By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Switch costs ~$257 to build and 30MM sold through 2018

AmericanAli said:
30mil damn. Even the PS4 "only" sold about 26mil in its first 18 months just sayin...

Must have a Pokemon and a few more cards up their sleeves if they want to get to 30m by 2018.  I don't see it happening considering I see jack shit that has convinced me to go with the Switch.  Basically right now there is no reason for a Wii U/3DS owner to purchase a Switch.  Only game that I am interested in would be the Mario game and 1 game isn't enough for me to purchase a system.  I'm not even sure I'll pick one up by 2018.



Around the Network
sethnintendo said:
AmericanAli said:
30mil damn. Even the PS4 "only" sold about 26mil in its first 18 months just sayin...

Must have a Pokemon and a few more cards up their sleeves if they want to get to 30m by 2018.  I don't see it happening considering I see jack shit that has convinced me to go with the Switch.  Basically right now there is no reason for a Wii U/3DS owner to purchase a Switch.  Only game that I am interested in would be the Mario game and 1 game isn't enough for me to purchase a system.  I'm not even sure I'll pick one up by 2018.

Their confidence gives Switch owners at least some excitement of why they are confident enough to think that they'll sell 30mil consoles. 

I am also thinking a main-line Pokemon game for the Switch may be a key factor here.



RolStoppable said:
Mummelmann said:

Like you've said yourself a few times during the last few months; we have little to no historical data of use when predicting the world's first hybrid console and its prospects, this is a sentiment I agree with. That leaves us with suppositions and assumptions. While your suppositions and assumptions are based on parallels to an older console that released in a completely different market than today and the belief that a combined library will lead to higher combined sales than Wii U+ 3DS, mine are based mostly on the fact that the home console market is currently undergoing a fairly large contraction, the handheld console market is suffering what could easily be labelled as a collapse and the mobile market is growing faster than any other market segment in the past 2-3 years. And before you or anyone else go there and use the age old "Nintendo aren't competing directly so this doesn't apply", I need to remind you that they're the ones who are feeling the burn more than anyone else in the 8th gen, relative to their past performance, the console market contraction is mostly on Nintendo directly and it's reasonable to assume that if the 8th gen ends up selling about half of the 7th gen (!!!), that's about 250-260 million short, Nintendo can be attributed with a large part of that loss, no less than 160 million at least, which is a complete disaster no matter how you choose to spin it.

We can't rule out a title like Pokemon causing a sales surge, but it's not that cut & dry to define from where we're sitting exactly what this would entail, nor is that in and on itself any reason to talk about 100% yoy increases or Wii like lifetime sales, especially given the massive shifts in the market since the beginning of the 7th gen. Stating that the Pokemon Go craze that caused a 3DS sales bump is some sort of guarantee for the Switch to sell outrageous amounts is ludicrious.

Look, we could both be wrong, but we can't both be right. From where I'm sitting though, with the current and likely future market movements, the fact that the 3DS is still around and seemingly for at least another year or so, combined with what is once again looking like drab 3rd support and a release schedule that isn't exactly knocking my socks off (relying on a refurbished Wii U game to carry momentum until Splatoon 2 is risky) and still showing signs that Nintendo are having issues getting software output to match their ambition, little wiggle room for pricing strategies and a mobile/tablet sector that is growing stronger every month, I just find my own suppositions and assumptions a lot more logical and grounded. They could still be wrong, but anyone versed in analysis would be hard-pressed to claim that yours make more sense in this setting.

"the conclusion is correct, if we exclude everything that contradicts the conclusion" could very easily be flipped towards yourself, seeing as neither of us have historical, relevant data to lean on and your suggestions and arguments rely mostly on comparisons to products and market factors more than a decade old. In addition, you seem unable to grasp the potential weaknesses the Switch as a concept has and might have, from its form factor to its reliance on physical media and severe lack of functionality, thinking that motion gaming will have some huge comeback is also pretty far-fetched, all things considered. As for software; software didn't keep the Wii U and 3DS from losing the vast majority of Nintendo's 7th gen installed base. And the Switch is still a really pricey handheld console for all intents and purposes.

Combining software for handheld and home console, when this eventually happens, is no more a guarantee of selling amounts equaling 3DS + Wii U, any more than the 3DS and Wii U offering DS and Wii software equaled the same sales total, so assuming beforehand that this is a huge incentive for consumers doesn't make much sense, especially for a product that is willingly putting itself in the direct line of fire of the most successful line of products in consumer electronics history and simultaneously picking up the torch from two separate platforms that each signified an era of severe reduction and loss of market influence and presence. Yes, the Wii U was a terrible disaster but the 3DS has done quite well, and there are few things to go on in assuming that the Switch will beat the 3DS by default, the new form factor might just as well work against it as for it when all is said and done.

Quite frankly; you're not making much sense to me and you're relying on arguments that work just as well, if not better, against yourself. I get the feeling that you realize yourself that you have very little to base your case on for now, at least I have some actual, tangible market precedent that is observeable right now to back up my statements. I'm basically saying that things will keep on going more or less the way they have since there is no apparent and logical catalyst for major change, while you're saying that huge things will happen, more or less on the grounds that they happened before and can't be ruled out entirely.

You are assigning a bunch of arguments to me that I have never made, not in this thread or anywhere else. I can agree with you that such a string of a nonsense arguments doesn't make much sense, but they aren't my actual arguments, so large chunks of your post are moot.

An analysis of the failures of the 3DS and Wii U is enough of an indicator that Switch won't follow the same trajectory. What sank the 3DS and Wii U was expensive hardware features that were not well received. Switch isn't cheap, but its functionality is desirable. Being able to use a device where you want is the reason why phones and tablets have cut into the sales of laptops and desktop PCs. Switch is on the correct side of a trend here, because portability is valued by consumers.

The other major shortfall of 3DS and Wii U were software droughts, most notably first party games because those are the titles that really sell the hardware. Switch's software release schedule is significantly better and will have already two huge system sellers within its first two months on the market. The fact that those two games are also available on Wii U matters little, because the Wii U didn't sell and nobody is going to buy a Wii U now. Beyond that, Switch is getting a new first party game almost every month and of higher pedigree than what the 3DS and Wii U had during their respective first years.

See, this is my actual argument. Switch is going to have better momentum because the hardware is better and the software is better. The momentum is also going to be much better in the long term because Switch uses an off-the-shelf architecture and is supported by several widespread engines for software development; third parties will be able to bring games to the system fast. On top of that, Switch will inherit the developer support of Wii U, 3DS and Vita. That's commonly brushed off as non-factor because it isn't AAA third party support, but it's support that makes the library a lot more robust, and probably an absolute powerhouse when it comes to RPGs.

The fundamentals for the Switch differ greatly from the 3DS and Wii U, so a different outcome is a lot more probable than the same outcome. And since Switch differs in a positive manner, the logical different outcome is going to be positive, not negative. Your problem is that you analyze Nintendo first and foremost on the most superficial level, so you are possibly not even able to tell a difference between Skyward Sword and Breath of the Wild because both are called The Legend of Zelda.

If you run an honest analysis of all Nintendo systems, you can only come to the conclusion that Nintendo rises and falls based on what Nintendo does. It's always first and foremost Nintendo's own software that sells the hardware, and the hardware will sell as long as the games are coming and live up to expectations, and the hardware itself is not off-putting. There are always outside factors, sure, but for the most part Nintendo controls their own fate. That Nintendo could still sell over 80m units of hardware in a bad generation full of big mistakes should be proof enough that Nintendo games are still in high demand.

3DS and Wii U were badly hurt also by Nintendo relying on the Wii/DS fad crowd to show up. 

Nintendogs + Cats was supposed to be the evergreen huge hit that Nintendogs was on DS. Nintendo didn't just randomly choose that game. They thought that would be just as successful and bring in casuals like Nintendogs did on DS, in fact they probably resisted doing a sequel on the DS to save that game specifically for the DS successor. They figured with Nintendogs, they had a good launch for the 3DS in the bag ... they were very wrong. 

NSMBU and Nintendo Land ... same story. 

Nintendo badly got burned trying to rely on this audience, because that audience ditched them. 

With Switch they are giving the core Nintendo fans what they want ... a big, epic Zelda game with modern game play stylings that can compare to other modern games like Skyrim and a system that isn't overly marketed towards soccer moms or kids. Mario Odyessy looks to be following that by returning to the sandbox Mario style, and moving away from the more casual style Mario games. 



Soundwave said:
RolStoppable said:

You are assigning a bunch of arguments to me that I have never made, not in this thread or anywhere else. I can agree with you that such a string of a nonsense arguments doesn't make much sense, but they aren't my actual arguments, so large chunks of your post are moot.

An analysis of the failures of the 3DS and Wii U is enough of an indicator that Switch won't follow the same trajectory. What sank the 3DS and Wii U was expensive hardware features that were not well received. Switch isn't cheap, but its functionality is desirable. Being able to use a device where you want is the reason why phones and tablets have cut into the sales of laptops and desktop PCs. Switch is on the correct side of a trend here, because portability is valued by consumers.

