Considering people were buying them at that price the official one is irrelevant. And next holidays season it will only get cheaper.
Anyway I digress. I am just arguing the fact that dockless, batterless, screenless switch should be able to reach 150$. Not that I think it would be a good idea to make one. It would only confuse both developers and customers.

A 3DS XL and Vita are still $199.99.

This isn't a charity, if you want decent hardware open up your damn wallet, like seriously, lol. This isn't McDonalds.

$250, even $300 for what the Switch offers is quite fair. Strap an LCD screen and a battery pak to a PS4 and tell me what your cost is.

I agree 1000%. Why would it confuse devs/customers though? Nothing could be simpler. Same thing, one has a screen and can be used anywhere for $249 or whatever. One has no screen and sits by the TV for $149ish. Win/win. Hell, knowing gaming fans, they might sell the dedicated home models to people that already have the hybrid version as well, just for the convenience and home multiplayer aspect. At that price, it's not a reach.

Removing the screen doesn't make the system $100 cheaper though. The touch panel LCD is probably costing Nintendo maybe $40-$50, could even be $30. A 6-inch 720p display in this day and age is dirt cheap. The battery pak is like $10 maybe. 

You're talking more about $200 for a screen less version vs. $250 for a version with the screen + battery, at which point I just, stop being such a goddamn cheap ass, lol. Even if you play mostly at home, you probably could use the screen/portability aspect of the system once in a while. 

I dunno. People were confusing WiiU with Wii. And as far as developers...well yeah this is not like removing the second screen from a DS or 3ds, so it shouldn't really matter gameplay-wise.

You dont know that, if you look at list of Nintendo partners and supporters you can definitely expect some major 3rd party games. If Switch become popular and sell good (and most likely it will), certanly support want be short lived like for Wii U.

Point is that power gap betwine Switch and XB1/PS4 will not be big like Wii compared to PS3/Xbox360 or Wii U compared to XB1/PS4, and Switch has very modern hardware, architecture and tech, so porting will be easier than it was for Wii and Wii U, all that makes things easier for porting games compared to Wii and Wii U. PS4 is current gen console not last gen.

Its relevant, because you can't compare official price and unofficial, we dont know at what prices and deals Switch will sell next holiday season, thats why  you can only compare only ofical prices, not deals on one side and ofical price on other side.

It doesn't really matter, while Switch is designed to be hybrid, and making basically different type of hardware with built in dock, without screen and battery, without detachable controls...definitely isn't something Nintendo planning to do. Actually far more bigger chances are that Nintendo later will just release Switch without dock and Joy Con Grip just for handheld playing, dont forget that Nintendo on Switch is looking on first place like home console, they basicly said "portable home console".

There is no meaningful distinction though. Whether or not you consider them a "generation" is irrelevant, they're still hardware launching within a year of Switch which are just as far ahead of it in power and PS4 and Xbone were over Wii U.

Just as Wii launched alongside 360 and PS3, and Wii U launched alongside PS4/Xbone, Switch is launching alongside Pro and Scorpio. It doesn't matter that PS4 and Xbone are still supported; PS2 was still supported when Wii came out and PS3/360 were supported when Wii U came out. 

Custom displays aren't cheap at all, and Nintendo is said to be pursuing a very high quality screen in terms of viewing angles, brightness, and of course it has to have solid durability and power efficiency, which varies wildly from terrible to great. Batteries that can supply the kind of power draw from this kind of system with a screen for a rumored 6-hour runtime also may be stretching it.

We'll have a BoM breakdown soon hopefully after the reveal.

Nintendo is not run by idiots of course. Don't you think they knew that they could have sold a TON more WiiUs if they had been able to hit something like $199 or less sooner? But they never did. Because they dominate the software sales for their home consoles by a landslide, and they don't have to pay licensing costs to themselves, the profits from game sales are a big deal to them. If they had been able to get an extra 10-20M WiiU's sold, they would have really made a ton more money from the 8th gen home console market. The probable cause, the only one that even makes sense, is that they simply couldn't get the BoM costs low enough to make it happen. Previous gens they had no problem getting costs lower over time, often substantially so.

Even if it's $50 difference, that's something. And something like a $79 or $99 difference is big. It's not about being a 'cheap ass', it's about maximizing the potential sales and not wasting opportunities. I won't spend more than $200 for something that I will never use in mobile form, and for which I'd be lucky to find 3 games I want to buy over its entire lifespan.

So half the consoles cost is crap i dont want or need, awesome.  

Thats the point buddy we want decent hardware and not be paying for things we dont want.

Agreed 101% man. And I have nothing against Nintendo, I have huge respect for their IPs and overall quality.