Nintendo Switch Teardown Suggests Production Cost Is Around $260 Per Unit

Dear, Tatsumi Kimishima. Please give us a price cut for next Switch bundle. We want another color variation too, not just only Black. At the same time, please ensure all the components inside should working fine. Thank you....

It was worth every penny, but has ruined me. I want so bad to be able to play P5 on my lunch at work. Being tethered to my TV at home is now inconvenient.

@NoxAeturnus Man I wish P5 was on Switch.

So far it's definitely worth every penny.

Got my fingers crossed for a new Sony handheld. Uncharted, Doom and MLB The Show on the go. Droooool.

Hm, that's a little surprising to me, honestly. I think the $300 is a pretty good price, it's the accessories that really drive the overall costs up.

@NoxAeturnus
Oh my gosh, yes! I just played Persona 5 for like 4 hours and it's already so good. Come on Atlus, let's strike a bargain. Make a PS4 version of the upcoming Shin Megami Tensei game for Switch, and port P5 to Switch! I mean, P5 was originally a PS3 game, and it's just a turn based RPG. I'm pretty sure the Switch could handle it.

Seems reasonable. This doesn't even take into account the $100+ million marketing campaign, tons of research and development costs/salaries and what they pay to have each unit manufactured and shipped. Plus, retailers aren't paying Nintendo $300 per unit. They have to make a profit as well. Even with all the units they have sold so far, I wouldn't be surprised if they were still in the red on this (not including game sales).

@Anti-Matter N64 yellow joy cons would be nice too

I gather that this is US$257 (AU$338)?

Well, no wonder it's so expensive in Australia (factoring in local taxes, a negligible profit margin for retailers, R&D, marketing costs, technical support etc.). I guess this makes the high cost of entry much more understandable. I wish there was more transparency regarding the production costs of high priced goods. It would actually make it easier to justify the cost of entry IMO (but of course competitors could just as easily exploit such information to their advantage).

Wasnt really worth the money so far for me. Have nothing to play right now until splatoon 2. Just wanted to know the feeling of being early adopter for once. From now on ill be waiting at least 2 years to buy a new platform. But i was expecting this so i can live with it.

That puts Nintendo in a bind, again. €330 is not mass market friendly. All we have is an estimate from one company that most if not all of us have never heard of before with no explanation as to how they arrived at $257. Is this taking into account mass production and bulk buying of components?

It makes me feel good that the unit I bought it actually worth right around what I paid. Unlike most everything else I buy that comes with a huge markup.

Was worth the $300

I firmly believe the teardown is wrong: It almost certainly takes nothing into consideration regarding mass production, bulk orders, and the huge discounts Nintendo would get for making various deals with all the companies manufacturing the parts. The price the teardown guys are talking about is probably closer to how much it would cost you to make a single Switch yourself if you could simply order in all the parts individually and assemble them together. So, let's not all immediately drink the Kool-Aid (without raising any questions whatsoever) and give Nintendo free ammo to go around justifying the relatively high price of the system. None of us work for Nintendo (presumably); therefor we should all "fight for the users", not the corporation.

This should shut some naysayers mouths. I guess I'm in the small percentage of people who thought the price was fine for a brand new system!

@NoxAeturnus omg P5 on switch. Sign me up. Lets make this a thing Nintendo.

I want green and purple joy con preash

If the production costs is $260 Nintendo are losing money on each unit. Development​ costs i suppose can be scraped back through game sales over time.

$260 plus tax, plus the cut the retailer received = selling at a small loss. They probably need to do it because this baby has to succeed. It's do or die for Nintendo.

Take no notice of these estimates. They don't take into account the wholesale price of components (not off the shelf), or the R&D costs - all of which are factored into the RRP.

Kind of interesting, isn't that almost the exact price it's selling for in Japan? Maybe it was US $267, whatever 39,800 Yen or there abouts amounts to.

So, anybody have a breakdown cost list by component? I'm curious what Nintendo could sell a hybrid, not a tribrid, for. Tabletop for 1 or 2 players and handheld mode only, no dock or Grip, for people who don't care about TV out. If they could sell that for $199, well there's your 3DS replacement easy peasy.

In defense of everyone complaining about the price, I'm not one of them, $299 is fine for a new console, I don't think they were ever saying $300 was too high b/c of production costs. Reasons being the Wii U failed miserably at that price point the past 3 years, the Wii kicked much butt at $249 hence setting the bar, or Switch is basically a handheld built around a tablet, and Nintendo's last $249 handheld had a 25% price cut to $169 after only a few months. So there were lots of reasons to price Switch at $249, but I don't think it's manufacturing costs were a big deciding factor in people's minds when making that argument. Oh, and all the $249 rumours. Rumours

When you consider UK taxes and import charges, Nintendo can't really be making any profit on units sold over here. Saying that, £280 really isn't a bad deal with everything included in the box. To buy all those bits and pieces separately would cost way more overall.

@Emperor-Palpsy They don't take the shipping, storage and retailer's cut into account either. We know that Nintendo is not selling them at a loss, and if you add these components as well, no way it costs $260 to manufacture a Switch. If that was true, either Nintendo or the retailers would be taking a huge loss. These numbers simply aren't accurate, they can't be.

I wish the media would think a bit more critical of things like this instead of parroting what they've read on another site or Tweet...

Nintendo refuses to sell at a loss. They have never said that they make bank with each system. I assume that they break even between wholesale price and the rise costs of import, tax, research and development, and retail sale.
I am not saying that Nintendo doesn't want to sell for profit, but that Nintendo doesn't need profit right now.

At least that is my thoughts.

@SLIGEACH_EIRE bs lol dude your a trip.

Considering we have seen developers say they are surprised Nintendo got the price as low as they did it will probably in the same ball park.

People asking for a £200 console are being unrealistic. There is just no way Nintendo could go that low. Even if they released a non dock SKU it wouldn't matter as the dock is dirt cheap.

@impurekind love your comment. Consumers should have consumer interests not corporate

You people who keep going on about price cuts in it's first month lol it won't and if they would they would take a cut lol must just started playing games to think that lol

@kobashi100 "Even if they released a non dock SKU it wouldn't matter as the dock is dirt cheap."

Really? $90 is cheap for basically a HDMI hub and a power point? If Nintendo's rip-off Switch accessories are anything to go by, Nintendo are probably making a tidy profit on the console.

@LordGeovanni your right they dont

@Fandabidozi
I'd like to see Sony create something to compete with the Switch/3DS. The Vita should have done well on all accounts but they just didn't bring enough AAA heavy hitters to move systems. I enjoy JRPGs so it's a great system for me, but that's a fairly niche audience in the west.
If they want to succeed they'll need more than watered-down ports and a decent Uncharted. If they could bring something like DOOM or Dark Souls on the go could really move units.

@Slim1999 I guess you are too young to remember the first days of 3DS. No worries, mate. Next time check how much you actually know about business.

@Slim1999 "bs lol dude your a trip."

Your debating skills are unrivalled and your grammar is top notch too.

@SLIGEACH_EIRE It's actually quite interesting to look at the dock's price. Looking at some decent quality USB-C to HDMI adapters they're priced at around $70 here in Australia, which is about $55 USD. The fact that there is a bit of plastic, whatever features to run power into the Switch, some USB ports, and Nintendo branding it isn't completely unreasonable to get to around the $90 mark, although it is still a bit on the high end.

If that is indeed their cost, then Nintendo is probably losing money on each console (almost all console makers do at launch), since Nintendo sell them at less than $299 to retailer, which have to make a decent profit, otherwise, they won't stock them.

