Quantcast
Putting the Switch's price into perspective.

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

irstupid said:
I always hate "inflation" arguments.

$300 today still feels like a lot of money, just as it did 10 years ago to me. And I made a lot, a lot less money back then. (less expenses sure, but still even accounting that, a lot less free spending money than I do now)

But you know, I suck it up and pay it. I know I will be buying at least 10+ games and it will be worth it. Same reason though, I don't have a PS4 though. Could I afford one? Yes, but I don't see 10+ games out or coming out that I want. Only a few, and a few is not worth the $300+ sticker price to me. Only got a One S for the 4k player.

Inflation arguments tend to rely on two factors.

1. Wages keeping pace with inflation
2. Essential costs also remaining steady with inflation

Consoles are a tricky value proposition because they are a technology and also entertainment.  Technology has consistently decreased in price as advancements occur, but entertainment is ambiguous to define as value.

I think Nintendo did fine by launching at $300 given friend I know has scoured everywhere and expects to have to wait months to get one.  I do expect a pric edrop within first 18 months to least $250 though.



Around the Network
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. 

Uhhh actually you can play PlayStation games on an airplane. The vita does still exist.

No they don't stress local multiplayer, but because they have so many games, you can always find local multiplayer options. Call of Duty, FIFA, rocket league, so on. On the flip side, because of the power of the console and just straight up poor 3rd party relations, the switch is missing out on many good single player and online multiplayer games (mass effect andromeda, final fantasy XV, GTA V, For honor, Destiny, titanfall 2, so on). you can't even claim that Nintendo has the better first party anymore. Sony already has an established library (bloodborne, horizon, uncharted 4,...) and will be releasing killer hits later (the last of us 2, god of war, Spider-Man,...). 

I'm not even trying to start a list wars here. I'm pointing out the HUGE head start the Xbox one and PS4 have while showing their future prospects. Keep in mind the PS4 and Xbox one will also be cheaper than the switch.

its also funny you mention local multiplayer, because at least 1 extra set of joycons is $70 (more than the dual shock or the Xbox controller) so I can't imagine buying 3 extra sets, a game, and a switch (around $570) comparing it to a PS4 bundled with GTA V (around $300) and saying the switch has more value because of "local multiplayer for 3 games"

The only true advantage is the mobile factor, but if that's the case buying a 3DS (they'll still exist) is a substantially better option if you need to go mobile. Other wise a PS4/Xbox one provide more value. You're free to also claim "Nintendo is unique and has they're own home console magic," just as I'm free to point you to the Wii U.



Bandorr said:
Aquietguy said:

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?

The Switch controllers have a greater level of tech. Bringing up the Wii U pro controller doesn't change that.



the handheld chart the OP put in is completely useless for perspective, the whole point of the Switch is that it is in fact a HYBRID device. Its not exactly fair to compare it to handhelds as if its an equal comparison point

and frankly its not even an equal comparison point to compare it with regular home consoles. its a HYBRID, it really is its own thing. if you're someone who likes the concept of gaming on the TV to getting up and seamlessly gaming on the go then obviously there is a lot of value there

I actually find it quite impressive that as a hybrid device with extremely aggressive portable specs that it is in fact just middle price when compared with previous home consoles, because it does have quite a few unique and added features.

 

I think the more fair comparison would be to take the weakest home console of a generation's price and add the average handheld price and then compare it with the Switch. Having two comparable devices for home and handheld, let's just take the 3DS and Wii U last gen, would put you at like 500$ total price. So $300 for the Switch doesn't really seem that bad

 

anyone trying to simply use handheld prices to illustrate whether or not the Switch is a fair MSRP are trying to work for their own agenda. Whether or not people like it, it IS a handheld and home console hybrid. The fairest thing is to either combine it with the costs of getting both home consoles + handhelds in previous generations, OR simply comparing it with home consoles (since it achieves that function as well), and in that case its price is completely average



Nymeria said:
irstupid said:
I always hate "inflation" arguments.

