Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

Since the switch isn't using discs, I can see the boxes being 3DS-sized or smaller

So... why do we seem to be assuming the Switch will come in at $300? Especially @BiasedSonyFan - do you have any actual inside information as to why you're stamping that price with such confidence?

Because here's the real answer:

Nobody knows what the price is going to be. We WANT it to be 300, because that's really the only price that will truly allow it to flourish, but that doesn't mean jack. Nintendo and every other company on earth has shown that they can be pretty darn tone deaf when it comes to pricing.

And if you want to be realistic, I'm thinking a lot of people are going to be disappointed, and this puppy is gonna clock in higher than $300. Especially if its running the Tegra x2 and has anything approaching reasonable flash memory, there is no way this thing will retail for less. Also especially if these detachable controllers aren't as flimsy as cardboard. And if the screen IS touch. And if it has NFC. And so on and so on. Yea, none of that stuff on its own is a lot of money, but it all adds up.

The other nail in the coffin? Nintendo stated they will be selling the thing at profit from day 1. You COULD take that as "the hardware is cheap," but I take it as "we're gonna ask a premium price for this." Neither viewpoint is technically wrong UNTIL we get the official price, but I do have a feeling that Nintendo is trying to pack some power in this thing while making it durable and portable, so that takes me away from the straight-up "cheap" hardware idea.

A more tempered expectation? They could launch a "gimped" version that has very little/almost zero flash memory and try to eek out the $300 price point, while the "regular" version with an amount of memory that people would expect in the year 2017 would launch 50 or even 100 bucks more (and possibly with a game).

@TomJ @TheLZdragon I think that they might want to use a "full size" case to retain a home console image of the Switch games, but they'll most likely use a smaller case to save in production costs (and it's more ecological).

@Moshugan Nintendo are going to use cardboard rectangle boxes similar to the N64

@rallydefault $250-$300 is the realistic price for this thing, even if it is based on the "X2". Those features you mention don't actually add up to all that much, except for the internal flash memory, which is pretty much a safe bet to be 32 GB.

Nintendo's comments about selling it at a profit on day 1 in addition to them selling it as a home console that's portable (rather than a handheld that connects to the TV) would suggest $300 as a price point, but they could quite easily sell it for less.

@BiasedSonyFan Point 3 doesn't matter. Kimishima said they're not selling Switch for a loss so whether it makes sense or not for $300 max, if the individual parts combined to create the system is more than $300 then Nintendo will sell it for more than $300.

I don't know too much about all of this, but all I know is, an Xbox One is currently on sale for $250, which is a 500GB model that includes a free game of the buyer's choice, and the Switch is going to have to compete with that price if it's going to justify being less powerful than it.

@Nicolai Pretty much. They need to hit $300 with or without a game or they'll be hampering their audience.

@Nicolai Sony and MS are known to sell at a loss. Microsoft overall bleeds money from Xbox. I wouldn't really use that as a basis of comparison for Nintendo and the switch. Plus, they are desperate considering how awfully they started the generation

@Operative: Despite this, the consumer doesn't keep this in mind when making their purchase. It's still gonna be hard to sell a product thats both underpowered and more expensive, even with the portability. It's either gotta match its price and be pretty low powered, or be more expensive and more powerful.

EDIT: This actually highlights why chasing after the competition is not a good idea for Nintendo. They can't really compete with them, but they can offer interesting alternatives.

@Nicolai oh yeah, I definitely agree. They're gonna have to really market it smart

Hrm - I don't know, guys. I just can't see this thing being $300 unless they've cut a lot of corners. I clearly stated in my post that no single thing about the system seems to cost a lot, but everything adds up. And nobody is even mentioning the dock. Even if that thing only houses some USB/HDMI ports, that's still a chunk of change that needs to be added to the pile of touchscreen/controllers/NFC/mic/etc.

I mean, even the lowest-end smartphones that basically amount to a puny processor and a touch screen are still around $200. This thing is, obviously, doing A LOT more, and has the docking function.

I really don't see $300 happening. I'm thinking $399.

@rallydefault
Counter point to all of that dribble using Australian dollars because I can't be bothered working out US prices again. Lets say this thing launches at $400AU. The same price the Wii U and Wii launched at, far less than what you're predicting here. Your argument being that all the "little things" add up.

Well lets start from the bottom here. JBs have a 7" Galaxy Tab A for $200AU. Screen is about the same size and resolution and lets just assume the battery is also the same. Despite having a 5MP camera and GPS which the Switch probably won't have this thing has only 1.5GB of RAM, 8GB of storage and a generally pretty average CPU.

You mentioned entry level smartphones being around $200US? Well how about this. $250AU for a 5" 720p smartphone. 16GB of internal storage, 2GB RAM, 13MP rear camera, 5MP front facing camera, GPS and 4G. Basically the same thing as the tablet but with a tiny bit more storage/RAM and the addition of 4G. We're getting surprisingly close to the rumoured spec of the Switch and we're still only at $250AU. Remember, the Wii and Wii U launched here at $400AU before retailer discounts and after tax.