The other major shortfall of 3DS and Wii U were software droughts, most notably first party games because those are the titles that really sell the hardware. Switch's software release schedule is significantly better and will have already two huge system sellers within its first two months on the market. The fact that those two games are also available on Wii U matters little, because the Wii U didn't sell and nobody is going to buy a Wii U now. Beyond that, Switch is getting a new first party game almost every month and of higher pedigree than what the 3DS and Wii U had during their respective first years.

See, this is my actual argument. Switch is going to have better momentum because the hardware is better and the software is better. The momentum is also going to be much better in the long term because Switch uses an off-the-shelf architecture and is supported by several widespread engines for software development; third parties will be able to bring games to the system fast. On top of that, Switch will inherit the developer support of Wii U, 3DS and Vita. That's commonly brushed off as non-factor because it isn't AAA third party support, but it's support that makes the library a lot more robust, and probably an absolute powerhouse when it comes to RPGs.

The fundamentals for the Switch differ greatly from the 3DS and Wii U, so a different outcome is a lot more probable than the same outcome. And since Switch differs in a positive manner, the logical different outcome is going to be positive, not negative. Your problem is that you analyze Nintendo first and foremost on the most superficial level, so you are possibly not even able to tell a difference between Skyward Sword and Breath of the Wild because both are called The Legend of Zelda.

If you run an honest analysis of all Nintendo systems, you can only come to the conclusion that Nintendo rises and falls based on what Nintendo does. It's always first and foremost Nintendo's own software that sells the hardware, and the hardware will sell as long as the games are coming and live up to expectations, and the hardware itself is not off-putting. There are always outside factors, sure, but for the most part Nintendo controls their own fate. That Nintendo could still sell over 80m units of hardware in a bad generation full of big mistakes should be proof enough that Nintendo games are still in high demand.

3DS and Wii U were badly hurt also by Nintendo relying on the Wii/DS fad crowd to show up. 

Nintendogs + Cats was supposed to be the evergreen huge hit that Nintendogs was on DS. Nintendo didn't just randomly choose that game. They thought that would be just as successful and bring in casuals like Nintendogs did on DS, in fact they probably resisted doing a sequel on the DS to save that game specifically for the DS successor. They figured with Nintendogs, they had a good launch for the 3DS in the bag ... they were very wrong. 

NSMBU and Nintendo Land ... same story. 

Nintendo badly got burned trying to rely on this audience, because that audience ditched them. 

With Switch they are giving the core Nintendo fans what they want ... a big, epic Zelda game with modern game play stylings that can compare to other modern games like Skyrim and a system that isn't overly marketed towards soccer moms or kids. Mario Odyessy looks to be following that by returning to the sandbox Mario style, and moving away from the more casual style 3D Marios. 

so you agree that basing Switch sales on the previous generation decline doesnt add up?



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

zorg1000 said:
Soundwave said:

3DS and Wii U were badly hurt also by Nintendo relying on the Wii/DS fad crowd to show up. 

Nintendogs + Cats was supposed to be the evergreen huge hit that Nintendogs was on DS. Nintendo didn't just randomly choose that game. They thought that would be just as successful and bring in casuals like Nintendogs did on DS, in fact they probably resisted doing a sequel on the DS to save that game specifically for the DS successor. They figured with Nintendogs, they had a good launch for the 3DS in the bag ... they were very wrong. 

NSMBU and Nintendo Land ... same story. 

Nintendo badly got burned trying to rely on this audience, because that audience ditched them. 

With Switch they are giving the core Nintendo fans what they want ... a big, epic Zelda game with modern game play stylings that can compare to other modern games like Skyrim and a system that isn't overly marketed towards soccer moms or kids. Mario Odyessy looks to be following that by returning to the sandbox Mario style, and moving away from the more casual style 3D Marios. 

so you agree that basing Switch sales on the previous generation decline doesnt add up?

Well appealling to your core base and exciting that group is a positive. However that alone doesn't get you all the way home. 

There are still issues in a broader sense, I mean in the modern world convincing people to carry yet another electronic portable device with them, it's a lot tougher than it was 10 years ago for obvious reasons.

That is the one benefit of the Wii/DS approach is when you swing wildly for the fences, sometimes you can connect, the downside is if the gimmick/innovation doesn't take off you are really, really screwed (Wii U/3DS). 

Switch is more of a pragmatic, less risky system, it reminds me actually probably most of the N64, a pretty powerful little piece of kit, though the N64's claim to fame was the 3D environments, Switch's is the play anywhere concept. Both rely heavily on Ninendo core IP to drive hardware sales and it seems like Nintendo is returning to the notion that those IP need to be "epic", which is remiscent of the N64 days. Joycons are neat but they're not some kind of gameplay changing revolution. 



