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

When PS4/X1 cost 250 versus a 500 PC it is a cheaper alternative. When Switch release for 199+ it won't be a cheaper alternative, not in the same margin.

Sony do have PSVita if you want, and that is still less than 199 and can play PS4 games through stream, and I basically know all the negatives you'll make

 

But you still need a PS4 and a vita... Thus, again... Making Switch the cheaper option. You know the negatives I'm going to make because this discussion is that obvious. It is simply a cheaper alternative. No matter what you say or what other options you try and present. You'll likely miss out on some, (quite a bit, really...) 3rd party software but that doesn't exactly shift the goalpost.

And on Switch you'll still not get the same kind of games (and I could only use PSP that with a cable could be hooked to the TV and use PS3 control), still just being a little cheaper doesn't make it really a cheaper alternative. It isn't like Golf is the cheaper alternative to Ferrari, their purposes are completely different, even GT-R would have a hard time being sold as cheaper alternative even though it gets very close on performance.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."