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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Switch OLED model just got announced.

ZyroXZ2 said:
KLXVER said:

We do expect a more powerful Switch.....the Switch 2.

Ohhhhh, you mean, like all console manufacturers, there will eventually be another, more powerful system?

Come on, man, you literally know that's not the point, here lol

In fact, let me change the frame of reference: the PS4 Slim released at the same price as the base PS4, the Xbox One S released at the same price as the base Xbox One.  If Nintendo was going to do a redesign/refresh, they could have simply replaced the normal Switch (or dropped the normal switch to $250 to slot this one at $300).

Instead, Nintendo fans have to defend this by saying, "well, it's got an OLED screen and it's for people who don't already own a Switch" in which a PSVita had an OLED 10 years ago so it's not "expensive" screen technology, it's 720p, and it's using hardware released in 2015.  The absolute MINIMUM logical choice was to price it as a replacement for the base Switch which would clearly follow in line with redesigns that have happened to other consoles as well.  You don't charge more if you aren't upgrading the core components that were already made in 2015 (two years prior to the release of the Switch itself), that's just pure greed and taking advantage of fan blind loyalty.

You are right about $350 price tag here. It sucks for consumers, but in the end we have to keep in mind that when Switch released at 300$ price tag, there weren't that many people who expected it to sell as well as it did. And probably Nintendo themselves didn't expect it either. That's why they had to keep the price at competitive level. But in 2021 situation is completely different, Switch is even more successful than extremely successful PS4 and already close to 90m consoles sold, so from company's perspective it makes sense to increase the price. Because they simply know, that it's still gonna sell at that price. Like others mentioned, it's the same as with iPhone. It costs 1000$ because people are willing to buy it for 1000$. So, in case of this new Switch model, I suppose it's a simple market research where Nintendo came to conclusion that they can increase price, earn more profits from just hardware itself, and people are still gonna buy it. Especially given that their competition is still more expensive and Nintendo is gonna sell more despite being a 4+ year old platform. Shitty for consumers, but nothing surprising here. It's just business.



 

Around the Network
IcaroRibeiro said:
curl-6 said:

Why on earth would any company in their right mind lower the price of a system that they can't even keep up with the demand for? 

It was the standard modo operadis for Nintendo handhelds I think, they used to release an slightly updated version and then decreased the price of the more standard version. They did it even for DS in their peak and DS was selling over 30 million a year even more than Switch 

But this time my impression is they want to sell OLED as a premium version, you don't sell a perceveid more "premium" product with a standard price. They can still decrease Switch price anywhere in future anyways and make OLED 300 USD when they think it's the right time 

Edit: I think I also misunderstood Nintendo's strategy. I was sure they were going for a very long console lifestyle, 7 to 8 years and they were willing to make early adopters to purchase another version, of you sell a cheaper product you can keep new model sales high for years. But maybe Switch life won't be that big and they are satisfied with people buying only one copy, after all the true money is on software and people won't buy the same software twice just because they got a new Switch 

How can you know that? Yeah, this is a different approach than forcing early adopters to upgrade, but you can't take that as granted. There are many other ways to stimulate the system relevance



 

 

We reap what we sow

Vinther1991 said:

I think these mid-gen systems have just been some nasty attempts to get people to double dip, and provides the developers with the option of phoning in the ports for the base systems (Cyberpunk being the worst example, but many others suffer similarly). I am happy that Nintendo didn't go this route this time. Now 87 million won't be left with weaker experiences.

The New3DS didn't leave earlier 3DS owners behind. The number of Switch base units is too high to be left behind as a market. Cyberpunk is more of a pure next gen game that should have never been released for base PS4/XBone. I would have been nice for the Switch OLED to have a boost option to unlock the Tegra X1, which can run 40% higher clocks. Anyway, maybe homebrew will allow that. Even Nintendo published games like Bowser's Fury and that Zelda slasher game are in need of more power right now.



ZyroXZ2 said:

If someone already said this, I apologize for not reading all 20 pages, but I recently tweeted this and wanted to say it here, too:

Wait, are Nintendo apologists proud of NOT expecting a more powerful Switch? Is your bar set so low that you expect virtually nothing and think that's a WIN?!

