javi741 said:
Why does Nintendo suddenly need to raise the cost of their next system when it was already proven that the 300$ price point was more than successful for them? Why take that unnecessary risk to raise the consoles price to 400$? Maybe if there were a cheaper 300$ model it would make sense, but having a minimum price point of 400$ for a Switch 2 is unnecessarily risky for little to no reason. Specs really don't matter much to the regular consumer. People in these gaming forums and the gaming enthusiasts always tend to overestimate the importance of specs like crazy, as if the average consumer actually cares enough that Mario Odyssey is running at 900p to affect their purchase, or that the average consumer actually cares that COD or other major current gen 3rd party multiplats aren't on Switch. A vast majority of the average consumers don't care that the Switch is underpowered and that its missing out of these major multiplats, at least they don't care enough for stuff like that to affect their purchasing decisions, and the sales numbers for the Switch right now prove it where it could become the greatest selling console in history despite being underpowered and missing multiplats. Nintendo shouldn't risk raising the price just to improve on things that didn't affect the appeal of the Switch in the first place, such as it being underpowered and missing on 3rd party support. 4 out of 5 of Nintendo's Underpowered and non-multiplat systems were wildly successful, big part of that was that those systems were cheap and people didn't care about how underpowered it was. Again, I showed many examples where price affected the consoles appeal more than specs. One big example I could give that pertains to Nintendo is that the 3DS didn't start selling well until it got that huge price cut early on from 250$ to 170$ It's fine for Nintendo to maybe have an optional, more expensive model at 400$ for Switch 2 and have a cheaper model for 300$, but a minimum price of 400$ for Switch 2 would be unnecessarily risky. I acknowledge that the Oled is currently outselling the regular Switch, but its over a much smaller sample size in comparison to the total number of Switch owners there are out there and many of those sales are repurchases, it isnt representative enough of the entirety of the Switch's userbase to assume that they all want the more expensive model. |
I don't think Nintendo is going to take your advice on any of this, I don't see Switch 2 being less than $399.99.
The Switch OLED is $350 today, you're not getting an entirely new generation upgrade for that same price, no way.
The 2000s are over man. Time to just get used to the era of budget priced Nintendo hardware and software (for that matter) is basically over. They just have too much of their fanbase is over the age of 16 at least these days, that means they have more disposable income than little kids do.
3DS' problem wasn't the price, it was that that hardware wasn't good enough to justify the price. Which runs counter to your arguements, because clearly people were willing to pay $300 for Switch .... but not $250 for a 3DS .... because no one wants a rinky dink little PSP type device in 2011 for $250 ... it was underwhelming hardware and they also made the dumb mistake of thinking Nintendogs could still be a system seller but that's another can of worms I guess.
But that shows ... yes it does matter what your hardware is. Switch was impressive tech for a portable circa 2017 even being able to run console type games like BOTW, which was well beyond what a Vita could do or the standard iPhone game, it was top of the line for a portable machine. 3DS' graphics capabilities for 2011 were mediocre (a bit better than a PSP) relying more on the gimmicky 3D screen idea. Hardware does matter you can't just fart out any kind of cheap POS hardware and think people are going to be impressed.
Every Nintendo portable generation leap has been large too ... Game Boy/GBC (NES tier graphics), Game Boy Advance (SNES tier graphics), DS (Playstation 1 tier graphics), 3DS (PS2 tier graphics, maybe a bit lower), Switch (better than Wii U performance, able to handle some PS4/XB1 ports even) .... Switch 2 being better than PS4 performance, able to handle some PS5/XB Series games stands to reason as a logic base point. There's also DLSS to consider which can help a Switch 2 punch above its weight also, a Switch 2 with DLSS trying to port a PS5 may well prove to be easier than the Switch having to handle PS4 ports like Witcher 3 and DOOM Eternal.
Last edited by Soundwave - on 27 April 2023
