This is a disappointing revision overall. While it's a decently substantial upgrade for people who play mainly or exclusively in handheld for those who play mainly or exclusively in docked it doesn't offer much yet costs more. A Nintendo console getting an OLED screen is really nice though considering how bad the screens on Nintendo consoles have been historically. Some responses I've seen do confuse me since I don't get being glad this isn't more powerful or chastising people feeling disappointed. Considering how poorly certain Switch games run not having to wait a minimum another two years to play them with resolution and/or frame rates that aren't bad would've been really nice for a lot of people.

I think Nintendo’s R&D team looks carefully into how they price their consoles based on the parts they can get and the cost measures to make said consoles. Then they probably consider what is a competitive price that allows them to make back the production costs. I’m sure they have th research data on how the Switch being used in households. If people are willing to buy a revision at $350, then they were right to price it as such. If not a lot of people don’t buy it, then they don’t buy it and Nintendo will look into what went wrong.

Simply not true.  3DS very quickly dropped in price.  Dreamcast dropped in price.  Saturn dropped in price.  N64 had hardware and software price adjustments shortly after launch.  Wii U had 3 free games shortly after launch.  Xbox One dropped price and Kinect shortly after launch.  Xbox currently has two SKUs, premium (X) and budget (S).  Original Xbox dropped the price and quickly updated with a better controller.  Playstation 3 dropped in price exceptionally quick.

Price adjustments happen all the time in gaming, when demand dictates as such.  And who dictates demand?  Consumers.  

Nothing you are posting is even remotely accurate.  But hey, continue driving some imaginary pretend economics.  

I think that having the devs optimize the games on the consoles we already have is a better idea than forcing another hardware paywall onto us to get the same games, but just running somewhat better on remixed consoles.

GameCube had a price drop about a year from launch, if I remember correctly.

I really expected some hardware upgrade for TV mode users. I have an ethernet adapter for my dock since launch day, my micro SD card has enough empty space so I don't need more internal memory, joy-con drift should also continue. So there's no need to buy this new model in my case.

Such as PS1 dropped in price, PS2 dropped in price, DS dropped in price, Xbox 360 dropped the price, Wii dropped in price (on its peak year I must address). Those price drops weren't dictated by customers demand as all those systems were pretty hot when they got their price cuts, they were to align to certain company strategy

Besides you are looking ONLY for price drops, I'm asking you to look to the other way instead. Why are companies not increasing their prices even with demand sky high for consoles and damn scalpers selling Switches for even 500 USD?

It's because we are talking about oligopoly here. Oligpolies are sensitive to price increases much more than to price cuts, if don't mind some reading: https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/economics/monopolistic-competition-and-oligopoly/kinked-demand-theory-of-oligopoly

This is a very well know economic aspect of markets, I'm by no means an expert of this subject buy I know enough of this to understand customers have few power in markets with imperfect competition 

The premise "If you don't like it, don't buy it" or "vote with your wallet" ultimelty makes sense only if you have enough back options to increase the demand for other products in the same market, so companies can really feel the heat of losing customers. In this industry we have few other options. It's either pick wich one offers you the best value proposition (as their prices for both hardware and software are largely the same) or just drop your hobbie 

Indeed talking about Wii price cut, 5 minutes of wikipedia told me PS3 and Xbox also got their price cuts just few weeks later, Nintendo was just following suit

Perfectly matches with kinked-demand theory model about price cuts:

"If the oligopolist reduces its price below P, it is assumed that its competitors will follow suit and reduce their prices as well. The oligopolist will then face the relatively less elastic (or more inelastic) market demand curve MD 2. The oligopolist's market demand curve becomes less elastic at prices below P because the other oligopolists in the market have also reduced their prices. When oligopolists follow each others pricing decisions, consumer demand for each oligopolist's product will become less elastic (or less sensitive) to changes in price because each oligopolist is matching the price changes of its competitors."


