Quantcast
What Do You Think to the Nintendo Switch Lite?

Forums - General Discussion - What Do You Think to the Nintendo Switch Lite?

What Do You Think to the Nintendo Switch Lite?

Excellent idea, can't wait to buy one 150 12.71%
 
Good idea, could be better though 346 29.32%
 
Not sure yet, could go either way 92 7.80%
 
Not good, probably won't buy 124 10.51%
 
Awful idea, zero interest 360 30.51%
 
Other 108 9.15%
 
Total:1,180

Great idea, it makes sense but I find it lacking so I'm not going to buy it. Also those colors aren't pleasing.



 

Around the Network
Conina said:
DélioPT said:

And the original Switch wasn't going to be bought by the majority of those segments?
The sales pace of Switch and strong appeal seem to indicate it would.

Some of the handheld gamers bought or were going to buy the original Switch, others wouldn't for different reasons (too clunky on the go, waste of money for features they don't want/need). We don't know which of these two groups are the majority.

Most price conscious people who set themselves a budget for buying a Switch (for themselves or as a gift) would just wait longer until their chosen price is reached. If they wait longer to buy the hardware, they will probably also buy less games for that system in the long run. Since most of the money is made by selling software, it is in Nintendo's interest to boost the hardware base as fast as possible. 

The sales pace of Switch is good, but of course it can be much better.

DélioPT said:

The only part of what you mention that could, in my eyes, be seen as relevant - as in, to cater to - would be the dads and relatives. But even then you could the price of the original Switch by 50$ or add some games to increase the value.

By lowering the price of the original Switch by $50 they wouldn't reach the people with a $200 budget.

They would also lower their profit margin for the Switch by $50.

The production costs of the Switch Lite are probably much lower than the production costs of the original Switch: no Joy-Cons (including separate batteries + HD rumble), no dock, smaller battery, smaller display...

By selling an entry model with less features & less production costs they can keep their profit margins high.

DélioPT said:

I still don't get why they needed this console.

To reach different target groups with different models. Almost every other company does that (Sony, Microsoft, Apple, Samsung...); Nintendo did that too with different DS and 3DS models.

It's really not that hard to understand.

From what we can see, people aren't waiting to buy Switch in a meaningful way.
If PS4 could sell more than 90 million consoles with a price higher than Switch's, why can't Switch do at least close to that? 
it already sold 35 million in little more than 2 years.

People with a budget will always exist, but that hasn't stopped an appealing product to sell very well - if not very, very well.

Yes, a Lite model probably makes them save more money than a 50$ price cut. But that's just an option.
Including games probably works better, specially if those games are the system selling ones. For people with a budget, who are going to buy games anyway, the console just got way cheaper in comparison. Right?

The smartphone comparison might not be a good one, as price diferences are substantial on that market. More, nowdays, these Lite models are presented at the same time as the better models, so, there's no selling something better and then selling something worse based on the premium models.

Nintendo did present newer models over the years, but even then, they always presented something better, not worse. 2DS was the only exception and that was probably due to the backlash of the use of 3D and the fact that people didn't really care that much about it after a while.
None of those reasons are present here for Nintendo to release a Lite model now.

If anything, they should have released a Pro model in anticipation of PS5 and XB2.
This model could have worked after they had tapped all they could have sold with the original Switch. And honestly, i don't think they did that with 2 years on the market.

That's why i don't understand this move now.
Going after price concious people is something you do later in the life cycle of a product, not when the product is maturing.



My favorite mode, after a year of never even trying it, has become Table Top mode with a joycon in each hand. That alone makes the Lite a no go for me.



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

Already have one. Play it docked 90% of the time. But it's great for people looking for a handheld only option that's cheaper.

Switch Lite is one of the rare versions that doesn't detract from the prior release imo.



Lack of docked play means I won't be getting this even if it was half the announced price. Handheld gaming means almost nothing to me personally, so that pretty much instantly rules the Switch Lite out. In my eyes this is a straightforward downgrade from the base Switch.



My Most Recent Articles:

1. History of Video Games: The Birth of the Third-Party Development Model

2. Forgotten Gems #10: Syberia & Syberia II

3. Video Game Music Spotlight #9: Best of the NES

For my non-video game related writings you can check my blog below.

Latest Post: Disney Canon: Dumbo (1941)

Around the Network
DélioPT said:

From what we can see, people aren't waiting to buy Switch in a meaningful way.

This is getting ridiculous. If almost everyone interested in a Switch already bought one and almost none of them waited (for a lower price or a different revision), sales would be at least double of the current hardware base. 


If PS4 could sell more than 90 million consoles with a price higher than Switch's, why can't Switch do at least close to that? 
it already sold 35 million in little more than 2 years.

A lot of the PS4 sales were with a price lower than the Switch, especially the sales in the same time frame (2017 - now); the PS4 Slim model is still much more popular than the PS4 Pro model. And why should Nintendo settle with at least 90 million units by targeting only one group instead of selling even more Switches by targeting two different groups with an additional model?

People with a budget will always exist, but that hasn't stopped an appealing product to sell very well - if not very, very well.

