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?

Intrinsic said:
RolStoppable said:

Because Switch is the only product of its kind.

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.

How much does it cost to buy a brand new Galaxy S7 or iPhone 7 again?



Around the Network
Hynad said:
Intrinsic said:

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.

How much does it cost to buy a brand new Galaxy S7 or iPhone 7 again?

Sheeesh, are so many of you really this clueless?

You guys really don't get why smartphones are usually sold at over an 80% markup ompared to their original cost of manufacturing and why consoles aren't sold that way?

Whats sad is that you and a few others that has done what yu are doing here and probably thinking you are being smart is really only showing how ignorant in this particular area you are.

There is a reason why game consoles are pretty much the ONLY electronic devices that can be sold with no profit or even taking a loss and still go on to be successful. Please, i have already explained this more than once in this very thread. This is becoming ridiculous.

 

Warned ~ CGI



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 those 4m extra 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.

Thanks for this post. And all that is even assuming that at $250, they are even taking a loss..........

This loss leader concept that has been prevailant in consoles for God knows how long  has suddenly become gibberrish to a lt of posters in this thread. They simply refuse to understand why or how all consoles can get away with selling atcertain prices and how there are so many ways they can make that money back.

I have spent 3 pages in this thread trying to explain this very concept to them, trying to tell them why every other electronic device (albeit I used smartphones because they have  a very similar design make up to the NS) have to mark up their prices from what it cost them to actually manufacture their hardware becaus those companies don't hvae games or accessories or subscription services to sell you. Their business with the consumer ends the second that consumer pays for the hardware. But game consoles don't work that way..... yet that concept seems tooo complicated to understand all of a sudden.



Intrinsic said:
Hynad said:

How much does it cost to buy a brand new Galaxy S7 or iPhone 7 again?

Sheeesh, are so many of you really this clueless?

You guys really don't get why smartphones are usually sold at over an 80% markup ompared to their original cost of manufacturing and why consoles aren't sold that way?

Whats sad is that you and a few others that has done what yu are doing here and probably thinking you are being smart is really only showing how ignorant in this particular area you are.

There is a reason why game consoles are pretty much the ONLY electronic devices that can be sold with no profit or even taking a loss and still go on to be successful. Please, i have already explained this more than once in this very thread. This is becoming ridiculous.

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



Intrinsic said:


What people have said though, is that they don't see why it costs $299. So in other words it should be cheaper.

many developers are actually surprised that they were able to cram so much tech into it and keep the cost as low as it is.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Around the Network
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 those 4m extra 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.

I get your point. And I think that Nintendo knows about it, but they want to play safe at the beginning. If the thing sells like hotecakes, they don't really have a necessity to cut Switch's price. If sales get stale, they still have room for a price cut. And Switch era will still be profitable. But I don't think there's a need of rushing it.



Value is nebulous and established by the market. $300 make sense to me given Nintendo will sell every last unit for first few months. Once sales decline I expect a holiday bundle and a 2018 price drop to $200-250 range.



Intrinsic said:

This loss leader concept that has been prevailant in consoles for God knows how long  has suddenly become gibberrish to a lt of posters in this thread. They simply refuse to understand why or how all consoles can get away with selling atcertain prices and how there are so many ways they can make that money back.

The loss leader strategy is something that has primarily been utilized by Sony/Microsoft and historically they have been far less profitable than Nintendo in the gaming business.

Also, this is the first generation of Nintendo having annual losses and just so happens to be the generation that Nintendo decided to utilize a loss leader strategy.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Augen said:
Value is nebulous and established by the market. $300 make sense to me given Nintendo will sell every last unit for first few months. Once sales decline I expect a holiday bundle and a 2018 price drop to $200-250 range.

Having Zelda, Mario Kart, ARMS & Splatoon releasing in close proximity to one another should help keep momentum going in the first 6 months then a price cut to $250 in time for the holidays & Super Mario should give it a pretty decent first year.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

SpokenTruth said:
Intrinsic said:

Funny, PS2/XB, PS3/360.... were all sold at an initial loss....... yet the all gave more games than nintendo.

GC and Wii U also initially sold at a loss.

Every console sells at a loss initially because of the huge R&D costs and up front costs like setting up the production line. I'd be very surprised if it was even possible to be profitable within the first year but if it was it would be late in the first year. It's more about how you decide to claw back the R&D costs and of course the actual cost of manufacturing the console itself. If its something incredibly low performance like the wii u which is cheap to make using low cost parts then it could be sooner rather than later but if you providing decent technology like Sony and Microsoft you likely play the long game over a few years. However that said you may not even care about recouping those costs if your online charges, software royalties and accessories are bringing in a huge amount of money.