If you're correct, I can see it flopping pretty hard. This price point is more oriented to a Wii U-like home console market, where we have 2 competitors with loads of games and a massive install base being sold by less than that. Switch would be onslaughted, it would be more expensive than its two more powerful competitors. This isn't the market segment for Nintendo because their 3rd party support is weak at best (they are already confirmed to lack Red Dead and Mass Effect).

This price point would also completely allienate their portable user base, that's several times larger than the home console one. They tried to push a high price point with the 3DS and failed, resorting to a 180 bucks price to get it going.

Despite all that, a 250+ price point also seems like a rip off. The Switch looks similar to a Shield tablet. Hell, it's basically the same thing. And a Shield tablet costed 200 bucks, with a profit margin. I don't believe Nintendo will come with a price point higher that 200 bucks.

You do realise that New 3DS Xl has price of $200 and that still selling good? With that on mind $250 is great price for deviace that is real home console and real handheld in one, it has much more value than 3DS, and it will sell pretty good with that price.

However, the New 3DS isn't the only option since people can still buy the older model or the 2DS as budget options. Also mind that 3DS isn't exactly on fire right now, it sold around 4M according to VGC and will end up the year way above X1 (MS will kill during Nov/Dec) and PS4, even if it is a portable that had options for 100 bucks during BF.

Nintendo needs to know where they want to place this product. If it is a portable, 250 is the same pricing that almost killed the 3DS. It's basically repeating the same mistake again. If it is a more like a Wii U successor, then the price point is OK if they believe that it can go against PS4 and X1. Honestly, I see it as being more adequate as a portable or as a secondary console. Both cases demand a lower price point.

Also, 250 is not a good price point. It's almost a repackaged Shield tablet. Why would it be more expensive when it will pack a lower resolution screen that can even lack touch? When we remove the dock, it really can't be more expensive that the Shield. "Oh but it's an hybrid". And? It hardly can be called and hybrid. It's like a tablet with an HDMI port that you connect to a TV. Add a controller and it's almost the same stuff. It's superbly packed and integrated, but really it shouldn't add a lot of costs.

And yes, the New 3DS price point is pretty much a rip-off. It costs as much as a Vita, that's way more powerful, it costs as much as a Shield tablet, that simply obliterates it in every single spec. If they want to start the Switch selling it as a ridiculously overpriced product, it's their call. Just don't expect people to fall for it. That's why I don't buy this rumour. They can't be that... dense. Horrible pricing was also one of Wii U's reason for its downfall.

One extra reason to be cheap is mobile. Let's face it, handhelds are on life support right now. People simply prefer to pay nothign extra to play on the go. They just want some quick distraction when on the bus, train, etc. Home console aren't affected because playing a high-end game life BF1 with amazing graphics and 64-player online is way above what a mobile phone can do. Handhelds are not that much of an improvement. Specially when you factor in that it's basically a big cost to just have something to do on a 30 minutes time gap. It has to be cheap. Dirty cheap, as much as possible. Phones are killing it because, even if they are more expensive, it's something that you already has, so the cost is zero. Also, they fit in yout pocket, so no need to carry a backpack.

It does stuff that a PS4 or X1 doesn't, mainly being portable. However, PS4 and X1 do a lot of stuff Switch doesn't: they have 3 years of games, full 3rd party support, better graphics, etc. It's a big list, while Switch only has the benefit of portability and that's something that people aren't caring that much. It can't compete directly with the twins, that's suicide. It has to be cheap.

Why do people always make this misconception, the price point was not what gave 3DS problems it still sold fine what gave it problems was consumer confusion and the early drought and even then it still sold along the lines of 6m in those few months. As pointed out earlier PSP launched at that exact same price point and did perfectly fine.

It's ridiculous to assume that people didn't knew what it was because of the name. Usually, people try to use that as an excuse for the Wii U too. Ok, parents can make this confusion, but parents don't decide anything. Their kids will explain what they have to buy and they will get it. Adult gamers are smart enough to figure it out by themselves. Lack of software is more serious, but it PS4 managed to sell well with that. They cut the price, it started to sell more. It's quite simple.

Also mind that while PSP did decent numbers, it was pretty much onslaughted by the cheaper DS. The PSP also wasn't more expensive than a PS3 or 360. The PSP also was a multimedia machine in an age before smartphones and targeted teenagers and adults, that usually have deeper pockets. A lot of the features that made PSP popular are done better by smartphones. Vita is pretty much a beefed-up PSP. Ok, it has expensive memory cards, but that's a one time buy that costs around the price of a single game. Smartphones stole this segment. The one that remains is the same that the DS explored: kids and people after a cheap and good gaming experience on the go. They were cheap entries to play Nintendo games. I don't think people will pay 250 bucks for it and that's pretty much the point with the Wii U.

However, the New 3DS isn't the only option since people can still buy the older model or the 2DS as budget options. Also mind that 3DS isn't exactly on fire right now, it sold around 4M according to VGC and will end up the year way above X1 (MS will kill during Nov/Dec) and PS4, even if it is a portable that had options for 100 bucks during BF.

Nintendo needs to know where they want to place this product. If it is a portable, 250 is the same pricing that almost killed the 3DS. It's basically repeating the same mistake again. If it is a more like a Wii U successor, then the price point is OK if they believe that it can go against PS4 and X1. Honestly, I see it as being more adequate as a portable or as a secondary console. Both cases demand a lower price point.

Also, 250 is not a good price point. It's almost a repackaged Shield tablet. Why would it be more expensive when it will pack a lower resolution screen that can even lack touch? When we remove the dock, it really can't be more expensive that the Shield. "Oh but it's an hybrid". And? It hardly can be called and hybrid. It's like a tablet with an HDMI port that you connect to a TV. Add a controller and it's almost the same stuff. It's superbly packed and integrated, but really it shouldn't add a lot of costs.

And yes, the New 3DS price point is pretty much a rip-off. It costs as much as a Vita, that's way more powerful, it costs as much as a Shield tablet, that simply obliterates it in every single spec. If they want to start the Switch selling it as a ridiculously overpriced product, it's their call. Just don't expect people to fall for it. That's why I don't buy this rumour. They can't be that... dense. Horrible pricing was also one of Wii U's reason for its downfall.

One extra reason to be cheap is mobile. Let's face it, handhelds are on life support right now. People simply prefer to pay nothign extra to play on the go. They just want some quick distraction when on the bus, train, etc. Home console aren't affected because playing a high-end game life BF1 with amazing graphics and 64-player online is way above what a mobile phone can do. Handhelds are not that much of an improvement. Specially when you factor in that it's basically a big cost to just have something to do on a 30 minutes time gap. It has to be cheap. Dirty cheap, as much as possible. Phones are killing it because, even if they are more expensive, it's something that you already has, so the cost is zero. Also, they fit in yout pocket, so no need to carry a backpack.

It does stuff that a PS4 or X1 doesn't, mainly being portable. However, PS4 and X1 do a lot of stuff Switch doesn't: they have 3 years of games, full 3rd party support, better graphics, etc. It's a big list, while Switch only has the benefit of portability and that's something that people aren't caring that much. It can't compete directly with the twins, that's suicide. It has to be cheap.