$300 today still feels like a lot of money, just as it did 10 years ago to me. And I made a lot, a lot less money back then. (less expenses sure, but still even accounting that, a lot less free spending money than I do now)

But you know, I suck it up and pay it. I know I will be buying at least 10+ games and it will be worth it. Same reason though, I don't have a PS4 though. Could I afford one? Yes, but I don't see 10+ games out or coming out that I want. Only a few, and a few is not worth the $300+ sticker price to me. Only got a One S for the 4k player.

Inflation arguments tend to rely on two factors.

1. Wages keeping pace with inflation
2. Essential costs also remaining steady with inflation

Consoles are a tricky value proposition because they are a technology and also entertainment.  Technology has consistently decreased in price as advancements occur, but entertainment is ambiguous to define as value.

I think Nintendo did fine by launching at $300 given friend I know has scoured everywhere and expects to have to wait months to get one.  I do expect a pric edrop within first 18 months to least $250 though.

it is important to note that things like wages and bills do NOT consistently keep pace with inflation, in fact they often are extremely far off. But it is safe to say that a $300 console today is a lot cheaper comparatively than a $300 console in the 1990s as a general rule. Obviously we all know economic factors in jobs and living conditions do not keep up with the changing of the inflation of a currency (or the dollar specifically) so you can't concretely always simple use it as a rule though 



Around the Network
midrange said:
specialk said:

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. 

Uhhh actually you can play PlayStation games on an airplane. The vita does still exist.

No they don't stress local multiplayer, but because they have so many games, you can always find local multiplayer options. Call of Duty, FIFA, rocket league, so on. On the flip side, because of the power of the console and just straight up poor 3rd party relations, the switch is missing out on many good single player and online multiplayer games (mass effect andromeda, final fantasy XV, GTA V, For honor, Destiny, titanfall 2, so on). you can't even claim that Nintendo has the better first party anymore. Sony already has an established library (bloodborne, horizon, uncharted 4,...) and will be releasing killer hits later (the last of us 2, god of war, Spider-Man,...). 

I'm not even trying to start a list wars here. I'm pointing out the HUGE head start the Xbox one and PS4 have while showing their future prospects. Keep in mind the PS4 and Xbox one will also be cheaper than the switch.

its also funny you mention local multiplayer, because at least 1 extra set of joycons is $70 (more than the dual shock or the Xbox controller) so I can't imagine buying 3 extra sets, a game, and a switch (around $570) comparing it to a PS4 bundled with GTA V (around $300) and saying the switch has more value because of "local multiplayer for 3 games"

The only true advantage is the mobile factor, but if that's the case buying a 3DS (they'll still exist) is a substantially better option if you need to go mobile. Other wise a PS4/Xbox one provide more value. You're free to also claim "Nintendo is unique and has they're own home console magic," just as I'm free to point you to the Wii U.

why do you need three extra sets? Each set has two Joy Cons that can be used as 2 controllers. So you can buy just one other set to have 4-player local multiplayer. If you want to play a game such as ARMS, you are confirmed to have the option to play with just two traditional controllers (which includes the JoyCons in the Grip) or have one traditional and one set of Joy Cons separate for motion control play to your hearts content.

And your talk about first party content isn't necessarily fair since Switch is a new chapter for Nintendo. They'll have Zelda, Mario, Splatoon, Mario Kart, ARMS, Snipperclips, FE Warriors, and (possibly) Xenoblade 2 for this first year alone. Then there's a new mainline Fire Emblem game being developed for 2018. There's still E3, future directs, and what have you. Game Freak developing a Pokemon game akin to the mainline ones on handheld in the future is not out of the question, for example. Then rumors about Smash Bros., Pikmin 4, Animal Crossong, etc. If we're willing to wait for more first party exclusives for the PS4, then lets at least wait and see what Nintendo and Co. have in store for the future.



Why won't Nintendo ever take my Money? Seriously they do this shit on purpose and a few of my friends are giving up even getting it as it's getting pathetic, Nintendo doesn't ever keep up with Demand.

Not sure why they pull this, I think Saying something like one day sales reach 3 million is better than, Limiting supply to create headlines of selling out.  Yes the few you released? C'mon Nintendo this shit is getting old..