But then you had to factor in Zelda, that's where Nintendo make their money...

@Jhena Wow you'll wait 2 years just so you can save a hundred dollars?? Each to their own but wow!

@NoxAeturnus blame Nintendo for this, for not securing 3rd party support.

@bionicdodo be prepared to use that line for a lot of games this gen.

@FTL Its not only the console that gets cheaper. I would have saved a lot of money and i wouldnt need to wait months to buy the games i want.

I've used my switch more in the last month then I've used my PS4 in the last year. I would have paid more for my switch then I did if needed. PS4 cost with game, 2nd controller, psn = $475.
Switch + Zelda + case and sd card = 420. And I've got some eshop games with the difference.

It would be nice to see that $257 broken down into different groups, such as screen, HD rumble, pointless rock,paper,scissors camera, Nvidia chip etc. I really want to know what it is driving it to be so expensive. Maybe Nvidia are rinsing them, or Nintendo have lost their touch at creating good value low spec hardware.

I don't know if this necessarily translates over into the Japanese market. They have been selling NS consoles for about ¥30,000, which is currently equivalent to about US$270.85. When the NS launched, it was a closer conversion to about US$261. So while the Yen has become a bit stronger over a month's time, the point is that the Japanese have been paying barely more than this reported $257 figure.

If it's true, then Nintendo has engaged in a rather defensive international strategy with a more aggressive home strategy, which was actually predicted by Forbes (although they undershot the ¥30,000 mark). They're barely going beyond breaking even for each Japanese console sold, while the real profit per unit is derived from everyone else in the world. (Buncha suckers! ) So while US$250 may have been too low, US$300+ is also too high. It should be US$270 or so to match the deals the Japanese have been getting, but NVIDIA isn't throwing any bones to Nintendo for import rates.

As for predicting 30 million consoles sold, that won't happen at the current restock rate. Even if they somehow managed an average monthly 1 million console restock rate, it would fall short. And of course, the most recent early April restock in the USA presumably fell way short of that. Chances are that demand will outpace supply during the holiday season, too.

Potentially tens or hundreds of thousands of game copies sat on store shelves throughout most of March because there weren't enough consoles to pair with them all. There's no signs that won't be repeated again this month, since there's no big releases until the end, and then that late April/early May restock will go fast with the MK8D copies, followed by another lull until late May/early June. It seems like that's going to keep happening up to the holidays, and unless they have a secret stash, momentum will be hard capped throughout the first year.

Enjoying every part of the switch. Its the best thing ever happened in gaming history in my opinion. Taking a console with you and playing it on the go is just genius. And then come home and enjoy even more.
Now i want some good RPGS, some MMO games, FPS games etc.
So yeah worth every penny.

Add assembly, packaging, distribution, and trade tariffs, and Nintendo are unlikely to be making much of a dime on selling the system.

@Slim1999

Care to explain why you think it's bs?

I'm happy so I don't really care much. However, I do forsee a price cut in the future and different SKUs.

So making their money back + $40 on every unit sold? Yeah, seems like it's priced about right to me. Nintendo just needs to make sure they continue to market it ambitiously (Read: Game Library along with 3rd party entries needs to expand). Price cut is not likely ANY time soon, but if they can sell enough, then that conversation can happen sooner than later. Guess we'll know for sure in about a Nintendo-year.

@Pod The only really significant current factor there is trade tariffs, especially in the US. (Mainly because the corporate take over of the government has resulted in policies that create further trade deficits.) If NVIDIA were more aggressively supporting Nintendo, a lower price could be managed, but instead, Nintendo feels they have to raise their guard to maintain a healthy profit margin. Still doesn't change that gaijins are Nintendo's cash cow per unit sold on NS consoles, though.

@SLIGEACH_EIRE @Danpal65 the dock is $60 direct from Nintendo

@chardir That's just the dock on its own. With the leads it's $90.

So... Shipping, taxes and store revenue adds 140$ per console here in Finland. Sounds nasty. :/

@impurekind
None of us work for Nintendo (presumably); therefor we should all "fight for the users", not the corporation

You act like we're fighting some oppressive fascist government regime.

Nobody needs to "fight" anything. It's a consumer product, no different than an alarm clock, frying pan or pair of socks. Buy it or don't. This isn't some epic struggle. It's a $300 console. If you wanna "Fight the good fight" in the hopes one day the price drops $30... knock yourself out.

I'll be over here playing video games while you do that

@PlywoodStick
The way I see it, there is no healthy profit margin to selling the Switch for Nintendo, there's just the absense of a direct loss.

As soon as they sell just one or two games, though. Then we're talking.

Okay fine, but they still should have used the X2 instead of the X1. Consumers would have paid the extra $20 and the system would be better.

@SLIGEACH_EIRE I mean the dock is dirt cheap to produce. releasing an SKU without it wouldn't make much difference.

@TheAdrock More like a $200 difference. Currently, Tegra X2's (technically Tegra P1, Parker) are being used in new cars like the Tesla, as motion detectors and visual computation for satellite controlled vehicles. The whole boards for those run at about $1500, so figure that the Tegra X2/P1 probably comprises at least 1/5 the price of that, and you have a SoC that's at least as expensive as the entire NS console.

@Pod So basically, Sony's traditional strategy. (Minus the early PS3, obviously.)

@Grawlog How is Setsuna? I've been thinking of picking it up but the price feels a little high to me.

@gatorboi352 Nah, there was never really any chance of P5 coming to Switch. SMT maybe. Honestly though, I don't think 3rd party support is as important as it was in generations past. Indie games can fill the gaps between Nintendo releases, and for everything else I'll have to own a PC or a PS4 anyway. There's no chance of Nintendo being a one-stop shop, and I think most people are realistic about that. My point was that Switch is a great second console, and if I had to choose a version of a game released on multiple systems, the hybrid concept is an unbeatable selling point for me.

@PlywoodStick Good call on the Tegra X2. That chip would be overkill in this machine. What would the battery life be? Half hour? Less? The expectations for Switch have been extremely unreasonable from the beginning: PS4 Pro power levels, portable/console hybrid, every 3rd party game, and a budget pricetag. All that's left to ask for is that it make my coffee in the morning and facilitate a manned mission to Mars.

@impurekind You're barking up the wrong tree, almost no one here really cares about consumer's or worker's rights when it comes down to it. Few take notice of corporate coup d'etats and inverted totalitarianism in governments, they only perceive classical totalitarianism. So who would perceive the ripple effects of trade policies that invoke higher prices and defensive countermeasures in many business sectors? There other environmental factors to consider, as well- these things aren't made in Japan anymore.

@WitherAway My thoughts exactly. If the manufacturing alone comes in at $30 below retail, then they are selling these at a loss.

It's funny how half the comments here are for P5 on Switch. I'll second that request! My P5 copy, collectors edition and all, will sit shrinkwrapped until next winter because it's not on Switch. I'd double dip so fast to get it on the hybrid!

I wonder what the deal is with persona, we've never heard that Sony funded yet, yet it's never, ever left Sony other than the Q spin-off? Maybe if we get Japan to demand P5 on Switch Atlus would actulaly do it Otherwise I suppose we can add demands to play BotW on PS4 along with our requests for P5 on Switch

@PlywoodStick I wouldn't call it a "profit", in fact I'd say nintendo is almost lying (barely) to Investors saying they're not taking a loss this time around. They might actually be taking a genuine loss in Japan. Outside Japan, just going by the US to keep the currencies near parallel (ignoring AUS and UK oddness etc.) $257 ACTUAL production cost, minus whatever discount to manufacturers before markup, land then factor in transportation and logistics, even before marketing, yeah this is really selling at a loss, and also explains why they might be slow to produce hardware if it's coming up as an expense.

@NoxAeturnus SMT has been Nintendo for a while. At this point SMT is as locked to Nintendo as Persona is to Sony. Which is just weird where the anime high school sim + semi-dark RPG is on Sony while the all-in gothic dark series complete with ritual sacrifice and mutilation is on Nintendo

Expectations for Switch were based on what each individual wanted it to be. The power crowd never cared about portability. They just wanted a Nintendo XBox to sit under the TV and play every game made on that one machine and they wanted it to have the best graphics of any version, and somehow are deluded enough to think that doing so would make Nintendo #1. Most of the portability crowd is thrilled with what we got. It's the first time EVER that the current handheld offers similar performance to the low end of the current home consoles. Hard to argue with that.

@PlywoodStick "More like a $200 difference. Currently, Tegra X2's are being used in new cars like the Tesla, as motion detectors and visual computation for satellite controlled vehicles. The whole boards for those run at about $1500, so figure that the Tegra X2 probably comprises at least 1/5 the price of that, and you have a SoC that's at least as expensive as the entire NS conso"

BUT BUT BUT They could have done it Nintendo's so cheap, they should have spent the money from the IR camera that costs like $0.20 and used that to have a better processor instead of gimmicks in the joycon, they should have used the super powerful Jaguar that PS4 Pro has, it's got so many Teraflops! So many....

I'm happy with my purchase of the switch. I can't ever hate on Nintendo for trying to make money off of the switch. It's smart business. The whole it needs to be cheaper to appeal to me is fine. I understand people with the price. Just can't stand the people who just complain about Nintendo making money off of the device. Makes no sense, of course they need too. The accessories are still pricey though.

@NoxAeturnus The battery life would actually be at least comparable, if not better, and doesn't necessarily run any hotter either, since a smaller architecture is used. The newest TX2 variation of the Tegra P1 only has a 3.5 watt TDP for the SoC, versus the 10 watt TDP that the Tegra X1 has. However, the price is nothing to sneeze at, to compensate:

http://linuxgizmos.com/nvidias-new-jetson-tx2-module-runs-linux-on-tegra-parker-soc/

@NoxAeturnus "There's no chance of Nintendo being a one-stop shop, and I think most people are realistic about that."

The problem is, this doesn't help Nintendo. Like, at all. You think their investors are content about that? No.

Fake news! The Wii U was sold at a loss.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/08/nintendo-wii-u-still-being-sold-at-a-loss/

@NEStalgia Yeah, there's a lot of factors that are in flux right now, with all the economic shake ups going on. However, I do think Nintendo must be finding a way to at least break even in Japan, and break even or better elsewhere. Nintendo is the last company I expect to pull a Sony.

And yeah, I do agree that Nintendo could have had a newer SoC if they really wanted to. But no one in the board of directors was willing to put out some "favors" for the NVIDIA board, so grumpiness and pent up feelings abounded. I would have expected more from Nintendo, they made 1, 2, Milk, after all...

@NEStalgia honestly chuckle at people who think that if Nintendo make a console that matches PS4 then all the third parties will flock to Nintendo and release games.

It's some real deluded thinking.

@PlywoodStick Fair enough. I don't know much about it (obviously), but the price is certainly prohibitive for now.

@gatorboi352 I think Nintendo's investors are happy to make money, are likely to find the early Switch sales promising, and aren't making their investing decisions based on 3rd party support. If Nintendo carves a profitable niche in the market, that will keep the investors happy; they don't need to be a one stop shop to be successful.

@Grawlog Good to know the reviews are accurate. I always try to take them with a grain of salt.

@LordGeovanni I would say this estimate is likely a little high, as Nintendo REALLY doesn't want to sell at a loss. On the other hand, it isn't necessarily too far off. Nintendo could break even (or take a marginal profit) in exchange for creating an install base that will drive massive software profits in the future.

If it's successful now, and the right software gets ported over, Nintendo will be able to turn a bigger profit on the hardware down the line. Right now it's all about building the audience to gobble up content that gets released for the thing.

The success of the Switch. It's all gonna come down to the games.

@PlywoodStick Still factor in logistics, warehousing, staffing, taxes, retailer discount....I'm finding a hard time seeing how that's a profit. Either that or this estimate is a wholesale price estimate and doesn't include any special deals worked out with nVidia (grovelling for ANY contract), which is probably some of it.

This doesn't even include R&D on hardware, and OS and network work! I'm stunned it's coming in so pricey for the price on sale (and everyone wants it cheaper!) The only reason it's not a bulk loss is R&D is being offloaded as general operation expense.

@gatorboi352 I think the business realities of the industry preclude Nintendo from being a one-stop shop, no matter if they wish they could be or not. The cash to pay EA for Battlefield comes from somewhere. Nintendo chooses to invest that in their own 1st parties instead of paying EA. If they tried to be a one stop and do both, they'd have operating expenses start multiplying, which would also not please investors. Microsoft's investors aren't exactly thrilled with XBox's infinite debt spending to float that platform along either. Id' wager Sony's investors are the only ones pleased with what their console division is doing. Trouble is the REST of what Sony is doing outside the Playstation division is a lot worse for investors that Nintendo not being a one stop shop Gunning for that position would be like when K-Mart tried to out-compete Walmart because they weren't content as #2. The amount of debt accrued in that attempt left them where they are now: on the verge of extinction and long irrelevant. I don't think we'd like to see the expenses required of Nintendo to try to gain that position. And they have no hope of outspending even a half-bankrupt Sony. Their only viable option is being the best different system they can and pull a different+2nd console audience. That's been their position for many years.

@kobashi100 And that's an understatement! By that logic GameCube and Dreamcast should have been the most successful platforms of all time and Playstation should be a forgotten footnote next to the Jaguar.

@JaxonH In many ways, we are. And the fight isn't what you said; the fight is this tendency for group-think, where someones says something that is really only in the interest of the big corporation and no one else, and then all the sheep believe it without ever questioning anything and then spread the same junk around to more people. And, at the end of the day that's not likely to result in anything good for us. In this particular example it makes everyone start to accept the price of the Switch maybe isn't so high after all, when it really is, and that could have a ripple effect where we never see a price drop because "apparently" it's as low as Nintendo could possibly price it without taking a loss—which is bull. So, yeah, there is a fight to be fought; and again, unless we all work in the best interests of these mega corporations, we should maybe be standing on the side of the paying customers.

@Fandabidozi the Vita was a great handheld put out by the wrong company. Sony strangled the Vita out the gate with expensive proprietary memory and I bet they would do the same thing in the future. I really doubt though that we'll ever see another handheld from Sony.

@impurekind
But too high to you is not too high to others. You say too high, but what makes that any more valid than the next guy who says not too high?

At the end of the day you're free to your opinion, but it seems to me you're intimidating others into adopting your opinion at risk of being labeled sheep who don't question anything.

And I think you're fighting an uphill battle if you expect to convince the masses that a $300 console is too expensive. I paid $350 for Wii U and $400 for PS4... you'll never convince me that $300 for a hybrid Switch is too much. I don't care if Nintendo benefits or not- I'm not interested in them. I'm only interested in me and my interests, and I say that's a deal. You can disagree, but you need to draw the line at insulting anyone who doesn't feel the same

@JaxonH That's like saying charging someone a million pounds for an ice-cream isn't too high because some douche somewhere can afford to spend that amount of money on an ice-cream. No, a million pounds is too expensive for an ice-cream—and I'm not even going to entertain the notion that you can debate such a thing.

I'm saying the Switch is a bit too expensive regardless of anyone one person's particular view or financial status: It's too expensive for most average gamers to want to fork out for, it's too expensive for most casuals to make an impulse buy or stocking filler, it's too expensive to convince most PS4 and Xbox One owners that it's worth getting as a second console, it's too expensive when compared to those consoles and what you get in the box for your money, it's too expensive for a handheld historically, and so on and on. . . .

Those things are not opinion; they're just factual truths.

Now, that doesn't mean the Switch isn't cool, or that it doesn't do some neat stuff, or that it being a hybrid isn't a bonus, or that it won't sell; it just means it's a bit overpriced, all things relative and considered—and most reasonable people actually agree (if you step outside of the Nintendo choir for a second).

@impurekind
Now you're just being arrogant.

$300 For a games console is not equivalent to a million dollars for an ice cream.

This is the cheapest home console to release in the last 10 years. And does twice as much.

So why don't you let people decide what's too expensive for themselves rather than you dictating it to them

@gatorboi352
Most Nintendo investors are content as long as Nintendo is developing a handful of mobile games every year, which they are.

@Fandabidozi doubt that since the 3ds buried the vita.

@JaxonH So, you are aware that there is a value difference between an ice-cream and a games consoles, but you struggle to understand how most people outside of the Nintendo choir could possibly think similarly regarding the price of the Switch relative to the many other factors they will in fact take into consideration when deciding if a console is worth their hard-earned cash?

And, this "cheapest" home console comes with only 32GB internal storage vs the 500GB and 1TB on the other home consoles, doesn't come with a single bundled game (unlike the other systems, which often come with two these days), and is an entire generation behind the other consoles in terms of power (and more so once the likes of Scorpio release). And, it's actually more expensive than the normal Xbox One and PS4 consoles, which very much released within the last ten years.

@impurekind lol 2 million already afforded it.many more in wait.if you can't afford a switch then Sony and xbone need to price drop since they are the same price.lol there is one thing you didn't add one big word that people forget about.SAVE!!! I started saving for the switch after the tease we got and guess what.preorder time I had enough for the switch,Zelda and bomberman lol

@impurekind
So You speak for 100 million people now?

Interesting

@Slim1999 14 million afforded the Wii U; that doesn't translate into everyone accepting it was great value for money, or had the best games library, or was an awesome machine without issues, or whatever else. And those other consoles are perceived by most to simply be better value for money, regardless of what the Nintendo choir is singing.

@JaxonH I speak for the entire planet—apart from the ten or twenty million most hardcore and loyal Nintendo customers.

@impurekind
And now you're just being ignorant

@JaxonH Or honest.

@impurekind It's a company selling luxury entertainment consumer electronics and content. And based on the production costs they're doing so for little money, if not paying you to take it. Accessories may be premium priced, games may be appropriately priced or not, but there's not really a war to wage against a company selling luxury goods at commodity prices. Your outrage may be better used against individual game prices, DLC or included content than the pricing of the hardware given how much it actually does cost to make.

It's hard to be a "truth" that a $300 hybrid switch is too expensive to convince PS4 and XBox One owners that spent $400 3 inflation-years ago to buy one (roughly the cost of 5 launch day games) , or too expensive for "casuals" that don't mind shelling out $600+ on an iPad. Some will decide it fits their budget, some will decide it doesn't. There's no universal truth in that. The only truth is it's a piece of tech that's selling for roughly what the materials cost to deliver to your retailer plus a retailer markup, which is actually quite cheap for what it is. Out of all the threads one could complain about hardware price, this is the one where it finally makes no sense at all.

Ultimately the only "truth" we're getting from this is that you personally dislike the switch, you see very little value in the device, and you therefore don't see it as a valid machine if it's not sold at bargain basement prices, regardless of the expense of the tech of the machine itself. It's fine to feel that way, but you certainly can't "speak for the entire planet". Particularly a planet in which mobile tech is the biggest growth sector in the electronics industry, and this machine is the most performant portable video game console to date. If Nintendo manages to make it fail, it comes down to their inability to market water in a desert successfully, not the value of the machine for the current marketplace.

@impurekind
I speak for the entire planet

No, I think ignorant pretty much sums it up.

@JaxonH That's what you think—I know better.

@NEStalgia You mean "based on a slightly misguided lie".

And the "truth" that you seem to struggle to grasp here is that the Switch is basically over three hundred pounds with a game, here and now, while the other consoles (in the standard models) cost roughly the same, if not less, usually with two bundled games, here and now. And, those consoles are far more powerful, roughly an entire generation ahead graphically, and also have 500GB-1TB of internal storage included too, as well as already supporting basic/standard features and services like game streaming, Netflix, fully developed online services, etc. Plus, just in terms of consumer confidence alone, at least people can be sure they're going to get all the games they expect to see on those other consoles too.

Saying the Switch is a hybrid isn't going to matter/mean much to most of them, even as cool as that feature is.

That is the truth, whether you fully grasp it or not.

Is that a bit easier for you to understand now?

@Interneto guess your to young since I wasn't talking about handhelds lol besides that I got a SNES at launch which they didn't price drop that for almost the end of SNES right before the 64 came out in September 1996.but thanks I feel younger now at 36 then before I read your comment.with that in mind first console I owned was the 2600 and pac man was my first game ever,I bet you wasn't even born yet.BTW the Wii u is still 299 same as day one:)I'm a 80s kid which was a lot better then being a child today!!

@JudgeMethos I agree the price is very reasonable you would have spent nearly as much for a 3ds back in the day (circa2012) considering it is a much more powerful system with room to improve. If more where around I'd get another one honestly.

@impurekind
Of course you do. You know everything. You know better than market experts, you who says the cheapest console in a decade is like a million dollar ice cream. You who says every person on the planet all share the exact same ridiculous opinion as yours, you who thinks the whole world thinks exactly like you, except "those Nintendo fans" as if every person who buys Nintendo products are somehow a different breed of human being altogether.

You've got it all figured out.

@JaxonH I've got some of it figured out; like the fact the Switch is a bit over priced for most people—even people who might go out and spend pretty much exactly the same amount on a new Xbox One or PS4.

@NoxAeturnus based on what you wrote, I think you don't understand how investors think.

I think Nintendo knew to fly as close to the edge as they could. My feeling is that the accessories are where they are making more margin. Obviously price of production will fall as volume increases and technology cost decreases as long as any of their tech is not something too bespoke as with the wii u.

I felt that the Switch was priced a little high, not for a launch price per se (or for the rather awesome console) but just to persuade users to jump on board, particularly as a second console.

@impurekind
Hmm... perhaps you could share the groundbreaking evidence that states as much? Perhaps the national poll you conducted that indicates the majority of people looking at buying a gaming console think $300 is too much for a console that also functions as a handheld.

Since you've got it figured out, perhaps you can enlighten the rest of us. You must have evidence to so boldly proclaim these things as fact. Please, do share.

@PlywoodStick "More like a $200 difference [for Tegra X2 over X1]",
Perhaps, but I'm skeptical of that number. I'm suggesting that given leveraged purchasing (at least 30 million units), they could have gotten us the X2 if they raised the retail price by ~$20 and forget about trying to make a profit, just break even. Tesla cars aren't selling 30+ million units — I'm just supposing that they could have made it happen, and the system would be better for it.

@impurekind , "the relatively high price of the system",
When adjusted for inflation the original NES with ROB in 1985 would today cost $330.
Its not a scientific survey, but everybody I've spoken to (not N fanboys, just parents around the soccer field etc) have all commented how $300 is a deal for a portable console.
Please explain your perception of "high price".

@gatorboi352 Investors want a return on their investment. Where was the 3rd party support on Wii? During that era, "built from the ground up" was a nice way of saying "the system isn't powerful enough to handle the full version we're releasing on other machines." Yet sales were fine and investors were happy despite not seeing most of the big third party games released on other systems at the time.

Switch is carving a niche for itself much as 3DS did. I don't expect much parity between the game collections on Switch and PS4/XBox, but it can still be profitable. If it's profitable, investors don't care what games are on the system.

@NoxAeturnus "Where was the 3rd party support on Wii?" uh, Wii (the original Wii, mind you) had Call of f***ing Duty on it for christs sake.

@westman98 no, investors are content when Nintendo is making Wii-like profits. Which, in today's day is only achievable via mobile games (in their minds). Basically, Pokemon GO is what is acceptable level of profits for investors. Too bad most of those investors only invested in Nintendo and not the Pokemon company as well.

@TheAdrock My explanation is everyone else. lol

@JaxonH You go figure it out and do your own survey, if you need to that much.

Ditch the motion controls!

@impurekind The early adopters from the Playstation and XBox camps are used to paying $400-600 for a new console. $300 is pocket change to early console adopters that you're convinced won't want it as a second console due to price.

You were doing this prior to launch as well, comparing a LAUNCH console against 3 year old consoles price points that have already been superseded by other models. It doesn't work that way. By your own logic the PS5 and XBox Two will have to be $249 or less because it will have to be cheaper than the Switch in 3 years. And woe is the PS4 Pro and Scorpio buyer paying $400 when Switch is already down to $300! If you want to say Switch is a new generation console then the PS5 and XBox Two will have to compete lower than its price. If you want to say Switch is a mid-generation rehash over WiiU, then it's competitors are PS4 Pro and Scorpio on the price front, the two other mid-gen rehashes. Either way, you're comparing apples and cheeseburgers to arrive at a result that meets the value comparison that works for you. By that logic, by the time we're on the PS8 every console will be $5 or less because each successive console must be cheaper than the lowest clearance price of the models that came before it!

Those consoles are not "a generation ahead" in power, the X1 is modestly ahead of switch and PS4 is modestly ahead of X1. They come with 500GB+ 5200RPM 2.5" spinning platter hard drives...not exactly high tech, high performance, or high cost items. The Pro and Scorpio are considerably more powerful. They're also 25% more expensive. And the point you're missing is they're NOT competing in the mobility market, while the Switch is. Very different products that overlap over certain demographics. You're assuming Switch is marketed at people who are buying a PS4 Slim at $250 today. No, those are the late adopting holdouts that waited over 3 years for a price drop. Switch is being marketed at people who aren't interested in the PS4 at ALL, as well as the people who are into games they've had the PS4 for over 3 years and paid $400 for it. The people waiting for value priced consoles 3 years into the life cycle are not the Switch's launch year customers. They can get those customers in 3 years with a value priced Switch set, just as Sony/MS did.

Your statement that $300 machines are too expensive for people who would buy $400 machines is an odd nonsequitur.

You know we had some nice conversations prior to launch and you had me convinced you weren't really trolling, just a skeptical fan, but going by your nonsensical arguments here, right down to "I speak for the entire planet" either you woke up on the VERY wrong side of the bed, or your only purpose today is genuinely to troll.

You've pretty much decided that mobile tech costs too much therefore the market doesn't want it and would rather have more powerful stationary computing hardware, despite the fact that the the electronics and PC markets as a whole show a very, very different reality. Mobile costs more than stationary. Always has, always will. Yet it's very much in demand. The fact that this very article shows us they're not turning much, if any, profit on hardware, is your evidence that, yes, mobile is a tradeoff of higher price lower performance. Just as every smartphone, tablet, and ultrabook shows us. Consumers want mobility and convenience and by and large have demonstrated a willingness to pay for it. The "millennials" target group from the early Switch ads are a group of whom many have never even SEEN a beige box desktop computer. "Computers" are all mobile in their world, and a "set top box" is a paradox to them.

Just because YOU don't have a use for it, doesn't mean Apple and Sumsung should start caking out beige boxes and discontinue their mobile products to appeal to your sense of value, and neither does Nintendo need to release a set-top box for the same reason.

Not sure why you're so cranky about this all of a sudden, especially right in the thread that shows they're NOT overcharging. But your statements on the matter are going waaay overboard even compared to some of your earlier grumpy posts.

@gatorboi352 Considering that Nintendo topped stock trading value in 2016 in Japan with $158 billion (~4x higher than 2015), Nintendo's investors must have been happy.

I don't know where you got the "Nintendo investors are only satisfied with Wii-like profits or bust" idea. Nintendo would need like 3 or 4 simultaneous Pokemon Go-level successes to reach their Wii/DS heyday. Not going to happen, no matter how deluded some investors may be.

@gatorboi352 So did the WiiU at first...but CoD was virtually the only multiplat support Wii got, along with the sports titles. WiiU did better for 3rd parties for the first year, but that didn't last long (predictably.) It's been over 15 years since Nintendo last had realistic multiplatform support, and in the era prior "multiplatform" wasn't as significant a thing as it is now. One can argue that influence is waning anyway outside it's existing niche. The indies market is growing fast, even on PC.

You're right about investors (or specifically traders) and them wanting flash value from mobile, but Nintendo's investor portfolio thankfully consists largely of large share holding large organization investors, in part due to their high trading price (not easy for traders to soak up a lot of Nintendo stock), and it's a good stable money sink for banks and funds. It churns a steady profit and is never too volatile. For some of the BIG stakes holders, that's more than enough. Even skimming a quarter percent off a big chunk of shares is worth it at those prices. It's the traders that make all that noise about mobile. Some companies are controlled mostly by the noisy traders. Nintendo has a quality investment base. All the traders could sell all at once and Nintendo would show a few percent value drop. Remember, for them, even the WiiU turned a (very slight) overall profit. Nintendo might not be a high yield company for fast earnings seekers, but if you've got about a billion to sink into an investment, the company that turns a profit even when they catastrophically fail is an attractive place to put that billion

@TheAdrock The problem with X2 isn't just the cost. The cost is high because of the low production yields. Most of the dies made get binned. The manufacturing tech just isn't there for large scale mass production of them yet. They can't sell them cheap because most of what they produce they dump or bin out as lesser parts. They can make enough of them that the yield is good enough for ~$200 chips for boutique super-luxury and industrial products but they really couldn't churn them out fast enough for a Nintendo-size market even if they wanted to. By the time they can they can probably do it for either a Switch 2 or a New Switch mid-gen bump. But it's a few years off for that I think. If they'd tried it we'd very likely face Wii/NESMini type production shortages. Right now it's just scaling supply to meet demand, but with X2 it might have been a case of "we're actually not making ANY this month because we're waiting for another shipment of X2s"

@impurekind "I firmly believe the teardown is wrong: It almost certainly takes nothing into consideration regarding mass production, bulk orders, and the huge discounts Nintendo would get for making various deals with all the companies manufacturing the parts."

Why do you think it certainly doesn't? They've predicted a certain level of sales along with the estimate which implies they're taking it into account 30 millon of them being produced within a time period.

If they've made a sales/production estimate, it would make no sense for their build cost estimate to not take into account the rate of production and bulk purchasing. It would be a possibility that they could have just estimated the build cost of a single unit, it'd make no sense and you'd likely pretty much just wanted it to be cheaper in the first place to "firmly believe it", which considering you've been arguing as if its "overpriced" it is likely to be the case.

@gatorboi352 Call of duty and? Come on, you can't really be arguing that Wii had real 3rd party support? A lot of devs churned out a version of a game to try to make a quick buck on the big install base, but the quality was terrible. Wii's gems were mostly Nintendo, and the majority of the rest was shovelware. Lack of 3rd party support is not an instant sales killer, and investors want to see profits. Nintendo is providing that. @NEStalgia gets it.

@NoxAeturnus look, at the end of the day nothing matters if Nintendo fans (the ones that actually still buy Nintendo systems) continue to not buy into anything other than 1st party titles.

Ironically, that's what has Nintendo the company in last place any more: their own (dwindling) fan base.

I have seen a lot of people question the estimates.
Has anyone joined the site and read the full article?

@gatorboi352 The Wii had a CoD 3 port and then got CoD 4: MW two whole years late.

The Wii's success was almost exclusively down to Nintendo's 1st party games and the biggest third parties were actually responsible for the systems reputation as a shovelware machine.

https://pietriots.com/2010/12/17/the-3rd-party-wall-of-shame/

Whether Nintendo's system succeed or not is down to their 1st party software. Ever since the 5th/6th gen whenever a Nintendo system is a success there's more third party support, not the reverse, the Wii wasn't a success because it had a bunch of late ports, third party shovelware and lousy spin-offs of big western third party titles.

@gatorboi352 You're right that the Nintendo customer base not buying a lot of 3rd party games is a part of that cycle, but it's also an issue that Microsoft makes their console ABOUT 3rd party games. Sony didn't used to but has started doing the same, this year they've come back more to their platform being about the exclusives though, and letting third parties come to them because they're popular. Nintendo has never made their console about the third parties except for certain key partners such as Capcom and Atlus.

But the second part is a misconception (common around here and elsewhere.) Nintendo is "last place" of what? Earnings? Nintendo made money, XBox has never made money, they lose a LOT of money. As a business Nintendo's a lot healthier than XBox's division within Microsoft. "Last place" of install base? Everyone ignores that both Sony and Nintendo sell two gaming platforms, Microsoft sells only one. MS refuses to tell anyone the X1 install base (apparently it's not worth boasting about) but estimates put it at or around the 25M mark. PS4 is around the 47M mark, and poor WiiU was around the 14M mark. WiiU was in last place among those three, certainly. But NINTENDO was not. XBox's 25M is all they've got. PS4+Vita+PSP (Sony refuses to release Vita numbers either, so they combine it with PSP) add about 10M, so Sony had about 57M installed. Nintendo had 14M WiiU + 65M 3DS. that doesn't even include the lingering Wii & DS sales since even against lingering 360 & PS3 sales would be unfair to Sony/MS), so 79mil or so for Nintendo.

Not exactly last place as a platform vendor, merely as a comparison of a select 3 platforms from across 3 companies.

Assuming that this estimate is correct, I can now see why Nintendo decided not to bundle 1-2 Switch with the console. I'm just going to take this as truth so it's justified in my head. I was a little frustrated before, but of course, none of us have really any idea what exactly goes on when these deals are made and we really need to trust that they have the consumers best interest in mind. If it was practical financially then of course we would have gotten a bundled game day one..

What happened in here?

@NEStalgia , interesting, presumably your claims are correct that would make sense.

@TheAdrock If Nintendo had done that, the NS would have better stats all around, but it would have ended up like the early PS3 did for Sony if BotW didn't pay off. Kimishima must not have thought that risk to be worth it. As NES-Tea has mentioned, as well, it's not difficult to calculate Nintendo already taking a loss on each console if you factor in a whole bunch of other things. Although if we do that, we may as well start weighing the ecological costs of everything, as well... Maybe that's not a bad idea, though!

@NEStalgia So much logic and facts, and still certain people are fighting...

(takes off hat and bows)

And to think I was just planning on coming over to this thread to comment that when you factor in distribution cost, VAT/taxes and a profit margin for the retailers, that this price seems quite realistic and sensible, but then I saw the discussions turn sour...

Man, how people can get so invested into something that's just a luxury item that is yours only by choice and is never a life or death item that you so desperately need to survive, is completely beyond me. Buy it or don't buy it, but don't fabricate intricate, delusional facts to support claims of why it is expensive, because it's not.

And this annoying nuisance that is the "and it doesn't even have a 500GB hard drive" complaint also keeps popping up. A prime example of misunderstanding and selective memory if anything.

The Switch is cartridge based, it DOESN'T need a hard drive since there are next to no mandatory installs, safe for a couple of patches and the odd bit of DLC, for which the already available 32GB will be more than enough for years to come.

So, UNLESS you're a sucker for digital-only, that "problem" is a complete non-issue that should be buried along with all the other idiotic and misinformed statements on what the Switch "should" have been...

Yègh!

@impurekind I agree with the point in your first post. However, for your other posts...

https://twitter.com/poevil/status/820940815455268864/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.rocketnews24.com%2F2017%2F01%2F18%2Fhow-expensive-is-the-nintendo-switch-really-japanese-twitter-compares-it-to-35-other-consoles%2F

Those are the launch prices of the major consoles in Japan to date. As you can see, the NS launched for about ¥10,000 less than both the PS1 and PS2, and about ¥5,000 more than a whole bunch of Nintendo systems, including the Super Famicom and 3DS. The NS also launched for about ¥5,000 more than the PSP. So historically speaking, the NS is being sold for a pretty damn good deal in Japan. It's everywhere else that's paying above it's pedigree, setting aside behind-the-scenes factors into pricing. (As you well understand, most customers don't care about what drives the decision making behind console expenses. They care how much their wallets will lighten.)

@NEStalgia I agree with the conclusions of steady state economics, so I understand the rationale behind factoring in environmental and whole process costs. One cannot truly calculate the cost of a product without weighing in "cradle to grave" versus "cradle to cradle" philosophies, plus using the laws of thermodynamics to account for limiters on growth. But I think that goes way beyond the scope of a price estimate based on a teardown.

@Ryu_Niiyama Dunno but my bingo card is looking real good...

@NEStalgia @TheAdrock Speaking of prices based on inflation:

http://m.ign.com/articles/2016/10/04/comparing-the-price-of-every-game-console-with-inflation

Apparently, early adopters were paying $445+ for the NES and $790+ for the Atari 2600 based on 2016 US dollars. Interesting figures, but I think that's more an indication of the inevitable collapse of the debt-based American financial system rather than any kind of insight on relative value.

Keep in mind that is probably a top price, if you buy in bulk, as Nintendo would, then electronic components get a bit cheaper.

@SLIGEACH_EIRE no, but it also isn't taking into consideration R&D, marketing, etc., all of which drive costs up (funny how these things are always left off when people try to pick nits), so we'll just have to accept this ballpark figure for what it is: an educated guess.

Gosh Nintendo, way to be greedy /s

It feels good to know that your money is going into an actual product, not a company's profit margins.

