"Nintendo switch is too expensive"

[potato_hamster]

onionberry said:

potato_hamster said:

Sony actually throught people wanted a ~$800 machine, but didn't think anyone would pay ~$800 for it. Sony initially sold the PS3 at a loss, and not just a small loss, a big loss (rumored to be around $200 per unit). So if people were to take your stance at a time, Sony was doing people a huge favor by selling a device valued at $800 for *only* $600, and we're not even counting the cost of the R&D and development of the PS3, which was probably the most expensive console to develop ever at that point.

But people looked at all of those features, that blu-ray drive, that 8-core CELL processor, that whopping 256 MB of RAM, and decided en-masse, that the Xbox 360, with its cheaper price tag, with its better graphics, and with its much larger game library that ran better (it came out a year earlier remember) was a better deal. They decided that those features weren't worth $600 to them when they could get a better experience (for them) for cheaper. So they didn't buy the PS3 at $600 and complained about its price, even though Sony was selling it at a loss, and bought the Xbox 360 inteasd.

Now of course, you must think those people were being totally unreasonable, right?

no, you seem to offensive. The whole thread, right there you can read the original post. I have been saying that people who wants the value of the ps4 or xbox one are not wrong because if that's what they want then that's the best offer for them, that's the value that they are looking for, but switch offers a differen value and is a different product than the ps4 and xbox one, so you can't say that it should be cheaper because the ps4 and xbox one are $299.99 when the switch is giving you other characteristics that cost money to manufacture.

Also your little example... the xbox 360 and ps3 were the same product and same form factor, if I can buy a cheaper console with better games and better performance for third party game I'm not going to buy a $600 machine. If sony had a hybrid console for $250 or $200 with more power/performance then guess what? Nintendo would be in trouble. 

You refuse to understand. The features that make the switch different must be valuable to prospective buyers, otherwise the cost it adds to the product doesn't match the value of the product to those who don't find those differentiating features valuable.

Let me put you an example.

Let's say the Switch costs $299 instead of $199 because Nintendo made it portable.  There are millions people that would buy the Switch at $199, but refuse to pay a dime more for it, because they don't care about the fact that it's portable. They never intend on using that feature. It might as well not be there because it's uesless to them. Are those people wrong for not caring about the portability of the Switch? No of course not. They would rather Nintendo offer a switch that wasn't portable for $199 than spend $299 on a feature they would never use. But htere isn't one. All there is is that $299 unit. But hey, there's a PS4 over there that also isn't portable (bute they dont care about that) that is far more powerful, has far more games, and is cheaper. Sounds like a better deal to them rather than wasting money on a feature they don't care about. No amount of explanation about how much it cost to implement the portability features of the switch is going to matter because its a useless feature to them. Those people aren't wrong for thinking that way.