Nobody says that the Switch doesn't sell well. But with an additional model targeting a different group (handheld fans), the product family can sell even better.

Yes, a Lite model probably makes them save more money than a 50$ price cut. But that's just an option.
Including games probably works better, specially if those games are the system selling ones. For people with a budget, who are going to buy games anyway, the console just got way cheaper in comparison. Right?

Including system selling games in a bundle is also a hidden price cut. Then Nintendo doesn't lose the $50 from the hardware profit margin but from the software revenue ("I don't have to buy that awesome system seller for $60 - $70, since it was included in the bundle"). 

The smartphone comparison might not be a good one, as price diferences are substantial on that market.

The price difference between Switch Lite and normal Switch is also substantial, the normal Switch costs 50% more.

Nintendo did present newer models over the years, but even then, they always presented something better, not worse. 2DS was the only exception

That's bullsh*t. Of course there were revisions of Nintendo hardware which lost features.

The GameBoy Micro lost BC to GB and GBC games (compared to the GBA and GBA SP) and the tiny display + batterry life were trade-offs to make the device smaller.

The DSi lost BC to GBA games (compared to the DS and DS lite) and had a worse battery life.

The second version of the Wii lost BC to GameCube games and even the compatibility to Wii accessories using the GC-ports: https://en-americas-support.nintendo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2650

The third version of the Wii lost the above and also the SD-card support. 

You already mentioned the 2DS. It lost the 3D-feature, but it helped the hardware base of the 3DS family growing by giving a cheaper option by targeting an additional target group (price conscious or not interested in the stereoscopic effect)... you know, exactly that kind of advantage of offering different models to different audiences you are playing down.



DélioPT said:
Conina said:

Some of the handheld gamers bought or were going to buy the original Switch, others wouldn't for different reasons (too clunky on the go, waste of money for features they don't want/need). We don't know which of these two groups are the majority.

Most price conscious people who set themselves a budget for buying a Switch (for themselves or as a gift) would just wait longer until their chosen price is reached. If they wait longer to buy the hardware, they will probably also buy less games for that system in the long run. Since most of the money is made by selling software, it is in Nintendo's interest to boost the hardware base as fast as possible. 

The sales pace of Switch is good, but of course it can be much better.

By lowering the price of the original Switch by $50 they wouldn't reach the people with a $200 budget.

They would also lower their profit margin for the Switch by $50.

The production costs of the Switch Lite are probably much lower than the production costs of the original Switch: no Joy-Cons (including separate batteries + HD rumble), no dock, smaller battery, smaller display...

By selling an entry model with less features & less production costs they can keep their profit margins high.

To reach different target groups with different models. Almost every other company does that (Sony, Microsoft, Apple, Samsung...); Nintendo did that too with different DS and 3DS models.

It's really not that hard to understand.

From what we can see, people aren't waiting to buy Switch in a meaningful way.
If PS4 could sell more than 90 million consoles with a price higher than Switch's, why can't Switch do at least close to that? 
it already sold 35 million in little more than 2 years.

People with a budget will always exist, but that hasn't stopped an appealing product to sell very well - if not very, very well.

Yes, a Lite model probably makes them save more money than a 50$ price cut. But that's just an option.
Including games probably works better, specially if those games are the system selling ones. For people with a budget, who are going to buy games anyway, the console just got way cheaper in comparison. Right?

The smartphone comparison might not be a good one, as price diferences are substantial on that market. More, nowdays, these Lite models are presented at the same time as the better models, so, there's no selling something better and then selling something worse based on the premium models.

Nintendo did present newer models over the years, but even then, they always presented something better, not worse. 2DS was the only exception and that was probably due to the backlash of the use of 3D and the fact that people didn't really care that much about it after a while.
None of those reasons are present here for Nintendo to release a Lite model now.

If anything, they should have released a Pro model in anticipation of PS5 and XB2.
This model could have worked after they had tapped all they could have sold with the original Switch. And honestly, i don't think they did that with 2 years on the market.

That's why i don't understand this move now.
Going after price concious people is something you do later in the life cycle of a product, not when the product is maturing.

Instead of cutting the price of the og switch, they decided to make a new model. Are you trying to say that the price should overall still be $300? Because that's just silly. In Japan, this model has the most importance , where as the Switch is outselling all competitive, it is still behind the 3ds launch aligned. This product is exactly about going after the price conscious people, and is more so just a natural reduction in price done in a non conventional way. 



Wonderful idea, but I haven't decided if I will get one. Maybe down the line



I'm with the consensus here: I think the Switch Lite is a smart idea, but since I already have a non-lite Switch anyway, there's just no reason for me personally to buy it. But I'm sure many others who don't have a Switch yet and were on the fence about paying the full price will find that this new option pushes them over to the side of buying one, so it can only expand the community of Switch owners.



Conina said:
DélioPT said:

From what we can see, people aren't waiting to buy Switch in a meaningful way.

This is getting ridiculous. If almost everyone interested in a Switch already bought one and almost none of them waited (for a lower price or a different revision), sales would be at least double of the current hardware base. 


If PS4 could sell more than 90 million consoles with a price higher than Switch's, why can't Switch do at least close to that? 
it already sold 35 million in little more than 2 years.

A lot of the PS4 sales were with a price lower than the Switch, especially the sales in the same time frame (2017 - now); the PS4 Slim model is still much more popular than the PS4 Pro model. And why should Nintendo settle with at least 90 million units by targeting only one group instead of selling even more Switches by targeting two different groups with an additional model?

People with a budget will always exist, but that hasn't stopped an appealing product to sell very well - if not very, very well.

Nobody says that the Switch doesn't sell well. But with an additional model targeting a different group (handheld fans), the product family can sell even better.

Yes, a Lite model probably makes them save more money than a 50$ price cut. But that's just an option.
Including games probably works better, specially if those games are the system selling ones. For people with a budget, who are going to buy games anyway, the console just got way cheaper in comparison. Right?

Including system selling games in a bundle is also a hidden price cut. Then Nintendo doesn't lose the $50 from the hardware profit margin but from the software revenue ("I don't have to buy that awesome system seller for $60 - $70, since it was included in the bundle"). 

The smartphone comparison might not be a good one, as price diferences are substantial on that market.

The price difference between Switch Lite and normal Switch is also substantial, the normal Switch costs 50% more.

Nintendo did present newer models over the years, but even then, they always presented something better, not worse. 2DS was the only exception

That's bullsh*t. Of course there were revisions of Nintendo hardware which lost features.

The GameBoy Micro lost BC to GB and GBC games (compared to the GBA and GBA SP) and the tiny display + batterry life were trade-offs to make the device smaller.

The DSi lost BC to GBA games (compared to the DS and DS lite) and had a worse battery life.

The second version of the Wii lost BC to GameCube games and even the compatibility to Wii accessories using the GC-ports: https://en-americas-support.nintendo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2650

The third version of the Wii lost the above and also the SD-card support. 

You already mentioned the 2DS. It lost the 3D-feature, but it helped the hardware base of the 3DS family growing by giving a cheaper option by targeting an additional target group (price conscious or not interested in the stereoscopic effect)... you know, exactly that kind of advantage of offering different models to different audiences you are playing down.

Just because sales aren't double in number doesn't mean people aren't wanting to buy it at regular price. 
Those segments are consumed over time.

PS4 was bound to get to a lower price point. It did come out in 2013. But even at 400 or 349 it sold very, very well.
Of course that the Slim model is selling better than the PRO. The PRO has no real value besides visual diferences. And even then, you have to have a 4K TV.

The question is if Nintendo is selling the Lite console to the same people who would buy it a bigger price anyway. I, personally, believe so, as the demand for the original and it's appeal is still there.
To me it feels like leaving money on the table.

Yes, they do lose money from the software, but not by much.
And for people with low income, that's probably more appealing to the eye - as in, more value at once.

I've seen Lite versions of smarthphones, compared to the premium versions, cost way way less.

The BC micro was a later ireration.
The DSi had indeed a worse battery life, but the lost of BC on that device and the others you mentioned was not relevant.

Losing a selling point like the 3D screen was for 3DS or inability to fully "switch" between game modes, is relevant. Specially on Switch's case, where it stops being everything to just a handheld - or if had become a home console only, my reaction would have been the same.

So, my point still stands: this transition, of this magnitude, is, to me, a bad move.
If they wanted to do it later in the lifecycle, so be it. But now, where "Switch" is still being sold as a whole?
Also, the other flaws in newer models, that you mentioned, never were recipe for confusion nor did they take away from the main experience, ddi they? In this case, that's what's happening.

I never said that going after price concious people was a bad move. I just think there's a right time for that. And that time, for Switch, isn't now.
The way i see it, Nintendo will be selling a cheaper console to people who would buy it for full price.

You lower the price for late adopters, not now. And you also add system sellers to the mix at lower price points, too.
But that's just me.

MasonADC said:
DélioPT said:

Instead of cutting the price of the og switch, they decided to make a new model. Are you trying to say that the price should overall still be $300? Because that's just silly. In Japan, this model has the most importance , where as the Switch is outselling all competitive, it is still behind the 3ds launch aligned. This product is exactly about going after the price conscious people, and is more so just a natural reduction in price done in a non conventional way. 

That's not what i'm trying to say, at all.

Yeah, in Japan, it makes more sense for a handheld only device at 200$.
But why is Switch still behind 3DS? Is it just a temporary thing or not, like 3DS was once ahead of DS? Is it because of the lack of proper support instead of ports and more ports and remasters?

When you go after price conscious people so soon, you are leaving money on the table. Because a chunk of that market who would buy it at a higher price, will now buy it at a lower price.
Second, this isn't just a cheaper version with smaller alterations. This is a console called Switch Lite that can no longer switch. And that's big! It's big because the messaging won't be clear (no two type of commercials, for exemple) and it's big because people were sold on the ability to switch (hence the name) and that won't happen anymore.
Question is: will people care or not for the change? Given the appeal and all the propaganda, i think it's safe to assume they will care.