Also even if sales drop like a stone after the initial launch its not like Nintendo will just accept lower sales, there will be discounts and bundles etc that are needed to increase sales again. They will be actively monitoring sales and adapting. They are going for super high margins initially but if that fails prices will come down. The N64 launch in the UK started at £250 and I think in about a month it was £150 and a few months after that it was £99 and I think it continued that way for most of its life until it hit maybe £69 at the end before being discontinued. It's never about what something costs to make its what people are prepared to pay. I personally don't think the Switch 2 is that expensive to make, the fabrication process is a cheap Samsung 8Nm process probably about the same level as a Intel 10Nm (Intel 7) process when it comes to transistor density and power efficiency. It's a fairly low performing chipset greatly aided by DLSS upscaling for more ambitious titles. It's a LCD panel and fairly low capacity battery. There is nothing particularly expensive in the design. We don't yet know how close it gets to the maximum 3 Teraflops the chip can handle docked but previous Nintendo consoles have always underclocked for reliability and stability and I'm guessing somewhere between 2-2.4 Teraflop docked with only something like 600 Gflops give or take 200 Gflops allowed in portable mode as it only gets 5W per hour (2 hour runtime) for the main chip if you allow 5W for the screen and its not a great fabrication process its an older more power hungry process. It's been designed to punch above its weight using DLSS upscaling.

I could see it matching Switch 1 pricing if it had too and still being profitable even if not as profitable as Nintendo would like. I mean its pretty much sold at that price in Japan anyway. I suspect before Nintendo price drops it will invest in some marketing and advertising though. Mario Kart World adverts a plenty I would of thought but if that fails pricing will be under pressure to drop. Nintendo makes more money with high volumes of course so they are looking for the sweet spot between volume and margin per unit where they make the most profit overall.

This was a disaster for those who expected a disaster.
It is a wonder that the Internet has been able to fool so many people so easily!

Indeed. The internet was desperate to find a reason to doom Nintendo Switch 2 and - because the system is so well-conceived - they couldn't find anything other than price to complain about. So people talked themselves into believing that Nintendo's prices are too high while at the same time still predicting huge success for the system; they were so caught up in the outrage culture that they didn't even recognize the obvious contradiction they had themselves engaged in.

Likewise, Mario Kart World emphasizes the blatant stupidity of the last two months. Endless complaints about its price to join the bandwagon online, followed by paying only $50/€40 for the game.

It's no wonder that there was no stand taken against Nintendo's prices despite all the calls for boycotts, because ultimately the prices are fine. On a macro level, this was just the usual "If you are a real gamer, you can't stand Nintendo. Only fanboys would like their products." thing playing out. This is also why people on the internet would rather side with EA than Nintendo, and there are countless other examples of completely unreasonable behavior.

What I don't understand is that sony increased the price of games at the start of the generation, then increased the price of the console in the middle of the generation, released psvr2 for €600 then immediately stopped supporting it, released the ps5 pro for €750 euro, increased the price of ps plus. But many of the people complaining about the switch 2 don't seem to care at all about this. The outrage seems so forced, since there are so many greedy things happening in the industry that people barely talk about.

I just watched a video about the performance of Cyberpunk running on the switch 2 and it showed the FPS dropping down to 20fps in hectic scenes. Can you seriously tell me that's good enough for a gaming device launched in 2025? Can you seriously tell me it's ok to charge 450$ to get 20fps in cyberpunk, a 5 year old game? The concerns are legitimate it's not all just hating for the sake of it. 

The Switch 2 is a portable device. It can't be that hard to grasp the idea that some people might value a portable device with less power over a stationary device with more power. Gaming isn't about FPS and resolution, it's about having fun. How would you feel if someone said: "I just watched video about the PS5. It doesn't even have a battery, or a screen, or built-in speakers. Can you seriously tell me it's ok to charge x amount of money for such an antiquated device? It's like a home computer from the 90s vs a modern portable device."? 

Specs have no value. Gaming has value. Fun has value. So yes, obviously it is okay to charge 450$ for a device that brings lots of fun and value to people. 

I swear to god, I've seen this same discussion again and again since 2006, when I started visiting this website. It never ends, it's total madness. Every couple of years people start arguing about specs and every single time they are flabbergasted that a "crappy, weak console" sells well. 

Edit: And just to be clear: What pikashoe is complaining about is the double-standard. It's ok if Sony does it. It's ok if Microsoft does it. But it's not okay when Nintendo does it, because (in this case) you, a person who is clearly not interested in Nintendo's products, has chosen a completely arbitrary value metric ("power! Terraflops!") to measure the value of a device. But other people value different things, and that (to be frank) is none of your business. Same goes for the opposite case: If someone says "clearly, a PS5 is not worth it, for it does not have a screen and is not portable!", the same principle applies - because some people do value resolution and FPS more than others and that's fine.

I knew someone would come in and say "but it's a portable device so stop comparing it to non portable devices" The ROG ally is also a portable device in a similar price range but is capable of playing Cyberpunk at a locked 30fps. So now what?

It can't be that hard to understand what I wrote.

Me: "Gaming isn't about FPS".

You: "But another device has 10 more fps in a game I picked!"

I even edited my post above because I knew you would fail to actually answer what I said. Is is so hard to understand that some people value different things than you? Do you really think your personal opinion is the be-all and end-all metric to measure value? 

What are the Cyberpunk settings on the ROG ally? There are so many variables that you purposily ignoring to make a mountain out of a mole hill

Are you sure that the FPS aren't dropping down in the 20s on the ROG Ally in any situation of the game?

Additionally, the ROG Ally (in its 15 Watts standard setting) only offers half of the battery life than the Switch 2 in Cyberpunk 2 although double the battery capacity. The Switch 2 is 4x as efficient... quite important for a portable device: