But the screen is a big part of the Switch 2. -_-

There is no "pricing disaster". 

What many of you fail to understand is that it's about value and not about production costs. Price is what you pay. Value is what you get. Would you pay 100$ for a terrible game because it cost 500 million dollars to make? Nintendo games are among the highest quality in the industry. They don't drop in price because their perceived value is so high that they don't need to drop in price for people to buy them. The reason other publishers sell their games at steep discounts shortly after release is because people aren't ready to pay more money for them.

I vividly remember the days of the early Switch reveal, when the exact same b*llshit was being thrown around. The Switch was doomed, the price was too high, nobody wanted Nintendo games, etc. Nintendo was going third party. Look how that turned out. To anyone who thinks the consensus was any different: Dig out the old threads! They regularly get necro-bumped anyway, because they are so funny to read.

Also, I've been here since 2007 and there is a never-ending cycle that starts all-over again with every new console release: What people never seem to understand is that it's about the games, the games, the games. Games sell a console! And it's not about some sleeper hit a small niche of gamers wants to play. It's about the break-out games: 

- The Vita was going to be a huge success because it had such a great screen and great technology. But where were the games? It flopped.

- The Wii U was going to sell at least 50m units because it came off the back of the Wii (Yes! People believed that would be the case!). It flopped, because it didn't have many great games (Nintendo focused their efforts on the 3DS and shifted development resources to that platform)

- The 3DS was going to sell like the DS did at first (it had 3D!) but it launched without good games at a high price and so it bombed at first. Then it was doomed to fail... but it didn't because it got good games. 

- The DS was going to fail (despite being way cheaper than the PSP!) but, surprise, it got a truckload of great games and sold like gangbusters. 

- The Gameboy was on the decline, but then it got Pokémon.

- Xbox Series X/S looked way more promising than Xbox One, but then what happened? Oh yeah, Microsoft didn't release a lot of exclusives for it and went third-party. 

If the Switch 2 fails it'll be because the quality of the games isn't there. The console is more expensive than the Switch 1 was, but it's certainly not in a "PS3 600$ in 2006" situation. The games will determine its success. And the game's prices will get adjusted according to demand and perceived value. Again, it's about the games and the value of the games. That's what determines a console's success. 

(Edit: Same goes for graphics, by the way: Every generation we have this stupid discussion about a console being "too weak", despite this never having stopped any console from being a success. And yet, we constantly argue about a console not being powerful enough. I vividly remember never-ending discussions in... I don't know, 2021?... about the Switch successor being imminent because the Switch was "underpowered". But the length of a console generation depends on perceived value, not graphics or horsepower).

Genuine question here.  If you were standing in the street with two screens, one running Mario kart 8 deluxe and the other running Mario Kart world, do you believe you could convince the public that the difference is worth the extra 30$ (your selling physical editions to people), and a new system? I don't think it would be doable. They look very similar. In fact, I thought it was MK8 when they first revealed Mario kart world. This wasn't the case with the Mario kart Wii and Mario kart 8. Mario kart 8 looked so much better. So, if the two Mario karts look so similar how are the public going to perceive the value difference that your post was trying to highlight. 

There is no download codes. Its all on the cart. 

Let's be fair, in 2-3 years after lauch GTA VI will, likely, be sold at 1/2 the initial price like GTA V and RDR2 did.

Now, i respectfully ask you, do you think Nintendo Will do similar price cut like rock star does?

I don't get why people are defending Nintendo.

Their games have lower development cost.

they are already N°1 in profit ( correct me If wrong, but they profit 2x more than Playstation with $60 games)

they don't pay 20-30% share for store.

the have the lowest price cuts, some of their games are priced the same for years!

On the other side Rockstar.

GTA VI is way more expensive to make than any Nintendo game, maybe 5-7 more expensive than Mario Kart, it's a +$500M game

Rock Star pay 20-30% share for Playstation/Xbox/Steam store.

Rock star have Big price cuts, games end at less than 1/2 the original price.

If Rock Star makes GTA $80 it's greed, for sure, i'm with you Guys. But still, i can go with It, for reasons above. I can always wait for price cut.

When Nintendo do $80-90 games it's not Just greed, it's absurdity. The game is less expensive to make, there is no store CUT (100% goes to Nintendo) and price cuts are unlikely...

I think you are one of the Reasonable Nintendo users whose judgment is usually reasonable, can you see my point?

Louie just explained how little graphics mean and the first thing you ask about is graphics.

The value difference between MK8D and MKW was already evident in its reveal, it will be all the more clear after next week's Direct. World doesn't only provide a good number of all-new tracks that are embedded in an actual world (a first for the MK series), but also new vehicle types (boats and planes) as well as the ability to slide on rails and walls. The question of value is not "does it look differently", but "does it play differently."

Eight years ago people seriously questioned if Breath of the Wild can sell the Switch. At least back then the Zelda series came off a sales disappointment in Skyward Sword that sold only around 4m copies, but the different direction that BotW took shouldn't have been ignored either way. The denial and stupidity on display was bad enough.

But here you are and question Mario Kart which is coming of a game that is closing in on 70 million copies sold when the only thing that concerns people about Switch 2 is the pricing. Pricing that happens to be comparable to the PS5. Switch 1 was declared dead on arrival because when it came out, the console itself cost as much as the PS4 with a game. But clearly, pricing that is comparable to the current PS console is not a disadvantage, because Switch is a hybrid whereas PS doesn't have this same important value for a video game console. Sony's solution to compete with Nintendo is not only more expensive (PS5 + PS Portal), but also technologically inferior. And Xbox is even less of a factor this time around.

You are on a Nintendo website. When (and probably unlikely) the next system Nintendo releases fails to live up to expectations, they will shift the goal posts or go into hiding.

Just because I used the words "looks similar" doesn't mean I was talking solely about graphics. Surely that was obvious. I just googled "Mario kart 8 improvements over Mario kart wii", and this is the response. 

You aren't the only one who doesn't get it, that's why Take Two gets away with it. GTA VI won't be only $80, it will have an avalanche of microtransactions whereas Nintendo games don't have any.