Also perfectly explain why nobody is getting price cuts this gen. They are just following the cartel model where everybody is about satisfied with their current sales/revenue and realized price cuts only lead to long therm lose in revenue rather than long therm increases (second hand experience from past generations)

Edit: I'm also dropping this discussion here because it's derailing the thread. I think we can create another if you find this subject interesting  just don't belong here

Well you are being foolishly hard headed, so this will be my last response pointing out the oh so many flaws in your argument:

1) "Also perfectly explain why nobody is getting price cuts this gen": FALSE - Xbox One, which is the weakest seller this past generation received a quick and substantial price cut

2) "they were to align to certain company strategy": And what dictates company strategy? CONSUMERS

3) "Besides you are looking ONLY for price drops, I'm asking you to look to the other way instead": You mean like Sony raising the prices of their games and controllers? Or going from free online to charging yearly?  You mean those type of price increases?  

4) "Why are companies not increasing their prices even with demand sky high for consoles and damn scalpers selling Switches for even 500 USD?": Because it would alienate consumers and damage their brand, decreasing their future sales... YOU ARE THE ONE WHO POINTED THIS OUT ALREADY

5) "The premise "If you don't like it, don't buy it" or "vote with your wallet" ultimelty makes sense only if you have enough back options to increase the demand for other products in the same market": Xbox One, Xbox Series S/X, ps4, ps5, Switch, PC, mobile....  plenty of options.  And the ps4 sold hot out of the gates, kept it price for YEARS.  XBox One sold poorly out of the gate... what happened?  A quick and massive price cut.  See how that works?

/my involvement

The Switch launch model was consuming 11w of power whilst docked running Breath of the Wild.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11181/a-look-at-nintendo-switch-power-consumption/2

A 10w Volta chip is fine.

Anandtech also recorded 8.9w of power consumption in handheld mode, which is a step down from the docked power consumption, however the screen is also gobbling up some of that.

The point is, The Switch already exceeds 10w in docked mode anyway without all the extra components buzzing along... So a fully clocked Volta can slot in that same power envelope on day 1 whilst docked.

As for HPC and A.I. The interesting parts of those aspects is... Those processing capabilities can be used for things like DLSS as Volta has a Tensor Processing Unit and Deep Learning Accelerator.
If you want more of an in-depth understanding of Volta and how HPC/A.I can lend itself to gaming, give this a good read.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12673/titan-v-deep-learning-deep-dive

**********

In regards to the CPU, the CPU can be reduced down to 1Ghz from 2Ghz, keep in mind that Tegra Volta is using Denver2 so it offers a significant increase in performance even at the same clock over the compliment of 1ghz A57 cores found in Tegra Maxwell.
Plus the Tegra Volta's A57 cores can be clocked to the same level as the Switch for backwards compatibility/power consumption for developers who opt for it or for developers who wish to dump more TDP into the GPU.

**********

Remember the biggest advantage of Tegra Volta and one of the greatest issues with Tegra Maxwell is... Memory bandwidth. Tegra Volta offers up twice the bandwidth in raw numbers and an extra upwards of 20% on top of that thanks to improvements found in Delta Colour Compression.

Tegra Volta almost has sufficient bandwidth and fillrate to do 1080P gaming.

**********

The other aspect of Tegra Volta we need to keep in mind is that... It's built on an Archaic 12nm FF process, there is the possibility to port that SoC to a 10nm process which is rather quick and easy and can net a good 20% power saving. (As 10nm is based on 12nm design rules.)

I never asserted that Orin was out yet.

However, Orin is being sampled with partners, that likely includes Nintendo.

Companies make promises all the time, but when it comes to money and design wins, will always backflip on a policy if it's in their best interest.

The thing with mobile SoC's is that... nVidia doesn't exist in an empty vacuum, they have competition.

Samsung is now gearing up Exynos with Radeon Graphics for example, Qualcomm have Snapdragon (Which is also based on Radeon graphics) which is also  venerable.

So no. Nintendo isn't limited to nVidia's offerings. Money talks.