d21lewis said:
potato_hamster said:
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.
|
I see what you're saying.
Release a low cost "Switch TV" with only home console capabilities in 2018 and profit!
|
It worked for the Playstation Vita! Ohh- wait...
