It's a bad thing the Switch isn't being sold at a loss?

[Intrinsic]

Hynad said:

First: On behalf of everyone you're insulting with this comment of yours, I will invite you to tone down the flaming. 

Sorry, if my tone leads you to believe I am flaming. 

Secondly: You hallucinate quite a lot there because I didn't say or implied any of what you mentioned.

Which brings me to your actual response: Do you know the markup % for the Switch? It's quite far from the 80% you mentioned for phones. That much we'll agree on, right? Now, how little must that markup % be to be deemed proper by you? Must it necessarily be lower than 0%? What's the acceptable range according to a sales expert such as you?

And now this. I have never said that the switch should costthis or that amount of money. Its not really my concern and that was not the argument I was having. 

Everything I was saying, and using the smartphone example, was simply to point out that I do not believe that the NS cost $299 to make and as thus (in response to the OPs thread starting post) selling it for less than $299 would not necesarrily mean that it would be being sold at a loss. And that even if it were sold at a small loss, that kinda thing is common practice in the console business.

replies in bold.

Now everything I just posted in bold above, are things I have said through out this thread. I have never said that the NS should be sold at this or that price, I have simply said that contrary to what the OP thinks, I believe that NS selling at $299 is already being sold at a premium.