DélioPT said:
Miyamotoo said:
With 2DS they offered cheaper version of 3DS platform. Like I wrote, of course you can take 3D screen from Switch, but you can take TV mode, Dock and detachable Joy Cons and offer cheaper version of Switch.
Like I wrote, we will eventually have Switch 2 or Pro, but point is there is no need for stronger and more expensive version of Switch any time soon, but actually there will be need for cheaper and smaller version when 3DS dies.
Fact that they said they always thinking about next handheld could mean anything that doesn't mean they will make another or that they want make another. Like I wrote, that was unspecific PR talk beacuse its obvious they dont want to talk about that yet, its just a PR talk, you relley dont need to pay atention of unspecific PR talk of Nintendo.
I don't ignored how DS and 3DS are treatment, but you clearly ignoring fact Switch is hybrid not just handheld, that DS and 3DS had much smaller screens on launch and had much cheaper price points, so making more bigger/expensive version of DS/3DS totally made sense, but with Switch we have hybrid, you already have huge screen and already have high price point compared to previous handhelds, so its very obvious that in case of Switch totaly make sense to realase smaller/cheaper version not actualy more bigger/expensive version, that will made even more sense when 3DS dies.
Like I wrote, they can cut around $100 with cutting TV mode from Switch, Dock and detachable Joy Cons and some other things that are requred for TV mode.
Offcourse that Switch MIni/Pocket would be part of Switch platform, it will play same games. Joy Cons doesn't have anything with that, you realise that you can use Switch without Joy Cons with Pro Controller for instance.
Nintendo coud sell regualar Switch for $250-300 and Switch Mini/Pocket for $150-200. Difrence would be aroung $100, not $150. Like I wrote at least 5x times to you, beacuse not all people are wiling to pay $300 Switch and TV mode, but they would be willing to pay around $200, you do realise that majority 3DS owners paid for 3DS around $150-200 and of course that not all would be willing to pay $300 for Switch.
"For some reason you assume that lower price points bring costumers that a higher price tag can't bring"!? Are you serious!? For tenth time, offcourse that not alllhandhedl lowers wouldnt pay $300 for Switch and TV mode beacuse thats too expansive for them and they dont need TV mode. Ask your self, why 3DS has price point from $80-100 to $200, because they know they aiming different segments of market with different price points, not every consumer should pay $200 for 3DS thats why you have cheaper versions. Like I wrote, Sony managed things totaly difence than Nitnendo, Nintendo is one that always had multiple price points on market in same time, Sony always had usually had just one price point, Nintendo curently on market covers price point from $80-100 to $300, it's clearly you don't know what are you talking and how Nintendo operates and think (fact you constantly bringing Sony in this story proves that) if you think they will abonend more affordable price point with Switch and only offer $300 price point.
Like I wrote, you need to realise that Nintendo platforms always had worse 3rd party support (actually from SNES gen) compared to competition, and that actually Wii U had solid 3rd party support for Nintendo platform with games that I mentioned, but Wii U loosed that support after terrible sales in 1st year.
This really doesn't make any sense, you clearly ignoring things that I wrote for you or you forgetting them, you keep writing things on that I already gave clear answers, in fact for some things I wrote you 5x same answers but you again act like you didn't see that and again wrote same thing even its clearly I already gave you answer on that multiply times. So I really don't see any point arguing with you, because I already gave you clear answers on everything you wrote, just look what I already wrote to you in previous post or in some post earlier.
|
It's true, with 2DS they did offer a cheaper version of the 3DS. You just forgot to mention that it wasn't their first revision.
So, exactly why didn't they offered it instead of the 3DS XL? They could have offered 2DS for 99-129 and cover that market.
That's probably because 2DS was a reaction to all negativity surrounding the 3D in 3DS, and not a strategy move.
You can take the dock but not the joy cons.
The pro controller still incorporates the tech in the joy cons.
I already showed you that Nintendo's stragey hasn't been to go after the lower price tags and there's nothing that even hints at that.
You can dismiss the PR talk all you want, but the actual PR usually mentions that they are always developing new HW and not just thinking about it. That's actually a first, if i'm not mistaken.
Switch Pro doesn't need to be more expensive than the actual Switch.
All you need is to lower the price of the regular Switch by 50$ and price Pro at 300$.
With a 250$-300$ price range, why should they focus their research efforts and money to develop a handheld that is an inferior product to Switch? What's the point in that?
They would probably make less money with that, cut their price levarage, kill their current strategy and even make some games unplayable on the Mini version.
Just because there's people who don't want to pay 300 for Switch doesn't mean that they won't, in theory, pay the 300$.
The market isn't that rigid in their ways. That's exactly what PS4 showed: it sold more than people expected despite the 400$ price tag. Because the value was high.
Your idea that people won't pay more than 200 are going to stick with it just because, is not a valid idea.
Not to mention that a price down to 250 for the Switch would pretty much kill a Mini for 200.
"Nintendo curently on market covers price point from $80-100 to $300, it's clearly you don't know what are you talking and how Nintendo operates and think (fact you constantly bringing Sony in this story proves that) if you think they will abonend more affordable price point with Switch and only offer $300 price point."
First of all, you are the one ignoring the fact that, with the exception of 2DS, Nintendo's way has always been about introducing either similar or higher priced products (simples revisions or upgrades), at least since the GBA (even the Micro was introduced at about the same price as the SP or lower than the SP (after the SP got it's price cut in 2014)).
You are focusing too much on the price range and not on how Nintendo reaches that price range.
Also, i never said Nintendo should or would abandon that market. I actually said two things in regards to that:
1 - Enough value will make those who, in other circumstances, wouldn't easily pay a higher price, actually pay that price.
2 - With time, Nintendo will eventually hit that market... after it's collected as many profits as they can with a higher price range.
The reason i bring up the PS4 is too show that Nintendo doesn't necessarily need to actually come up with 200$ handheld to make that market buy their products. Enough appeal will make a chunk of that market buy a product at a higher price.
One last thing you are ignoring: Nintendo's strategy.
In your eyes Nintendo should go against a winning strategy instead of building up on it (resulting in more profits).
|
