@Peek-a-boo Nintendo have been weird with bundles so I'm finding that a hard one to predict. Laura said that one of her sources told her what the bundled game would be but she refuses to publish anything that hasn't been verified by 2 separate sources at least, so we're in the dark on that for now. But from having arguably the most influential individual video game of all time bundled with the N64 ages ago, Nintendo's track record since has been hit-and-miss. From the cult classic Luigi's Mansion to the 3DS and Wii U having little to nothing (albeit I think Nintendo Land is a great little game but still) with of course Wii Sports in between it's hard to say. I'll be very surprised if BoTW of Super Mario Switch are bundled, the other Wii U ports seem more likely.
If this rumour is to believed then I would go for the £249.99 option and the extra storage. Laura has done really well with the other leaks so far, but again I'm reserving judgement until after the full reveal in January
£199.99 is a lot cheaper than I would've thought, being within range of the Wii and 3DS at launch. It makes me wonder what sacrifices are being made in terms of potential power, storage, etc. Nonetheless, I think it's a wise decision to retail at this price as the competition is getting ever cheaper, and they want to appeal to the broader market with a low entry cost.
£40 also seems reasonable for a pro controller, considering PS4 and XBO controllers were ~£50 at some retailers at launch. I'd love to see a "pro" bundle which includes the console, pro controller and extra storage.
Actually, on that point....bundles! There are so many good PS4 and XBO bundles these days that Nintendo really jump in on it. Nintendo have actually been fairly good with these in the 3DS and Wii U era. I hope to see a BotW launch bundle at the very least, maybe with a triforce decal on the joycons. I doubt this'd be the £249.99 bundle though.
After all this "we won't sell the switch at a loss", it seems weird that the price might actually be £199.
I mean the whole "not selling at a loss" seemed like it was prepping the consumer for a price that might be a little on the expensive side. I immediately pushed the £199 out of my bracket assuming that they wouldn't be able to hit that price point. It's great that they might possibly be able to, but it begs the question why bother with the "not selling at a loss" shtick, if they knew they could sell it this cheap
@dtjive well because assuming this is true and Nintendo weren't lying for no reason whatsoever then the obvious conclusion is that even the basic £200 model would sell at a profit. Not selling at a loss and being affordable aren't mutually exclusive, just incredibly difficult to balance in the majority of cases. Wii U was a case of Nintendo overestimating the appeal of their system and overpricing it based on how much it cost to manufacture, because they had to sell it at a profit considering how expensive it was to produce and the fact that it didn't have a paid online system or a rush of software to recoup the loss on each system. The fact that Nintendo can sell this system at an affordable price that still gives them a profit is a very good thing indeed.
@dtjive well because assuming this is true and Nintendo weren't lying for no reason whatsoever then the obvious conclusion is that even the basic £200 model would sell at a profit. Not selling at a loss and being affordable aren't mutually exclusive, just incredibly difficult to balance in the majority of cases. Wii U was a case of Nintendo overestimating the appeal of their system and overpricing it based on how much it cost to manufacture, because they had to sell it at a profit considering how expensive it was to produce and the fact that it didn't have a paid online system or a rush of software to recoup the loss on each system. The fact that Nintendo can sell this system at an affordable price that still gives them a profit is a very good thing indeed.
Yes, I appreciate that £200 and selling at a loss are not necessarily different things. That wasn't my point.
My point was that you'd normally expect that a line like "we won't sell this thing at a loss" is something a company would say to consumers to brace them for a somewhat expensive price point, not a price point that would be considered by most to highly affordable. Of course, maybe Nintendo said it so that it sticks out more in the mind of how much a great deal it is. Bracing people for a price point of say £299 to only then reveal that it's £100 cheaper could potentially send signals to the consumer than this price represents a massive bargain in comparison to a different view that "if its this cheap then it's probably got pretty lacklustre power/hardware"
@dtjive Yeah I can see where you're coming from, but IIRC the question Kimishia (or however his name is spelt IDK LOL I love abbreviations) answered was "will the NX be sold at a loss?" to which he replied "no, * insert loads of corporate BS here *". So in this case it wasn't Nintendo bracing anyone for an expensive system, but merely answering a question truthfully whilst sticking to Nintendo's strategy of having a blowout of info on this system (including the price) just 2 months before launch.
@dtjive@Shinion I don't think they'd consider it good PR to admit it's being sold at a loss.
But I suspect there are different ways of interpreting 'sold at a loss' and that various corporate number shifting techniques could be applied to make it fit that term, even if it was costing them to sell each unit.
Tl;Dr: Just because they said it won't be sold at a loss, doesn't mean it won't be.
Sub-£200 was my price point for the Wii U back in 2013, so I could be tempted into purchasing a Switch earlier than anticipated if it comes to fruition and the must-have unique games are there.
If I had to bet what game they'd bundle with every unit (assuming there's no new Wii Sports type equivalent) I would go with Mario Kart. One of the most popular series, little development costs, and a perfect introduction to the portable local multiplayer joy-con experience.
