By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - It's a bad thing the Switch isn't being sold at a loss?

bonzobanana on 06 February 2017
vivster said:
RolStoppable said:

I think you should make a thread about that. I will support your argument in that thread.

You know I don't like making threads. I just wait until someone puts fruitless effort into a thread that is exactly the opposite of my opinion so I can go in and make everyone miserable.

Also it sounds like a reaction thread made by a Nintendo fanboy to paint everyone as a hypocrite while making a fool out of himself.

Your avatar image so perfectly fits your personality. I can honestly say my avatar doesn't suit mine but I like it anyway.



Around the Network
yvanjean on 06 February 2017
KrspaceT said:

Of all the criticisms I've seen of the Switch, this is one of the criticisms I don't really get. 

 

I mean I can get paid internet being controversial, that the game lineup isn't as top heavy as a Rob Liefeld character, or that the Switch isn't running 4K, even if just minutely. But being mad Nintendo isn't selling at a loss seems....manufactured. 

 

Like complaining the Switch can't cook pop-tarts or something. 

Considering Nintendo is not including a pack in game, get revenue on all future game sold on the consoles, overpriced peripherals and online service. In order for the system to thrive you need a healthy adoption rate and since Nintendo is making a profit on every consoles they won't sell has many Switch as if they would have gone with a lower price point. With a smaller install base you will have less developers willing to take a chance on the consoles. Then you have another Nintendo consoles without much coming from anyone else other than Nintendo themselves.   



Intrinsic on 06 February 2017
Hynad said:

First: On behalf of everyone you're insulting with this comment of yours, I will invite you to tone down the flaming. 

Sorry, if my tone leads you to believe I am flaming. 

Secondly: You hallucinate quite a lot there because I didn't say or implied any of what you mentioned.

Which brings me to your actual response: Do you know the markup % for the Switch? It's quite far from the 80% you mentioned for phones. That much we'll agree on, right? Now, how little must that markup % be to be deemed proper by you? Must it necessarily be lower than 0%? What's the acceptable range according to a sales expert such as you?

And now this. I have never said that the switch should costthis or that amount of money. Its not really my concern and that was not the argument I was having. 

Everything I was saying, and using the smartphone example, was simply to point out that I do not believe that the NS cost $299 to make and as thus (in response to the OPs thread starting post) selling it for less than $299 would not necesarrily mean that it would be being sold at a loss. And that even if it were sold at a small loss, that kinda thing is common practice in the console business.

replies in bold.

Now everything I just posted in bold above, are things I have said through out this thread. I have never said that the NS should be sold at this or that price, I have simply said that contrary to what the OP thinks, I believe that NS selling at $299 is already being sold at a premium.



Hynad on 06 February 2017
Intrinsic said:
Hynad said:

First: On behalf of everyone you're insulting with this comment of yours, I will invite you to tone down the flaming. 

Sorry, if my tone leads you to believe I am flaming. 

Secondly: You hallucinate quite a lot there because I didn't say or implied any of what you mentioned.

Which brings me to your actual response: Do you know the markup % for the Switch? It's quite far from the 80% you mentioned for phones. That much we'll agree on, right? Now, how little must that markup % be to be deemed proper by you? Must it necessarily be lower than 0%? What's the acceptable range according to a sales expert such as you?

And now this. I have never said that the switch should costthis or that amount of money. Its not really my concern and that was not the argument I was having. 

Everything I was saying, and using the smartphone example, was simply to point out that I do not believe that the NS cost $299 to make and as thus (in response to the OPs thread starting post) selling it for less than $299 would not necesarrily mean that it would be being sold at a loss. And that even if it were sold at a small loss, that kinda thing is common practice in the console business.

replies in bold.

Now everything I just posted in bold above, are things I have said through out this thread. I have never said that the NS should be sold at this or that price, I have simply said that contrary to what the OP thinks, I believe that NS selling at $299 is already being sold at a premium.

You are arguing quite a lot against the idea of a company selling a console at a profit if that's really the case. 



Profrektius on 06 February 2017

I don't think anyone cares if they sell at a loss or not, but it makes sense that people would complain about the price.



Around the Network
naruball on 06 February 2017
shikamaru317 said:

The thing is, if you sell at a system at a loss early in a generation, it pushes sales considerably. The more a console sells early on, the more owners there are obviously; owners who will buys games, accessories, online subscriptions, etc. throughout the rest of the generation, which means you make back all of what you lost on the system itself and then some by the end of the generation.

So here's a hypothetical situation for you:

Switch at $300 with no bundled game sells 6m this year (made up number for the sake of the example). But, Switch at $250 with a bundled game would have sold to 10m people this year. That's 4m extra people who will potentially be buying games, online subs, and Nintendo's ridiculously overpriced accessories this year. All it takes to make back the $50 they lose on the console is 1 game sale and 1 accessory sale for each of the people who bought it (they lose basically nothing on the bundled game because it's 1st party; they lose a possible, but not guaranteed sale of the game). And those 4m extra owners don't just buy games and accessories this year, they buy them throughout the rest of the generation. That's well worth selling the system at a loss imo.

Excellent point. Plus, if it sells 10m 3rd party developers are much more likely to start making a game for it.

Most AA(A) developers thought the psv would either fail or underperform and they didn't announce games for it. The more of them were scared of failure, the fewer were persuaded to take a risk.

And the sooner the game is made and released, the bigger impact it will have. Because even great games fail to sell when released when most people have given up on a console (e.g. Tearaway, Killzone on psvita).



Intrinsic on 06 February 2017
Hynad said:
Intrinsic said:

replies in bold.

Now everything I just posted in bold above, are things I have said through out this thread. I have never said that the NS should be sold at this or that price, I have simply said that contrary to what the OP thinks, I believe that NS selling at $299 is already being sold at a premium.

You are arguing quite a lot against the idea of a company selling a console at a profit if that's really the case. 

Sigh,,,, and you are a little too concerned about my stance on a products value..... a stance that I have every right to have.

I feel the switch is coming in at a price that is too high, I also feel utside of them wanting to make a lot of money from the actual hardware its not an all round smart approach  to take. I feel nintendo would have done a lot better with regard to their total sell through for 2017 if they came in at $250. 

Now please tell me, what is wrong with me thinking this way? And what is your problem with me thinking this way?

I've given numerous examples, the PS4 cost sony around $384 to make. Yet they sold it for $400. Only making $16 profit on the hardware which was probably also split between them and the retailer. It has gone on to sell 50M+ in record time. Why is it so hard for you to accept that the price hardware comes in has a big role to play on how suceessful said hardware goes on to be?



AngryLittleAlchemist on 06 February 2017
Intrinsic said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

This argument makes no sense. The Switch is a product that does more for than the Iphone and Samsung Galaxy despite the fact that it costs less to produce and the profit margin is much smaller. If anything, you are proving why the Switch SHOULD be 300$. Because even if it's 200$ to make(which I even have doubts about it being that low) it's profit margin would only be 100$ as opposed to a phone which offers more features, sure, but gets sold for ridiculously more new. So if anything, you're making Nintendo look fairer with this comparison.

Sorry, the switch does more than a smartphone?

Well, at least I see why the point makes no sense to you. 

I've said before, lets just leave it alone. I bow out of this discussion. However much any individual person thinks the switch is worth to them is all that matters at the end of the day.

In gaming, yes. I don't understand how a handheld home console with console quality games for 300$ when most phones are 700-800$ when they first release is ridiculous tbh 



AngryLittleAlchemist on 06 February 2017
Radek said:

Who pays 700$ / 800$ for a phone? Mostly Americans for iPhones I assume.

I bought Xiaomi Mi5 64gb with Snapdragon 830 (same as in Galaxy S7), 3 gb of ram for 249$ from China.

It's obvious Nintendo got a bit greedy with pricing here, least they could do is bundle Zelda or even 1-2 Switch with it.

Uh...a lot of people? I didn't even want a new phone and my mom payed like 700$ for a Galaxy Edge 

300$ is not that greedy. The price isn't the issue as much as the consoles other issues tbh. 



Tootylicious on 06 February 2017

The strategy behind selling a console at a loss is to get a bigger userbase right at the beginning because of lower price, resulting in higher software sales. This would work especially well because Nintendo is more dependent on first party software than anyone else and can also cash in with accessories. Bigger userbase also raises more interest in third party support enriching the games catalogue which again results in higher interest of undecided potential buyers.
However, Nintendo is probably aware that their fan base will buy the console anyways so the first few million consoles are going to get sold either way without Nintendo selling them at a loss. A short-sighted strategy...


I personally don't care how much the console costs, If I want it I will buy it.