So the next argument is that the other stuff will boost up the price right? Well its hard to price the Tegra chip so lets focus on the stuff we can more easily guess. How much would the dock cost? Now a few weeks ago I might've brought into the "it'll cost a fair chunk" argument. But recent rumours have said that the Switch has a USB Type C port on the base. If that's the case the dock could more or less be nothing. It'll be a game of "connect these two pins to power, connect these 4 to USB, connect these 19 to HDMI". Then you get AC power in, HDMI out and a USB hub on the back. Not an expensive piece of electronics.

Which leaves us to the last thing. The controller. The Pro Controller is $70AU, Wii Mote + Nunchuk is ~$100AU, XBOne and PS4 controllers are around $80AU to $110AU excluding the premium SKUs. Fair to say there's a pretty healthy margin on those. But in any case the Switch Controllers aren't really any more complex than those. So lets say that the actual cost of the JoyCons and the dock is ~$100AU. I personally think it'd be less and I know now I've said that you'll claim it's a lot more. But lets just go with that for now.

At this point we're at $350AU but we have and underpowered GPU/CPU and half the RAM. We also have 4G, GPS and fairly decent pair of cameras we don't need. So lets say that the GPS, 4G and the cameras was about $70AU of that. So we're at $280AU and still in the black. Which leaves us with ~$120AU left to play with. Which would go into the extra 2GB RAM, 16GB storage and the higher spec GPU/CPU.

$400AU -> $360AU without tax -> $270US

@BiasedSonyFan @skywake

My wallet hopes you guys are right, but I just don't think you are. If this thing launches at $300 and it is true, as Nintendo said, that they're even selling it for a profit, then I'm gonna be REALLY concerned about the build quality/materials used, especially with those removable controllers. That's not even mentioning storage and the very real possibility that the dock is MUCH more than what you guys are making of it.

@rallydefault
You know the thing I don't get about the direction this thread has turned? There are a bunch of people saying 4GB of RAM is fine for a product of that sort of power/price. I'm one of them. Then there are a second bunch of people saying that 4GB of RAM is way too low for the power they want. And yet another group saying the higher price is going to be too expensive.

There's a simple solution to all of this. Accept the fact that this will not be a PS4 you can pocket. That instead it's something between the Wii U and the PS4/XBOne in terms of specs. Which is ok because it's something between the 3DS and Wii U in terms of form factor. If that's something you don't want? Then fine, don't buy it.

Ah yes. The "if you don't like, don't buy" statement. While true in essence, people can continue discussing the console and their desires and disappointments as they please. I for one enjoy the multiple viewpoints.

@Operative
I was probably a bit sharp but the point remains. If what you wanted was something as powerful as the PS4 for as low a cost as possible? You're not going to be happy because that's not what this is. If that's what you want there's this thing called the PS4 that exists.

Multiple viewpoints are fine. But what I don't get is the constant drone of people wishing the Switch was a PS4. That it needs more RAM because that's what the PS4 has. That it needs to attract ALL of the third party releases because that's what the PS4 has. That the portable aspect isn't something they care about. That they hope it has a fee for online so that they can get "free" games like on the PS4.

The answer to those sort of responses to the switch are simple. Clearly it's not what you wanted. Clearly what you wanted was the PS4. So don't buy the Switch, get a PS4.

@skywake it's more like "we want this console to have all the games we like, but that can't happen if they skimp out on hardware yet again". It's like, Nintendo has the potential to be the go to system, but they opt to be the secondary console again and again. It's sad to see.

That said, I personally will be getting one regardless. Doesn't mean I'm not disappointed with some aspects of it. And no, I don't just want a ps4, I want Nintendo to have a - home- console that is technically respectable in 2017. Hell, respectable in 2013 tech at least . As a portable, yeah it's great. But they themselves said they want people to think of it as a home console first.

@Operative
Frankly I don't think it matters what Nintendo want to call it. This is a portable system and there are therefore limits to what is possible. Yes the PS4 exists and is more powerful at a reasonable price. And maybe that's what people expect Nintendo to make for something they want to call a home console. But it's not the same.

The PS4 draws ~150W from the wall during games. Not a lot for something that can have active cooling and be connected to mains power. As a portable device? Even ignoring heat dissipation for a second. This thing will probably have something around a 15Wh battery. 15Wh/150W = ~6mins battery. For perspective the default Wii U GamePad battery was 5.6Wh and we know how long that lasted.

As soon as they made the call to make this portable? Matching that spec wasn't an option. Not without dramatically increasing the cost and size of the thing. As it is they've gone for a Tegra chip which in previous generations have managed 360-like performance in <10W. And if they continued progressing at that same rate? They're currently in theory at just under XBOne performance for <10W. All without breaking the bank.

So again, I think people asking for it to be something else are missing the point. If they want something else there are plenty of other options on the market. This is a different product. Asking for it to be both just highlights ignorance of what this thing is actually doing. People are basically asking for the GBA to be as powerful as the Gamecube. The difference is that this time the "GBA" is as powerful as the PS2 and can plug into your TV

From what I've heard, since the Switch will be using a Tegra chip, it would mean that the system would use an ARM architecture. The thing about ARM is that it tries to do simple goals and tasks as well as being power efficient which compared to x86 in consoles which tries to do a lot of things at once. I'm not a tech guy and correct if I'm wrong but 1 TFLOP in an ARM architecture could have the same equivalent to more than 1 TFLOPS in an x86 architecture. Again, I'm not a big tech guy, so don't count this as a fact