Around the Network

I'd estimate the real manufacturing cost at somewhere between $80-110. I can see this won't be accepted in this farcical thread but that would be a typical and realistic figure. That doesn't include production line setup costs, product development, duties, royalties etc which will need to be put on top. If the uk price is £280 that is about £233 before VAT, with a 10% margin that is £28 so £205 and perhaps allow the £5 for packing and delivery to retailers from Nintendo UK's warehouse. So Nintendo are only going to see about £200 per unit. $110+55=165 which is about £135 I think so I'd say Nintendo are making about £65 profit per unit.

Yes this figure is likely wrong and out by quite a margin but I can almost guarantee it's more realistic that $257 for the factory door price which is utterly mad and ridiculous. I worked previously in importation of goods and the lowest margin product I dealt with was something like a $40 cost and £100 suggested retail price and that was a low margin with the dealer price maybe £75-80. Some products that retailed at £2 were imported for 10-15c. Everyone has to have their cut along the way. Products that failed to sell were discounted as you can imagine but there was always a healthy margin. Nintendo aren't a charity if the Switch sells it will make them big profits which they certainly won't get with a $257 manufacturing cost. What inside a Switch would ever justify such a high manufacturing cost anyway. There is nothing of value on the pcb except the main Tegra chip and 2 memory chips, the screen is low spec 720p and li-ion batteries are very cheap to produce. The dock is just a plastic housing with a simple usb controller chip on a pcb. PSU's are super cheap. Nothing in the controllers either of value. Even a ps4 slim which is much cheaper has a hard drive, decent memory, optical drive, much more powerful chipset and everything is scaled up to be usable with a more powerful system, psu etc. We have sub £40 android tablets in the uk with larger screens and much more powerful cpu's than Switch, only the gpu and available memory is superior on Switch plus the controllers and dock are added.



SuperNova said:
The_Yoda said:

Very true, still I find it hard to believe they put damn near as much into 1-2switch as they did BOTW which is only $10 more with a 6 year development cycle..


Although I haven't played it 1-2 switch shouldn't be more than $30 retail and if they really wanted to showcase the system they should have sold it at $20. That of course would conflict with their software value philosophy .

Both true.

Not completely sure I remember correctly, but I did some research into Nintendos development teams a while back and I think i came to the conclusion that 1-2 switch had roughly a 2-year development cycle. They could, and should have sold it at 30$, but It's selling pretty well anyways, so jokes on us I guess.

Again I haven't played it so perhaps it's waaay more fun than it looks.  That said i think she is a Nintendo midget.  Those little midget legs won't get it anywhere near as far as your typical Nintendo title.  Right now sales can likely be attributed to a lack of other software options.  Once we get some more quality physical releases no one is going to see the midget in the crowd unless they are looking for her.  Time will tell if the joke really is on us or not. For now though you are right, it certaintly seems to be on us.



30 million? I don't think so. Switch is riding the wave of newness combined with Breath of the Wild's wild success; It's considered the 4th best game of all time. One great game will boost those early sales. After a couple of months, I think sales will drop dramatically.



zorg1000 said:
Lawlight said:

Yes, I'm going to argue for facts. And 400k is more than an NA month.

Only the facts that help yours look good? Because you didnt point out that Nov 25 was over 2 years in NA.

What does 400k being more than an NA month have to do with anything?

Like I said, the point still stands that if Switch does sell 30 million by the end of 2018 (22 months on market) that would still be faster than it took PS4.

As of Oct 4, 2015 (slightly over 22 months) PS4 had sold 25.7 million outside of Japan.

At the end of 2015 (slightly over than 22 months) PS4 had sold 2.3 million in Japan.

Thats 28 million after slighty over 22 months in each region.

So it's fair to assume that it would then go on to sell 30M in 24 months.

Nov 25 was only 2 years in NA. Not in Europe and not in Japan. Where are you getting those numbers anyway?



Lawlight said:
zorg1000 said:

Only the facts that help yours look good? Because you didnt point out that Nov 25 was over 2 years in NA.

What does 400k being more than an NA month have to do with anything?

Like I said, the point still stands that if Switch does sell 30 million by the end of 2018 (22 months on market) that would still be faster than it took PS4.

As of Oct 4, 2015 (slightly over 22 months) PS4 had sold 25.7 million outside of Japan.

At the end of 2015 (slightly over than 22 months) PS4 had sold 2.3 million in Japan.

Thats 28 million after slighty over 22 months in each region.

So it's fair to assume that it would then go on to sell 30M in 24 months.

Nov 25 was only 2 years in NA. Not in Europe and not in Japan. Where are you getting those numbers anyway?

it hit 30 million after 2 years in America/PAL regions and 21 months in Japan. Im not going to argue with you about 4 fucking days.

this is a sales site so you should easily be anle to find those numbers.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.