbag]

I think the reason is because it would be much less profitable, which is why I find the voucher system greedy.

I mean, of course. Discounts and promos don’t happen for the sake of te customer, they’re there to drive up sales and profits.

 

[Deleted member 1896]

What? That doesn't make sense. The vouchers mean all new Nintendo releases are £42 instead of £50 (or £60 for Smash and Zelda), but if you have one spare to use you have a huge selection of games to spend it on. In what world is that greedy?

Greedy would be if they only let you buy certain selected games, instead of the entire first party catalogue.

Paying $100 upfront for an effective $10 discount on a new release and another $10 discount on some other release in the next year is silly. Money paid in the present is worth more than the same amount paid in the future.

Nintendo collects not only your $100 but also any future interest and profit generated by those $100 between the time you buy the voucher and the time you fully redeem it, so they actually aren't giving you as big of a discount as you believe. The customer also loses the opportunity cost of using that money elsewhere should they want to.

And if by chance you wouldn't have purchased a second game if not for the voucher (something that many customers have admitted to in hindsight), the scales are heavily tilted in Nintendo's favor.

When you take all of this into consideration, including the information in my previous post, what's left is a discount that makes sense almost exclusively for digital-only customers who were already guaranteed to purchase two games for full price (both for $60 or one for $60 and the other for $50) in the very near future and who refuse to wait.

In my opinion, that's not a very substantial percentage of the customer base. Which leads me to believe that other customers using the voucher system may not be fully aware of the true costs and benefits of the deal.

Edit: This is essentially a "Buy 2, get up to 30% off on the Second" situation. And the psychology behind those is also predatory because many customers wouldn't have bought 2 otherwise.

 

[Deleted member 1896]

I mean, of course. Discounts and promos don’t happen for the sake of te customer, they’re there to drive up sales and profits.

For sure. And, equally clearly, when companies are enjoying record sales, they tend to get greedy.

Instead of deep discounts on individual physical games as part of a "Nintendo Selects" or "Player's Choice", we get shallow discounts on bundled digital games - which is worse on three fronts: smaller discounts, forced bundles and digital having far higher profit margins to begin with.

Edit: not to mention the fact it's only offered to NSO customers. So that's actually worse on four fronts.

 

[Síriocaz]

They might be worth it in the States and in Canada, but they're terrible value everywhere else in the Americas.

 

[ermitron2]

They might be worth it in the States and in Canada, but they're terrible value everywhere else in the Americas.

I don't know, at least here saving 500MX goes a big way. Anyhting that bothers fucking Latamel is a win for me

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

And the psychology behind those is also predatory because many customers wouldn't have bought 2 otherwise.

Getting people to buy things they wouldn't have otherwise is the purpose of all sales and discounts.

Instead of deep discounts on individual physical games as part of a "Nintendo Selects" or "Player's Choice", we get shallow discounts on bundled digital games - which is worse on three fronts: smaller discounts, forced bundles and digital having far higher profit margins to begin with.

This feels like getting mad at apples for not being oranges. Getting a discount on new releases is quite separate from the existence or nonexistence of a discount line for old games.

 

[Deleted member 1896]

Getting people to buy things they wouldn't have otherwise is the purpose of all sales and discounts.

Let me clarify the point: studies show that how you present certain information influences people's willingness to spend money. In other words, the original intention behind prices of transactions (defined in price theory as an equilibrium point between cost to the producer and value to the consumer) is not upheld in the real world. Consumers are easily manipulated.

In this particular example the transaction can be described as "save $10 each on two brand new games which you buy right now" but it can also be described as "pay an extra $40 upfront for some second game you will purchase some time in the next year". Which description is more accurate depends on the actions of the consumer.

All I'm saying is that with this particular deal, I've seen many consumers ultimately act in a way that is closer to the second description without necessarily intending to so originally. Why does this happen? Because things change over the course of the year, new information is introduced - perhaps that second game you were thinking of ends up not being included in the selection. Perhaps it releases to poorer reviews than expected. Perhaps after playing the first game you no longer want to play the second. Perhaps an unexpected expense comes up. You get the idea.

This feels like getting mad at apples for not being oranges. Getting a discount on new releases is quite separate from the existence or nonexistence of a discount line for old games.

Whether or not the comparison is appropriate will be decided when this generation ends. Like some others, I'm starting to believe this is the closest we'll get to a "Nintendo selects". Hopefully this doesn't end up being the case.

Meanwhile, since the overwhelming majority of the 71 games in the selection are not brand new, and approximately half of them are commonly sold for less than full price, I choose not to adopt your description of vouchers as "discounts on new releases".