Again, SNY wanted to charge more for PS5, but decided against it. They also had multiple designs prepared. They didn't choose the weaker design for cheaper, or even if the PS5 we got was the cheapest design, then they should've delayed the launch way early, and downgraded the hardware based on your thought process, but they didn't.

Nin is moving more and more towards subscriptions. You don't make a chat button and then lock it behind a sub (after a year) if you're not looking to grow and profit from your subscription business.

MS constantly ate it with XB in the earlier gens, and then early on with GP. SNY ate PS3 early on, and they ate it hard. Did those losses "benefit" them? Even in the long run? That's not to say Nin should put themselves in that situation right now, obviously not, but Nin as a company, and SW2 as a device, are nowhere near that realm of hurt, which means there's wiggle room.

Based on your reasoning, why didn't Sony release the PS5 at $400 for the base system like the PS4, instead of $500 as they did?

Sony chose the PS5 price point that would make them the most money, and Nintendo chose the Switch 2 price point that would make them the most money. All companies do whatever will make them the most money.

I mean, what's your argument here, that Sony are some kind of altruistic entity that care about us and lose money for our benefit out of the goodness of their hearts?

Even Sony's PS3 losses were a calculated sacrifice to help push Blu Ray and the long term goal of dominating the console space.

Nope. Why does SNY keep increasing prices, including PS5? If $499 was the magic number, you apparently can't charge more, or less, right?

Not SNY, are you crazy? MS and XB are clearly the most charitable................  jk. They're just comparisons. Competition tends to be a good thing.

So you're saying Nin should follow PS3 and take a $250 loss or more on SW2 hardware to take market share and dominate the industry? Personally PS3 seemed like mostly poor calculations and a lot of bad idea's that SNY ended up paying for and had to dig themselves out of.

Has SW1 been getting lots of big AAA Nin games more recently, or has there been a slow down, likely due to Nin focusing on making sure SW2 has a solid launch library? Having enough good games at launch doesn't guarantee a constant supply of AAA first party games for the rest of the gen. Having borderline expensive hardware at launch would be disastrous without a solid launch line up.

I guess time will tell. You're obvs much more knowledgeable about the underlying tech.

I don't think DF have an axe to grind though, they seem to be calling it how they see it.

They also seem pretty sure it's 8nm, going by the reported dimensions of the board.

CDPR are obviously very talented but they made a bit of a dog's dinner of the PS4 & Xbox One port so who knows, again let's hope for the best & see.

You mentioned in your post to numberwang that Nintendo could have gone with Lovelace over Ampere.

If DF are correct and we've ended up with an 8nm Ampere when we could have got a 5nm Lovelace setup you can maybe understand my slight deflation as that would have been a serious step up.

I can't help but think that if it was MS or Sony's project they would have made that level of hardware happen whereas Nintendo always seem to go a bit mid...

A big part of Nintendo's audience have grown up & are likely more tech savy than generations past & I think more ambitious hardware would have gone down well & increased the longevity of the system. I know I've tailed off on using my OG Switch as I preferred to wait & play games like TOTK & even Link's awakening on hardware that could comfortably handle it.

I'm not sure how much they'd have had to charge but personally I'd have been happier to pony up an extra 25 to 50 bucks if it meant cutting edge vs what we've seemingly ended up with, which just seems 'fine'.

Exactly. If the OG Switch had been 30% stronger then perhaps I and others wouldn't have held off on purchasing TOTK & other software and Nintendo would have had more money on the back-end to offset the higher initial investment (not saying that they had an option to achieve this with OG Switch, just pointing out S2 could suffer a similar fate).

My fear is that DLSS may be too expensive in a lot of situations for S2 (this was touched on by DF in their Cyberpunk analysis), which would be a major bummer...

30% more grunt would have given them the extra headroom and then some.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1k0nq1m/digital_foundry_posts_a_video_thats_an_ad_for_the/

"Digital Foundry posts a video that's an ad for the Switch 2 editions of BotW and TotK.

All voiceover provided by Nintendo, no commentary from the DF cast"

This was the video DF had up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmDD7JSfhcE

DF was paid to put a full video ad up on their channel, which they apparently did.  Their fans (DF's) were livid about it.
They didn't do any commentary, it was just a strait up ad for Nintendo.

Like if your sponsored to promote something.... I think that's like the direct opposite of "an axe to grind", right?

vid on it:

This isn't the first time DF have been in the crosshairs for their biases.
However if you can pay them to show ads and only give positive videos....  you have to question if you should be giving them your trust on their takes.
This is like that Alex guy, being on the discord servers that were for hardcore xbox people looking for way to spread FUD about Sony (which they did).
(remember all the "eat its monsters for breakfast"? "Ps5 is 9tflops only"? "PS5 is useing old tech, XSX is newer architecture, thus x,y,z"? all that stuff start of the gen.... Alex from DF was part of that)

Like, it makes you question if their being objective in their takes.
Can you trust their videos were they show game running better or worse on one or another? maybe they cherry pick? or don't show say the full thingy?

They had another thingy with Nvidia (vs AMD).
DF arn't without biases.... and apparently you can pay them or IGN, and they will promote your tech and only speak positively about it.

I guess time will tell. You're obvs much more knowledgeable about the underlying tech.

I don't think DF have an axe to grind though, they seem to be calling it how they see it.

They also seem pretty sure it's 8nm, going by the reported dimensions of the board.

CDPR are obviously very talented but they made a bit of a dog's dinner of the PS4 & Xbox One port so who knows, again let's hope for the best & see.

You mentioned in your post to numberwang that Nintendo could have gone with Lovelace over Ampere.

If DF are correct and we've ended up with an 8nm Ampere when we could have got a 5nm Lovelace setup you can maybe understand my slight deflation as that would have been a serious step up.

I can't help but think that if it was MS or Sony's project they would have made that level of hardware happen whereas Nintendo always seem to go a bit mid...

A big part of Nintendo's audience have grown up & are likely more tech savy than generations past & I think more ambitious hardware would have gone down well & increased the longevity of the system. I know I've tailed off on using my OG Switch as I preferred to wait & play games like TOTK & even Link's awakening on hardware that could comfortably handle it.

I'm not sure how much they'd have had to charge but personally I'd have been happier to pony up an extra 25 to 50 bucks if it meant cutting edge vs what we've seemingly ended up with, which just seems 'fine'.

Yeah, those 30% would be really nice...I know many people won't like this, but when you do napkin math by specs alone for RTX 3000 series, and compare that to actual RL benchmarks, it's really, really close. So that same napkin math says that cut down, low clocked 3050 mobile in SW2 is above PS4, but not by as much as some might think. Of course, much newer architecture and DLSS helps a lot, but they could've gone with 4nm for quite a bit better performance, and charge the same $450, albeit for lower profit - that is, alas, not what Nintendo is about.

They increased the price because they realized they could make more than they initially thought. Inflation too.

Switch 2 and PS3 are in completely different situations; Nintendo isn't trying to push a format like PS3 was with Blu Ray, and they're selling on portability rather than pushing high end power.

There were absolutely poor calculations involved with the PS3, but they decided to take those losses because they thought it would be worth it in the long run.