To help shed some more light on this.....

take the samsung galaxy s7 comes with 64GB (more than the NS) of storage, a battery, both front and rear cameras, 4GB of Ram (same type and amount of ram in the NS) a more expensive SOC (yes its processor costs more than the tegra used in the NS), fingerprint sensor, and a QHD screen (4 times the resolution of the screen in the NS)

All that, costs under $255. Any iphone you see costs under $270 to make.

So why exactly does the NS cost $299 again?

Says who? First time seeing this.

Well thanks for helping us make the point then. Nintendo is making everyone pay a premium. Since its made the first portable gaming device you can plug to a T....oh wait.

I think it's just more people still bitching about it not being $250 because they believed the rumors that said it could be $250 as fact and that it would be 100% true instead of what they actually were, just rumors.

So they set themselves up for 100% thinking it would definitely be $250 but now they're dissapointed even though nothing ever pointed to $250 outside some rumors or the idea that some people don't think Nintendo consoles can be successfull unless they are super cheap as fuck.

For what the Switch offers it seems like $300 is a great price. It's the only console that can truly be portable to ever exist. 

If they don't think $300 is worth it truly then they can just wait out on buying it until a price drop eventually. More games will be out by then too.

I think it's subjective matter, but from a company point of view it's not bad.

Well the joycons are apparently a piece of technology as well, so it's pretty obvious they're not cheap to produce.

Agreed. I don't see a problem with the price. If live in the US of course.

That is the "bill of parts." In other words, you ignored labour costs, shipping costs, and the cut that the retailer/distributor receives upon sale. You're also ignoring the massive amount of money it takes to perform R&D to create the device and properly market the damn thing (though that is not a cost that directly scales with the quantity of devices sold).

By the way, your S7 costs $500 on Amazon. And it released last year. I'd hazard a guess that a device of that caliber from Samsung would cost $300 by holiday 2018, but the Switch will also most likely have gone down in price by that point.

You also ignored that the Switch has a larger battery, a fan inside, and comes with a controller. It also comes with a(n overpriced) dock. (The Switch should've just come with a 6" 1080p screen just to take advantage of display manufacturers mass production, to scale prices down better, but that's just me).

So why does the Switch cost $299, again? Even with all that I said, I still don't see myself paying more than $250 for it, but I can see how it's priced that way.

Offcourse not,Wii U was sold at loss at launch and Nintendo didn't really had much maneuverability space with price cut later because of that.

The issue here isn't that Nintendo doesn't want to take losses on the Switch, which it shouldn't and has every right as a business to want to make a profit right out of the gate.

The problem is that people know the reason the Switch is $300 as opposed to a lower price point like $250 has more to do with the expensive controllers and accessories packed in as opposed to the cost of the console hardware itself.  You're basically paying a premium for an underpowered piece of hardware due to the technology in the JoyCons and a glorified charging station / HDMI output dock that somehow warrants a $90 price tag when sold separately.