I was looking forward to reading the comments section on this story and I was not disappointed. Great read 😂😂

It's one thing for Nintendo to be greedy, and another one for the US to be such a bunch of cheapskates xD Jesus. In Europe we pay between 330 and 400 euro for a Switch. 330 euro being from Amazon.de as the cheapest solution I've seen so far (and ofc shipping is only free for Germany ). 5 seconds of google searching and I found one at Bestbuy for $299. That's freaking 280 euro. The normal price at a freaking market chain is equivalent to Europe getting a 50-100 euro price drop on the console.

Stop being so cheap, and pay up. Nintendo deserves it. This console has been amazing so far, and worth every damn cent.

@Blizzia Your mistake is assuming that direct currency exchanges work at the consumer level. They don't. They are fine for global trade, but the value of a dollar in relation to a euro says nothing to the average pay rates, cost of living, and general affordability in a given area. Even in the US alone, heck in even in a single state just a 100 miles apart there is a drastic difference in the 'true' value of a dollar.

Even then, none of that takes into account perceived value, which will be up to the individual to decide. Each person wants a different thing from a game console, for example I don't feel the Switch is worth that much because it doesn't have the features I would use, that obviously isn't true for you because you say it is worth every cent. Neither of us is wrong on that, but I won't be buying it till it has had probably 2 price drops.

@capitalism "I was looking forward to reading the comments section on this story and I was not disappointed."

They never disappoint...this one's had it all, laughter, tears and a whole mountain of delusion in between. Even the trolls got rattled which made me laugh.

@Alshain01 Money is money. Whether a country has better pay rates or not is something I couldn't care less about. Value doesn't drop just because someone landed a poor job. Harsh, but true.

Fact of the matter is the US has a great price point for the Switch, and people who complain are cheapskates. I'd love to have more features on the Switch, heck, anyone would. But we're getting those over time. Free of charge.

Now, whether it matches each individual's perceived value or not, is, as you say, completely subjective. I agree. And I'm pretty sure Nintendo doesn't fork over ~$260 per unit, so they're obviously still earning a good bit per unit, but still. The US pricing is in the good end, and complaining about it is just absurd, in any other case than a "wish it was cheaper because my wallet is empty" case. "Wish it was cheaper because it is too expensive" is entirely different.

Is it worth it to everyone? Probably not. If you want to wait for 2 price drops, I'm fine with that. You'll probably get better value out of your money, because the Switch will have more features, a bigger games library and more stability (kek), as well as come at a cheaper price. Personally, I can't live without gaming, and at the current point in time, the only solid gaming I can do is on the go. And sometimes I just want to play home console games, and not pixelated 3DS games (no offense to the non-pixelated games who look gorgeous. But Monster Hunter is still pretty much a Minecraft look-a-like on the 3DS xD).

So my perceived value is far higher than yours, which justifies a purchase (not related to pricing at all, just how much value one personally gets out of it), and it makes perfect sense for you to wait till your perceived value is high enough to justify a purchase.

@PlywoodStick This is not about what stuff cost relative to the year it was launched; it's about what the Switch costs relative to the competition and in the here and now. It's utterly irrelevant to 99.999999% of people what something like the NES cost with inflation when considering whether to buy a Switch or not. As far as most people thinking about buying a new system are concerned, the Switch is a relatively expensive console compared to the competition (especially once they take into consideration that they absolutely will need to buy a game and almost certainly an additional memory card too), and likely beyond the interest or reach of most of them right now. And, I'm also saying I do not believe for one second that it costs Nintendo that much to make each unit.

@NEStalgia What the hell is wrong with you people?

This is not about what it cost to buy one of those other consoles at launch three years ago (or how much it might cost to buy say a NES today if we consider inflation, or any other crap like that); this is about how much the Switch costs right now vs how much the likes of an Xbox One and PS4 cost right now, and what you get for that price.

Switch is £279 with zero games and a paltry 32GB of internal memory, and well over £300 (usually edging toward £400) once you factor in the cost of your first game (and surely you want at least one game with the system) and the additional memory card you're near certainly going to need.

https://www.console-deals.com/nintendoswitch/

A PS4 Slim with two bundled games and a 500BG hard drive can cost at low as £229. And, the PS4 is far more powerful than a Switch too, and graphics is commonly something most people care more about than something like the unique features of the Switch. Christ, you can get a frikin' PS4 Slim with no games and 500GB hard drive for £199.

https://www.console-deals.com/ps4/

Anyone that isn't a total fanboy or utterly ignorant casual noob is seriously going to have pause choosing a Switch over a PS4 in this kind of scenario. And obviously the same applies to Switch vs Xbox One too.

Ergo, the Switch is relatively expensive, and that's how most people will surely see it, and that's what I'm saying in regard to this particular point.

This isn't rocket science.

Also, I don't believe it costs as much as $257 to manufacture a single Switch system either, which is what the firm in this article is claiming.

@ECMIM R&D has already been accounted for.

@PlywoodStick @NEStalgia @JaxonH
Your efforts are truly commendable... Let me chime in:

@impurekind
You're asking the wrong question, I believe, and this might be the reason why people here don't get you.

You're assuming that the only people that could possibly be interested in the Switch are people that do not own any other console at the moment and haven't owned one in a while, and only right now are thinking about getting one, any at all, no matter the concept (stationary vs. hybrid). And I think that while there might be a small minority like this, it will not be the relevant group.

The only larger group with similar thoughts may be parents getting something for their kids right now and having to decide what they want for them, and they will probably neither know or care about the GPU power or hard disk size, but think about versatility and family-friendliness.

Your whole argument that the Switch "is too expensive in comparison to [insert other system of choice here]" is irrelevant. Because what you're forgetting is that there is really no competition between the systems: People that want ONLY a stationary console with lots of GPU power already have a PS4 and will think about getting a PS4 Pro before they think about the Switch at all. Such people are completely out of the equation, and they do not have to think about the Switch or its price point at all.

People that want to play not only at home, but also on the go, will have to consider if they buy a hybrid, or a home console and a tablet/handheld separately, while the second option limits them to playing different games at home and on the go. In fact: Only now do they have such a choice! And a separate system means separate games and separate costs (so which will ultimately be more expensive?).

It's one of the Switche's strongest selling points I believe: I can continue on the go whichever game currently excites me most, instead having to resort to "smaller" games on the handheld (which are also purchased separately) until I get back home.

The Switch with its concept is thus not competing directly with the other consoles, so there is no need to compare prices. Ultimately it will always come down to an INDIVIDUAL personal opinion/decision about one individual product: Is the asking price for what is on offer worth it to ME? And for most people here that is apparently a big YES. Reasons may vary.

Personally I do sincerely believe that the price is absolutely fair for what we get (and what we will still get in its lifetime).

My favorite analogy when I am pondering the price tag of new entertainment stuff: If I don't have a problem spending 10-15 € for a movie ticket (two hours of passive entertainment, making that 5 € per hour of fun at the lower end), I cannot seriously claim that games (or gaming systems) are too expensive. They're even interactive and offer countless hours of entertainment and enjoyment. Heck, even if the Switch was only a Zelda-machine, it would already have been worth its price by this analogy (110h and still going strong). And there is so much more to come. I own it only for a month, and already it's fulfilled its lifetime promise, from here on it will only keep giving...

Sure, it's only an analogy, basically a reminder to myself to check my own values before I complain, but for me it works.

@JunkRabbit nicely put.

