Five reasons why I am not bothered by Nintendo's Switch 2 hardware and software pricing

[LordGustang]

RolStoppable said:

Louie said:

This is a good list! What I would cautiously add (as I haven't fully thought this through) is that at least at first glance the Switch 2 seems to be disrupting Sony's and Microsoft's business.

If you look at it from a conventional angle, the Switch 2 is still lacking in areas like graphics power and is not considered to be a "hardcore" console. However, mobile chip technology has made huge jumps over the past decade, to the point where many people have to look twice to see a difference between a Switch 2 game and a PS5 game and most games can run adequately on Switch 2.

At this point, Sony and Microsoft can only move upmarket to keep their margins - which Sony did, with the extremely expensive PS5 Pro. Microsoft on the other hand saw the writing on the wall and basically went third party. And Sony will have to do the same thing if they want to stay in the very echelon of the upmarket with the PS6, as that console will have to be very expensive for people to see a difference compared to PS5 and software will be even more expensive to develop in the future than it already is.

Switch 2 can certainly have a disruptive effect because Switch 1 already had it. It was primarily affecting the Japanese market because Sony's strategy made it unsustainable for most third parties to remain PS-exclusive, so they branched out to Switch and PC, of which Switch greatly benefited in the Japanese market. The PS5 software sales in Japan have gone down notably in comparison to the PS4 despite similar hardware sales.

I don't think that Microsoft saw the writing on the wall, rather it's that their incoherent strategy led to their ultimate downfall as a console manufacturer regardless of what Switch 2 was going to be. Nintendo didn't do anything here other than having the patience to let someone else fail. But the effect of Microsoft's descent into irrelevance as a console manufacturer is increased pressure on AAA third parties to include Switch in the multiplatform mix on a much more regular basis. I don't see this having as much of an effect as we've seen in Japan, but nonetheless it's good for Nintendo and bad for Sony.

Nintendo's strategy being far more succesful than ps is what made it unsustainable for 3rd parties to be ps exclusive, which was never logical in the first place and only started out of bribes. I hate when people keep ignoring the real cause of things. Just like the main reason why the vita failed was the 3ds, which was cheaper and had a far better game library.