Kai_Mao said:
midrange said:

Uhhh actually you can play PlayStation games on an airplane. The vita does still exist.

No they don't stress local multiplayer, but because they have so many games, you can always find local multiplayer options. Call of Duty, FIFA, rocket league, so on. On the flip side, because of the power of the console and just straight up poor 3rd party relations, the switch is missing out on many good single player and online multiplayer games (mass effect andromeda, final fantasy XV, GTA V, For honor, Destiny, titanfall 2, so on). you can't even claim that Nintendo has the better first party anymore. Sony already has an established library (bloodborne, horizon, uncharted 4,...) and will be releasing killer hits later (the last of us 2, god of war, Spider-Man,...). 

I'm not even trying to start a list wars here. I'm pointing out the HUGE head start the Xbox one and PS4 have while showing their future prospects. Keep in mind the PS4 and Xbox one will also be cheaper than the switch.

its also funny you mention local multiplayer, because at least 1 extra set of joycons is $70 (more than the dual shock or the Xbox controller) so I can't imagine buying 3 extra sets, a game, and a switch (around $570) comparing it to a PS4 bundled with GTA V (around $300) and saying the switch has more value because of "local multiplayer for 3 games"

The only true advantage is the mobile factor, but if that's the case buying a 3DS (they'll still exist) is a substantially better option if you need to go mobile. Other wise a PS4/Xbox one provide more value. You're free to also claim "Nintendo is unique and has they're own home console magic," just as I'm free to point you to the Wii U.

why do you need three extra sets? Each set has two Joy Cons that can be used as 2 controllers. So you can buy just one other set to have 4-player local multiplayer. If you want to play a game such as ARMS, you are confirmed to have the option to play with just two traditional controllers (which includes the JoyCons in the Grip) or have one traditional and one set of Joy Cons separate for motion control play to your hearts content.

And your talk about first party content isn't necessarily fair since Switch is a new chapter for Nintendo. They'll have Zelda, Mario, Splatoon, Mario Kart, ARMS, Snipperclips, FE Warriors, and (possibly) Xenoblade 2 for this first year alone. Then there's a new mainline Fire Emblem game being developed for 2018. There's still E3, future directs, and what have you. Game Freak developing a Pokemon game akin to the mainline ones on handheld in the future is not out of the question, for example. Then rumors about Smash Bros., Pikmin 4, Animal Crossong, etc. If we're willing to wait for more first party exclusives for the PS4, then lets at least wait and see what Nintendo and Co. have in store for the future.

I was under the impression that people would want to use sets of joycons as opposed to normal joycons (it'll be a nightmare for some game like smash), but you could just use 2 sets. Reducing the $570 price to $430. The point however does still stand.

 

Of course it's not fair, that's the point. Nintendo decided to release in the middle of the generation and so now they have to compete with what's currently on the market. Both systems are going to receive big games, but you don't have to wait for the PS4, there's already a giant preexisting library. No one wants to play the waiting game. It was a huge reason why the Wii U failed, and why the switch is in a terrible spot



mountaindewslave said:

it is important to note that things like wages and bills do NOT consistently keep pace with inflation, in fact they often are extremely far off. But it is safe to say that a $300 console today is a lot cheaper comparatively than a $300 console in the 1990s as a general rule. Obviously we all know economic factors in jobs and living conditions do not keep up with the changing of the inflation of a currency (or the dollar specifically) so you can't concretely always simple use it as a rule though 

Agreed, and they are not uniform, but we can see trends.

For example debt is becoming something that is a larger part of regular life, largely due to rising education and health care costs.

In basic terms the less discretionary funds one has the more competitive video games have to be to beat out other entertainment options.



Aquietguy said:
Bandorr said:

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

The Switch controllers have a greater level of tech. Bringing up the Wii U pro controller doesn't change that.

it puts your statement into perspective.

If the level of tech in a controller justifies its price - how can you justify the price of the wii U pro contoller?

The wii U pro controller cost $60 and has no tech in it(that I'm aware of). The switch one cost $70 and has "loads" of tech in it.

Is that tech only worth $10?



  • 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)