onionberry said:
they sell the whole product, if you don't want a part of the product then that's something that as a consumer you should think and say "well, I just want a home console, so which company offers the best home console" and go for the one that offers what you consider valuable for your money. But you can't expect it to be cheaper because you're not interested in the whole product. If I buy a hot dog the hot dog man is going to sell me the whole thing even if I don't want the bun.
|
I get what you're saying, basically that Nintendo isn't gouging the price of the Switch, and that what it costs to make the Switch is probably reasonably in line with what they're selling it for.
However. The issue here seems to be one of cost vs. value. Namely, that they may have added technology that increased the cost of the system more than it increased it's value.
The origional Xbox One is a great example of this. The Xbox + Kinect bundle wasn't sold at some crazy high profit margin, because the Kinect was an advanced and expensive piece of technology. But! Consumers didn't feel that it added $100 in value to the system, so it was deemed too expensive.
The Switch, to a lesser extent, is in the same boat for two key reasons. If you just want a handheld then the Switch having the ability to plug into a TV doesn't add any value for you, it just adds cost. The same is true of the features that make it portable, if you just want a home console. So, you have two different groups of people who feel the same way about the Switch for the same reason about two different aspects of its design.