@gatorboi352 If Nintendo's handheld and console divisions are truly merged, then we should see enough first party games, all they have to do is spread out the release schedule, which they've done. Third parties will jump on board if the sales are strong enough, and their games will sell if they're of good quality, but it's the first party games that sell systems. Wii was a shovelware machine showcasing the worst aspects of third party support, but 3DS, and DS before it had many third party gems. I think Switch's future games library will look more like 3DS than Wii or PS4. Parity really doesn't matter unless directly competing with Sony/MS, and quite frankly you're right that Nintendo can't compete directly with PS4. MS can't even compete directly with PS4. What you're not understanding is that they can choose not to play that game and still be successful instead of banging their heads against a wall trying to claim someone else's market like MS is doing.

@NEStalgia As @electrolite77 said, hat tip to you for your more detailed posts.

@JunkRabbit Even without knowing any specific details about the inner workings of the systems, the average consumer walks into a store and sees a Nintendo branded Switch with no game for £280 (or with a game for £310-£330), and next to it a Sony/PlayStation branded PS4 Slim with no game for £200-£240 (or with two games for £230-270)—and then they asks the person who works in the store which one is the most powerful, and which has the most games for it, and which is most popular, and which one they would recommend, and other typical stuff like that . . .

You figure it out.

https://www.console-deals.com/nintendoswitch/

https://www.console-deals.com/ps4/

PS. I have a huge problem with spending the £8-£10 they usually ask for watching a movie in the cinema these days.

@impurekind

You haven't read my post completely, have you? I admit, it's long, sorry for that, but please do read it before replying.

You've missed my second most important point, which is funny, because I put it at the very top: You're still assuming that the "average consumer" is someone who doesn't own anything of the sort yet (neither console, handhald, tablet or PC), and has a) already made up their mind that they want only a stationary console, but is b) otherwise completely uninformed.

The issue with this concept of yours, upon which your whole argument is based, is not only that it partially contradicts itself, so that I do not believe that such a person exists.

If a) were true, it would only prove my point that they need not think about Switch in the first place, so this "average" consumer of yours is irrelevant for Nintendo, and incidentally also for your own argument really, because to them there is no benefit of the hybrid concept (the concepts do not compete!). They do not need the unbelievably small form factor, the built-in screen (which is extremely good by the way) and battery, or the detachable controllers. But because that is so, a comparison between the systems and their prices is utterly futile and pointless.

And if b) were true, which in this day and age I believe might only be the case for grandparents buying for their grandchildren, i.e. the consumer walking into the store is so utterly uninformed that they do not take into account the various different factors that can influence a gaming experience (stationary vs. handheld, or the most basic question: what sort of games do I prefer to play!?), the first question would certainly not be "which is the most powerful?", as they wouldn't have a concept of why this should be important in the first place. They would rather ask "which is the best" or "what's the difference. Then it's up to the sales person... but that's another story.

You underestimate the average consumer, I believe. Unless you're referring only to children, to whom schoolyard bragging rights are the most important thing in the world. Then again, these are hardly the "average consumers" with their allowance, are they? You're basically saying that your "average consumer" is unable to make a rational decision by weighing the pros and cons of completely different systems. What's next? Making jokes about the "average consumers'" mothers? Just kidding. But the average consumer certainly has more brains than you... give them credit for. (okay, I apologize for that, too; it was just too tempting while typing it; sorry).

As for my movies analogy: But you do go to the movies every once in a while? Then it proves my point. And if you don't, it does so, too. That's the beauty of it! And I am not saying that I don't think the ticket prices are too high. I am saying that if I am prepared to do one (even grudgingly), I can't complain about the other. It's as simple as that.

@PlywoodStick LOL, well that just jumped WAY out of the scope of the conversation I don't disagree on the inevitable collapse, the debt based system never made any actual sense from any angle at all, but that's pretty far outside the production and support costs of a piece of electronics

@JunkRabbit Excellent writeups, yourself. Thanks for chiming in!

@impurekind As JunkRabbit said you're asking the wrong question of a fictional consumer that doesn't exist. He phrased that very well.

This IS about the launch price of those consoles 3 years ago and is not about a comparison price to a product now. You're imagining everyone buying a console walks into a store knowing nothing about consoles, games, assumes whatever on the shelf is all brand new and current, and buys based on price comparison without any knowledge about newer products and older products. That's not a reality for most buying nor most of the people buying a dedicated gaming device.

Your assumption to ask "which is most powerful" is not the question the majority of buyers will be asking. Gamers already know the answer, if they're looking at a Switch, its because they want a portable or they want a Nintendo. Non-gamers don't know to ask for "power" they want to know "which is best", and quite possibly, "which is the newest"?

Your argument centers around a thinking that assumes that products in the same industry must all launch at the same time as each other in fixed product cycles in the industry, and anything that launches at a different time must be cheaper than the older products from the last centrally planned wave. That's perpendicular to reality, marketplaces, competition, and market disruption. If Microsoft walks out on stage in June and says "Guess what, it's $800 and it's a new platform after all" they can do that and try to drive the market on that. By your standard, they would have to come in at $248 or below for that new platform, because that's what a SP4 Slim costs. Switch is a different product with different (highly in demand currently!) feature sets at a price point between the competition and an immediate launch price 25% less than competitors.

It IS about those platforms launch prices. Those are $400 platforms. The clueless consumer you're talking about walking in to buy today is someone that waited over three years to even look at a PS4. Waiting until prices dropped and until the product aged. That's not an uninformed customer, that's someone buying the PS4 BECAUSE it's old, and therefore has been discounted. That's not a potential Switch customer this year. That's a potential Switch customer 3-4 years from now. The customer who never buys new technology, knowing they can buy it cheaper later. These are the people the 3DS is targeted more at right now more than Switch.

Based on your one comment about branding it also seems you're applying your own viewpoint about Nintendo as a "lesser brand" and Playstation as a "higher end brand" and that factoring into consumer decisions. That's, honestly, a viewpoint that can only come from the UK. While among "gamers" there's a chest-beating brand stigma about Nintendo as "kiddie" etc, globally, in the broader market (those clueless consumers you imagine) there's no anti-Nintendo stigma, and a generally favorable brand identity for Nintendo in the market at large. In Japan and the US, and some of their more popular countries in Europe (France, Italy etc.) the brand is downright iconic. The UK just happened to miss out on the Nintendo 80's when the brand became a household name and a center of pop culture to the point that even people that know nothing about video games will reference Mario.

I'm wondering just how heavily you're skewing your opinion of consumer choice based on a local lack of interest for the Nintendo brand.

@Blizzia Actually it very much does matter. People who live in areas where the cost of living is lower get paid less (because general living things just don't cost as much in their area). However items like electronics that are flat rates across at a national will be effectively more expensive to them. Money exchange rates don't take that into account. So they simply don't work at the consumer level. Internationally there is the same effect, presumably you live in an nation with a high average cost of living, which is why Nintendo adjusted the price up. In addition to high cost of living, pay rates are higher to compensate. So the US price isn't really less expensive to the consumer.

It's just not so black and white. Economies never are. So you say they are cheapskates but in actuality, it really is more expensive than the simplistic currency exchanges suggest. So don't be so quick to judge.

@Alshain01 I guess we'll have to agree to disagree I stand by my opinion fully, and I don't think it matters with pay rates etc. The price is what the price is.

@Blizzia That's fine, but remember if we are 'cheapskates' in your view, that makes you a spendthrift in our view. Personally, between the two, I'd rather be a cheapskate.

@NEStalgia No: You're both wrong; you both just think you're right.

@HenFjo Yes!

I'd also like to have a Legend of Zelda edition joycons- dipped in Triforce gold just like my Skyward Sword Wiimote+.