@gcunit Mario Kart would be a great bet although I'd also expect a more expensive bundle that comes with a Zelda skin for the system and BotW included.
As a side note, what total sales number at the end of the Switch lifecycle do we pin on this thing being determined as a success or failure? Given it's a system that will replace the 3DS (don't care what Nintendo says) and the Wii U, then I am thinking this has to be getting half the 3DS sales at least to make the unifying concept a success. That would also make it the most successful home console since the N64 (excluding the anomaly of the Wii).
As a side note, what total sales number at the end of the Switch lifecycle do we pin on this thing being determined as a success or failure?
We don't. We realise that the obsession with hardware sales numbers is silly and let Nintendo decide for themselves, as they're the only people that would have any idea of sensible targets for the system and software sales.
Why does there have to be a line between success and failure anyway? Isn't there some sort of middle ground?
@dtjive Very difficult question. For example, depending on who you ask, N64 and 3DS were failures. Success could be units sold, games sold profit gained, or some non-financial measurement...
...and I'm afraid Nintendo have very big boots to fill for this one. People's expectations are way too high, especially with the media screaming that this is "Nintendo's last chance" to capture a significant audience. As a wild estimate I'd maybe say anything less than 30 million would be a disappointment, and I truly hope the Switch would overtake the XBox One, factoring in the 3DS audience. I think, most importantly, Nintendo needs to regain it's place as one of the big three console manufacturers, which is something that is quite subjective and difficult to measure.
Why does there have to be a line between success and failure anyway? Isn't there some sort of middle ground?
Also this. Even in poor-selling consoles, we can find some successes. For example, the Gamecube and Wii U gave us many unique and beloved titles. N64, while the point where Nintendo started losing out to Sony, had a huge impact on the gaming industry in terms of 3D gaming and controls.
We don't. We realise that the obsession with hardware sales numbers is silly and let Nintendo decide for themselves, as they're the only people that would have any idea of sensible targets for the system and software sales.
Why does there have to be a line between success and failure anyway? Isn't there some sort of middle ground?
I agree that there will naturally be a middle ground- I didn't mean to suggest necessarily that there wouldn't be. But at what levels would you consider the Switch a success and a failure. For me I would say a definitive failure would be to not break the 20m barrier, and success would be to achieve at least 30m units.
I however disagree with the notion that fixation on hardware sales is silly. They give a clear indication to how many consumers were interested in the concept (at least to the extent that other variables such as a price, software availability etc. don't also influence the outcome), and the possible longevity of such a concept and more generally the future of Nintendo in the games market.
While everyone is discussing the potential price point of the Switch, I just wanted to highlight something else:
On YouTube, Nintendo insider Nate Drake released an excellent video comparing the PS4 remaster of Arkham City (Return to Arkham) to Arkham City on the Wii U. There's a distinct difference in the graphical fidelity of the two versions, but the video is worth watching if anyone in this thread is wondering why the current hardware wars is pretty pointless and Nintendo doesn't need to release a Xbox One/PS4-spec console.
The PS4 is 10 times more powerful than the Wii U (real-world performance of about 176 GFLOPS). The Switch is rumored to be 3-4 times more powerful than the Wii U. Watch the video, imagine the graphics upgrade, and imagine the ability to play those video games on the go.
Can't seem to find the video, but...
On that point, we're already seeing that graphics scalibility akin to PC gaming is making its way to consoles - with both PS4 and XBox coming in basic and "pro" versions, and with the XBox library increasingly merging with PC. If third parties are able to adapt their games to these, I see no reason why they can't do the same for the Switch. It also begs the question as to whether we could possibly see a more powerful revision, or a more powerful docked version, of the Switch in the future.
Sorry if this has been asked but I can't go through 353 pages of stuff to check and I'm tired of my threads getting closed down: What, if anything, do we know of the Switch having a web browser? I'm considering buying a new tablet but holding out in the case that Switch can be to tablets what the PSX was to music CD's and the PS3 was to Blu Ray Players. From what I understand, it's using tech typically in tablets/pc's so this would be a natural assumption to be included, no?
@LetsGoRetro We know nothing, but I'm 99.4% sure it will have one. It's a brave company that thinks it can achieve widespread market penetration in 2017 with a media device that doesn't have a web browser.
You guys had me at blood and semen.
What better way to celebrate than firing something out of the pipe?
@BiasedSonyFan Just had a look...the difference in graphics is quite noticeable, however the Wii U version looks perfectly enjoyable. I do hope we get something closer to the left for at home play, but the right is fine by me on the go.
@LetsGoRetro One would hope so! The Wii U browser was excellent, perhaps the best I've seen on any console, so I'd be disappointed if Nintendo didn't follow that up with the Switch.
Emily Rogers says Zelda is unlikely to be a launch title for the Switch. It has a higher chance of being a Summer 2017 title. The final version will also be harder than the version that was playable at E3.
Forums
Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread
Posts 6,281 to 6,300 of 69,786
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic