My argument isn't that $300 isn't a fair price. My argument is that you can already buy a PS4 Slim and and Xbox One S for $300 and with more onboard memory, so having the Switch priced the same is going to draw unfavorable comparisions to it. It doesn't matter what 3DS owners bought for what price. This isn't a handheld.

No matter what you think about the value of the Switch, the fact of the matter is that it's going to be percieved as less valuable than the home consoles because of the power and because of the formfactor, just like the Wii was. That didn't matter for the Wii in terms of being successful, and it won't matter for the Switch either, as long as it is priced lower than the competition. The Nvidia Shield handheld is $199 right now with a 720p screen and tech well above the the PS3, so I don't see why a $249 price for the Switch is so absurd. If Nintendo wants another Wii-like success with the Switch, and they've explicitely said that they do, it needs a Wii-like price point.

From the research I have done, the difference is that the X1, in ideal conditions, is a huge leap from the U, but still a noticeable gap between it and the Xbone.  The X2, under ideal conditions, can output inbetween the Xbone and the PS4.  Now keep in mind, "ideal conditions" is tech speak for "conditions that will likely never occurr in practice" :P .  So it's a question of how close to said conditions you can get.  Now, the Switch having active cooling moves it closer to the ideal than pretty much any Tegra device out there since phones, tablets, and the Shield don't have active cooling, which limits how hard they can push the chips.  Then there's the customizations Nvidia is bragging about.  If those customizations are as extensive as they claim, that will also move the system closer to that ideal.  Then comes the fact the Switch will use a more optimized OS designed for gaming, which alleviates some of the issues caused by Droid.  Again, moving it closer to that ideal.  Just look at the Vita's accomplishments with what are frankly ancient chips, because it is customized and optimized for gaming in terms of both hardware and software. 

Now does that mean that if it's straight up X2 with all these above factors it will hit that ideal and push out that lauded 1.5 TFLOP performance?  No, not likely.  But it gets it closer than with a tablet or phone.  And with optimizations and customizations on the hardware and software side, real world performance parity with the Xbox One is definitely possible.

None of this guarantees the Switch will see that, but it is definitely possible.  My personal feeling is it will use a combination of Tegra tech to ballance cost, power consumption, and performance and get at or close to Xbone parity in real world performance, even if it falls a bit short on the much discussed GFLOPs. It does come down somewhat to Nvidia's willingness to give Nintendo good deals.  I think there's a pretty good chance they did, what with the Shield failing they need a good win for the Tegra brand.   

PS: The active cooling and such does raise concerns in battery life, but worth noting that while the fan will hurt it, not having an optical drive or hardrive (other spinning components) will help with that.  So we'll see.

If it ends up popping in between Xbox one and ps4 power that'd be very interesting. I don't want to miss the Internet reaction when that goes down. 

Didn't you say it couldn't work? lol

When did I say that? I have always said there was a fan inside the tablet...

I would be *stunned* by that and I consider my perspective optimisitc.  But yes, the internet reaction would be golden.  Shoot, it will be golden if it hits Xbone real world performance parity :P

lol, yeah parity will do just fine for bringing about Internet gaming forum goodness. 

Thanks so much! That was extremely informative. The X2 sounds very expencive though. Getting a mobile chip that can, under any contition, reach or excede XBO levels of performance is far beyond my expectations for this thing. While what you say about the X2 sounds awesome, it also sound unlikely for the Switch to me, because that sound like tech that would jack the price up way too much.

But having a device that is that close to XBO performance would be a godsend in terms of making porting less expensive and troublesome for third parties, which I want. But I honestly think that the sales gained from being weaker at $250 would far exceed the benefits of the 3rd parties that we gain by using X2 instead of X1. I don't think that the X1 and the X2 are the difference between getting no support and complete support, but 85% support at best and 95% support at best.

Based on Nvidia's own slides. The Tegra X2 is roughly 50% more powerful 768GLOPS (X2) versus 512GLOPS (Tegra X1). It's manufactured on a smaller process. So it should use less power than a Tegra X1. The Tegra X2 also has 2 to 3 times the memory bandwidth depending on whether it's using LDDR4 (50GB/s) vs GDDR5 (80GB/s). The Tegra X1 had 25GB/s LDDR4. You'd hope Nintendo would opt for GDDR5 but you never know with Nintendo.

Edit: The 1.5 TFLOP number people are touting is inaccurate that's in FP16. It's half that number 768GLOPs in FP32. FP32 is what the Xbox One and PS4 GPUs specs measured with.

Price is the concern.  I have hope mainly because of the beating the Tegra brand has taken.  It peaked way back in 2011 with the Tegra 3.  Since then they have lost a lot of market share to competitors in the tablet and cellphone space and attempts to penitrate those markets and the console market with their own Shield devices have failed.  So Tegra needs a win and powering a device like the Switch to a high level would be huge PR bullet point for them, perhaps big enough to be worth taking smaller profits than normal.  But yes, cost is a trouble.  But that may be part of the reason they have customized it quite a bit, to pull the cost down while keeping as much of the muscle in there as they can.

As for price, I'm more leaning towards 300 to 350 as opposed to 250 to 300.  Obviously 300 would be better and easier to sell than 350.  But, I think 350 could work.  With the right marketing, the newness factor can help in those early months.  Also, if they can continue to emphasize the convenience, I think that will help hold interest.  The unique abilities of the system are novel like the Wii, but also practical in a way that won't just wear off like the Wii did for many.  But most important are games.  If they can really have a cdense lineup and some good 3rd party support, I think they could do well at 350 at least until E3 2018, where they could lower the price.  Zelda and Mario are looking to be the launch and holiday titles respectively so that's a great start, we now need to know what will stack the shelves in the months between.  If they play their cards right, I think 350 could work, if the power is there.  If not, then 300 will be the top they could sell at. 

It will be intersting to see where this goes, but I'm optimistic in general with the Switch.