Quantcast
Putting the Switch's price into perspective.

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Putting the Switch's price into perspective.

Aquietguy said:
SvennoJ said:
The console is not the problem, the accessories are overpriced. PS2 controller in 2001 was $34, inflation adjusted for 2017 $45, Pro Controller is $70. That is quite a difference. Sure there's more tech inside it, so is there in the console and anything else nowadays. For comparison, you can get a wireless keyboard for $20, wireless mouse for $15.

You have to account for the level of tech inside the Switch's controllers.

Do you? What level of tech was in the Wii U pro controller to have it cost as much as the Ps4 controller?



  • Deadliest mass shooting by an individual in US history (10/01/2017)
  • Deadliest high school shooting in US history (02/14/2018)
  • Deadliest massacre of Jews in US history (10/27/2018)
  • Political assassination attempt of TWO former presidents(and 10+ other people)  (10/23/2018 - and beyond)
Around the Network

Ok, this is perspective on how launch prices compare, but to put a console's price in perspective you surely need to consider not only the price but also how it stacks to the competition.

The Switch is relatively cheap for a "launch price", but for what it actually represents as a home console it is just a little bit over specs of an Xbox 360 which has a current value of ~$150. If Switch was only a home console with no tablet screen, etc. the price should be around the $200 mark.

As is (today) the Switch is the most expensive console in the market while being much weaker.  It's also a really expensive handheld.

It is really in a unique spot being as a hybrid: good value for filling two shoes; poor value as either one alone.



My 8th gen collection

Aquietguy said:
SvennoJ said:
The console is not the problem, the accessories are overpriced. PS2 controller in 2001 was $34, inflation adjusted for 2017 $45, Pro Controller is $70. That is quite a difference. Sure there's more tech inside it, so is there in the console and anything else nowadays. For comparison, you can get a wireless keyboard for $20, wireless mouse for $15.

You have to account for the level of tech inside the Switch's controllers.

Why? People have to consider that tech to be worth the extra price in order for that price to be justified. If they don't care about it, than the extra tech has no value and thus is irrelevant to the price.

Let me put it to you this way. Let's say you're in a market for a used car, and the car you're looking at typically sells for $5000. But, one seller of this particular car has invested $2500 into putting in a horrific sparkling purple and pink two-tone paint job, a gaudy spoiler, a fart can exhaust, and a cold air intake. As a result, they believe the car is now worth $7500 and they're selling it for that price. But you don't care about any of that shit. You just want a stock car. Is that car worth $7500 to you even though you don't want or don't care for those extra features? No of course not. In fact, in this example the car may in fact be worth less than $5000 as those features would cost money to remove and revert the car back to stock.

Some goes for game consoles. If someone doesn't care about "HD Rumble" and sees a PS4 controller for $50, and a Switch Pro controller for $70, they're going to feel like it's a ripoff.



The switch would have been a good price... if it came out in 2013.

But we're in 2017 now. The PS4 and Xbox one can often be found for under $300 with one or two triple A games attached. They offer stronger hardware and boast an already massive library while having infinitely better third party relationships down the line. Given all of that info, the switch is overpriced



Doesn't make it any less cheaper though

The controllers are really expensive, and with Nintendo games, they won't get price cuts and will remain expensive D:



 - Official  VGChartz Tutorial Thread -
 

   NintenDomination [2015/05/19 - 2017/07/02]
 

          

 

 

Here lies the hidden threads. 

 | |

Nintendo Metascore | Official NintenDomination | VGC Tutorial Thread

| Best and Worst of Miiverse | Manga Discussion Thead |
[3DS] Winter Playtimes [Wii U]

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
SWORDF1SH said:

Agreed. 

What factors do you believed caused the Gamecube to fail though? What boxes didn't it tick?

Since the main pillars (what sells the hardware) of every Nintendo system are Nintendo games, one only has to evaluate Nintendo's own output for the GC because that alone is already so damning for the system that other things don't even need to be looked at.

1. The launch lineup fell flat. While Wave Race: Blue Storm was a great game, the appeal of racing on water is limited. It's so limited that trash like Cruis'n USA outsold the excellent Wave Race 64 on the Nintendo 64. The other Nintendo title at launch was Luigi's Mansion which didn't look exciting because it wasn't exciting. It's a good game on its own, but merely being good doesn't cut it when hardware needs to be sold.

2. The sequel to Super Mario 64 went its own way by giving Mario a waterpack and consequently a water-focused level design. Water levels do not belong to the favorites of gamers; water levels exist to add diversity, they aren't something that a game should be built around.

3. The Legend of Zelda didn't fare any better with its choice of cel-shaded graphics and great sea scenario. Another major sequel that failed to satisfy the expectations of fans.

4. Mario Kart introduced a dual-driver mechanic which hasn't been used since. There were also character-specific super-items that weren't balanced. That's the third sequel that Nintendo messed up. Super Mario 64 sold 11m copies, Ocarina of Time 7m and Mario Kart 64 9m. You aren't going to convince the people who bought those N64 games to get a GC when the sequels stray off the path so much.