Nintendo apologist here, and I've been wanting the Pro to be false this whole time. Wanna know why? Because I want Switch 2, that's why, and if the Pro comes out it will only delay the Switch 2 coming out even further. I want Switch 2 March 2023, exactly 6 years after Switch 1 came out March 2017, and the only way they are going to do that is if enough developers are sick of developing for older hardware and if enough consumers have reached their point of wanting some massive leap forward. Neither of those situations will happen by 2023 if they release a Pro in 2021. In fact, I'd imagine if they released a Pro right now that Switch 2 wouldn't come out until earliest 2024, and probably 2025, and that would suck. I don't want some pitiful minor bump upgrade that the Pro would be, I want the full glory that is the Switch 2. Pro would have a fraction of the stuff that Switch 2 would have, and there are multiple reasons for that:

-It would come out 2 years prior to Switch 2 (if history repeats itself looking at previous mid gen upgrades and their successors), making its hardware considerably weaker compared to Switch 2, so for 2 years basically (sometimes 1.5 years based on history) they would have some games made to take advantage of it, then move on to develop for Switch 2. That isn't a lot of time to develop many games on weaker hardware, making it not worth it to them.

-Nintendo isn't going to pump a bunch of R&D into making the Pro a super beefy device knowing that it would only appeal to probably 20 million buyers max. Casuals won't buy it, most current Switch owners won't buy it, and people that want a second device for a family member will probably stick with OG Switch or LITE as they would be a lot cheaper than a hypothetical $400+ Pro model.

Nintendo knows their consumers and they know how to make maximum profits out of each situation. They will let Switch continue to sell great, then well, then decently, then not so much, and then when it starts to really go downhill come out with a massive upgrade (Switch 2). Why do so many people want a silly Pro model knowing full well it will delay the coming of Switch 2, which will make the Switch Pro look like an absolute joke? And why, you may ask, do I think it will make it look like a joke? Let's look at Zelda through the years:

NES

SNES (not a huge leap)

N64 (huge leap)

GameCube (not a huge leap)

Wii (not a huge leap)

Wii U (huge leap forward)

Switch (not a huge leap)

Obviously Botw was held back by needing to work on GameCube as well, so we won't know this engines true potential until Botw 2 comes out, so I'll include Link's Awakening remake as well:

You can do this with Metroid, Mario, really any main series. Nintendo typically makes a console, then a slightly stronger one, sometimes even two slightly stronger ones in a row, before going for a huge upgrade. The Switch is basically a Wii U beefed up and shrunk down, so based on their history I expect Switch 2 to be a pretty massive leap forward (much more than a Switch Pro would be).

Last edited by Dulfite - on 08 July 2021

Wow. I felt the SNES was a huge leap and so was the Gamecube. N64 games ran at 4 fps and were ugly.



Around the Network

I hope Nintendo brings out a Lite with this new screen and audio enhancements.

The upgrade is mostly lost for those who only use the Switch in console mode and don't care about handheld mode (apart from the improved dock), but the mobile-only Lite would benefit a lot from the OLED screen, enhanced audio and larger storage.



Dulfite said:

NES

SNES (not a huge leap)

Sorry, but this is a huge leap. While the NES sprites look basic, the SNES ones work very fine even by todays standards.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

RolStoppable said:

What remains to be seen is if Nintendo will phase out the original Switch, but that may not be the case. The packaging of the OLED model is a vertical one, so there is an immediate difference to the horizontal layout of the original model, allowing both models to be sold side by side.

I guess Nintendo will watch the sales. If sales of OLED replace the OG Switch, they will phase out that model.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

mZuzek said:
Dulfite said:

N64 (huge leap)

GameCube (not a huge leap)

How on earth was the GameCube not a huge leap.

Sure the pictures you use don't help the comparison, not in the least because of Wind Waker's stylized artstyle, also not because I'm pretty sure that is not how Ocarina of Time looks on an actual N64 (textures looking way too high-res there). But come on.

This came out in 2002, by the way. Earlier than Wind Waker. Not only does it look miles better than any game on the N64, it also runs at a stable smooth 60fps - three times more frames than most N64 games.

Sure, I could have found the best looking game for each system and then compared, but that would be difficult to compare as easily as the same series. Metroid Prime was amazing looking, but it isn't that much improved upon what the Metroid 64 prototype looked like, not like that prototype improved on Super Metroid. And Metroid Prime 2/3/Other M were not significant improvements over MP1, whereas MP4 will be a massive leap forward for those games because it skipped Wii U generation. If MP4 came out on Wii U and MP5 came out on Switch, most consumers (not hardcore tech obsessed people that are the vast minority) would be putting our glasses on to see the minor technical improvements from Wii U to Switch. Switch 2 and whatever games it has will be the next big Nintendo leap forward before another decade of stagnation.



Chrkeller said:

Wow. I felt the SNES was a huge leap and so was the Gamecube. N64 games ran at 4 fps and were ugly.

4ps lol. Most people that play video games don't recognize or care about fps, that's just something the truly hardcore care about. It's behind resolution, which itself is less on the radar of most gamers compared to "graphics." We can project on this website, since we are all hardcore gamers, that most gamers out there are, but that isn't reality. The vast majority of gamers don't pay attention to gaming websites, and there are probably more people in the world that believe in flat Earth than those that have heard of Digital Foundry.