5. Nintendo's bread and butter of the 8- and 16-bit eras, the 2D platformer (most notably Super Mario Bros. and Donkey Kong Country), was missing in action once again. The Nintendo 64 could limit the damage of this oversight by wowing players with successful transitions to 3D, but ultimately 3D is not a proper replacement, so 2D titles still need to be made. Nintendo made Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat for the GC, a 2D platformer that was controlled with the bongo peripheral.

Super Smash Bros. was the only major IP that Nintendo improved upon in the correct direction. Melee ended up as the bestselling game on the GC.

Any new IPs Nintendo made fell into the same category as point 2-4. It didn't look like Nintendo was really interested in making games that people wanted to buy, instead the developers got to do as they pleased, getting a free pass to (completely) ignore expectations.

The bottom line for the software lineup is that it was received with a big fat meh by the market. It didn't take long for the GC's price to drop to $99, but people still didn't want to buy it. The GC hardware design was okay for the most part, although the controller made it clear that 2D platformers wouldn't return. The games the controller was made for underdelivered, the notable exceptions being SSBM and the Metroid Prime games. Metroid's appeal is limited though; not only does the isolated sci-fi theme remove virtually all females from the potential audience, but it's also a difficult game with no handholding.

The GC was missing on the big hit games. An analysis of a Nintendo system's game library isn't as simple as saying "this console had Mario, that one had it too, so this can't be a problem." It's a bit more complex than that. The first thing to look at is if big IPs are represented, the second thing is to evaluate if said IPs actually lived up to expectations. Hardware-wise, processing power doesn't matter, but controller design does. Because the controller has a big influence on how games are designed and which games are being made to begin with.

Yeah I remember at the time the lack of decent software. In fact I can only remember the media going nuts for Resident Evil 0.



midrange said:
The switch would have been a good price... if it came out in 2013.

But we're in 2017 now. The PS4 and Xbox one can often be found for under $300 with one or two triple A games attached. They offer stronger hardware and boast an already massive library while having infinitely better third party relationships down the line. Given all of that info, the switch is overpriced

I can't play Xbox or Playstation on an airplane. I can't play Nintendo games on an Xbox or a Playstation. 

Xbox and Playstation don't stress lcoal multiplayer. Switch has 3 good looking local multiplayer games coming around launch. 

They're different products. If a household wants to play the latest Call of Duty or Assassins' Creed, they should look elsewhere. It's been this way for over a decade with Nintendo. 



Platina said:
Doesn't make it any less cheaper though

The controllers are really expensive, and with Nintendo games, they won't get price cuts and will remain expensive D:

The sword cuts both ways on this though. I traded in Fire Emblem Conquest at GameStop over the weekend because they were doing 50% extra credit towards Switch games. I ended up getting $34 in credit towards Breath of the Wild. 

So the 27 hours of entertainment I got from Conquest cost me about $6 plus tax.



specialk said:
midrange said:
The switch would have been a good price... if it came out in 2013.

But we're in 2017 now. The PS4 and Xbox one can often be found for under $300 with one or two triple A games attached. They offer stronger hardware and boast an already massive library while having infinitely better third party relationships down the line. Given all of that info, the switch is overpriced

I can't play Xbox or Playstation on an airplane. I can't play Nintendo games on an Xbox or a Playstation. 

Xbox and Playstation don't stress lcoal multiplayer. Switch has 3 good looking local multiplayer games coming around launch. 

They're different products. If a household wants to play the latest Call of Duty or Assassins' Creed, they should look elsewhere. It's been this way for over a decade with Nintendo. 

Again - those features have to be valuable to prospective buyers. If someone doesn't care about being able to take their console on the go, then that is a worthless feature. Besides, Nintendo already released a console whose main selling point was that it played Nintendo games and stressed local multiplayer. It was called the Wii U. How did that do?



potato_hamster said:
The price of the Switch would have been just fine in 2012-2013 if it was launching alongside the PS4 and Xbox One at their launch prices. But it isn't. It's launching against systems that are 3 years old, have seen multiple price cuts, and are now cheaper than the launch price of the Switch. No one cares about what the PS4 and X1 prices were three years ago. They only care about PS4 and X1 prices now.

Now you might be asking why this is relevant. That's because a prospective Switch buyer is going to go into a store and is going to be choosing between the PS4, the XB1, That's a fact. The problem is now, is that in almost every way the Switch is more expensive than the Xbox One and PS4, especially when you consider there are hundreds of great games out for those systems that can easily be had for less than $20. When a prospective buyer can buy a PS4, an extra controller, and 4-5 games for the price of a Switch, a pro controller, and Zelda, that becomes a hard sell.

Exactly this!

The Switch is one of the most expensive handhelds ever and it is the most expensive home console currently available.  

On the portable front, it will alslo have to compete with "free" hand-me-down mobile devices.  On the home console front, it will have to compete with $249.99 XBox One's and PS4's that have better hardware, better online and arguably better game libraries.  It's greatest feature is that it is the best place to play Nintendo IPs, but that did not work for the Wii U (which was also an expensive console).

I still think that Nintendo should have released a Switch Mini home console, with no screen, for $200.