
It's always interesting when a new and slightly improved system is announced to see just how much it will cost compared to the existing model which does much the same.
In the case of the Switch OLED, it's going to be $50 more than the price of the original hybrid model - bumping the total amount up to $350 USD. If it's got you wondering what it might cost on Nintendo's end, read on...
Bloomberg has published a new story about the upcoming system, which breakdowns the price to manufacture it. The new system apparently costs the Japanese video game giant "around $10 more per unit" to make.
In terms of an individual component breakdown - the new Samsung OLED screen is believed to be around $3 to $5 per unit, the upgrade storage costs an extra $3.50, and other components like the LAN port and improved kickstand are a few extra bucks.
The Switch is already making a profit, so this will only further increase Nintendo's profit margins if it is successful. Bloomberg reached out to a Nintendo spokesperson about the price breakdown and sure enough, they declined to comment.
The new Nintendo Switch OLED model will make its debut alongside Metroid Dread on October 8th.
[source bloomberg.com]
Comments 148
How much exactly does the original unit cost to make?
What the hell kinda markup is that. This just shows everything wrong with ‘premium’ tech. Parts are pennies, they get Chinese kids to put them together for pennies but oh look, it has a matte finish so it’s £350.
Oh no! Nintendo is following the rules of Business101! Say it ain't so! 😱
But will it PRINT MONEY?
Nintendo has always sold their systems above cost. That's how they've managed to weather the storm of two commercial failures (3 if you count the V-Boy). Unlike Sony or Microsoft, they have no other divisions to fall back on to make up for selling units at a loss. It's just good business sense.
@sixrings If I remember correctly, the Switch costs around $260 to produce. But that was the 2017 Switch, I am sure that the V2 Switch still retains more or less the same price to make, not sure about the Lite.
@mchief190 don't forget though the difference isn't all profit going to Nintendo. There are distribution costs, import taxes and other fees which chip away at the differential.
All part of Nintendo's strategy. Get the $$ from early guaranteed sales, then withdraw the old Switch from sale, reducing its price in the process to clear shelves, and reduce the OLED price to the original Switch RRP and make it the default model.
Oh... From Bloomberg, the same source that has been reporting the bogus Switch Pro rumors. Apparently, now they're the go-to source for Switch OLED info lol.
Even if true, who cares? There's no way Nintendo would launch this model at the same price as the base Switch.
I'm so glade I can (Wont) pay nintendo 50 extra bucks to make up for the 10 bucks there losing.
@eaglebob345 Thats strange, Mine's is "How to screw your fans 101". (This is a joke, so please don't take it to heart)
@mchief190 probably talking around 50 for Switch oled.
It's almost like Nintendo trying to make money/a profit.
Easily more ram could have been added. Having the screen upgrade is just okay.
All my life I thought that Nintendo was trying to make the world a happier place…. So It was just for profit all along? Thank god that Bloomberg reports these atrocities, they are a respectable megacorporation that don’t care about money, they do what they do just for the sake of unbiased information. Shame on you Nintendo
Honestly...when was this ever surprising? Ever since the 3DS and Wii U, Nintendo products have been overpriced. The 3DS launched at an absurdly high price and the 8gb Wii U was an absolute scam. Then came amiibo, which just has old NFC technology attached to a plastic figurine, yet it was and still is quite expensive for what it's worth. Joy Cons also come to mind given their price in comparison to the Switch Pro Controller.
Yeah it is what it is. I’m not purchasing one so 🤷🏾♂️
Wow nintendo is over pricing there products. Its not like it won't sell anyway
@ModdedInkling : The 8GB Wii U is a bargain compared to the 8KB (or thereabouts) that Amiibo are capable of storing.
@OrangeSoda yes
@onex : Exactly. People aren't seeing the bigger picture here. They also need to factor in potential losses through replacement consoles, warranty etc.
Yes, it's overpriced for what it is (it should have been priced the same as the regular Switch, but with the regular model getting a permanent price cut), but if the market is willing to cough up the goods, Nintendo would be crazy to settle for less.
The increase in cost might reflect more than just the cost of the components.
There would've been research and development on how to arrive at this point, and then changes to their manufacturing pipeline.
It'd be interesting though if they did opt to turn a larger profit per system sold.
No one should be shocked by this. It's what ALL product manufacturers do. Also, the report came from Bloomberg.
Man people are crazy if they think a $40 mark up is too much. This is JUST the BOM, doesn't include R&D or any other overhead Nintendo definitely has. Not to mention it matters not what things cost but what people are willing to pay for them. I bet they could have charged $400 and people would still be buying it in droves. I would buy this in a heartbeat if my switch bit the dust. EDIT: @RupeeClock beat me to it
I don’t care. I’m still getting it.
Takes a consumer to only see how much the unit costs and ignores the thousands of hours of administrative behind the scenes that it cost them in the design phase and logistics
@RupeeClock thanks for mentioning the r&d and manufacturing costs. It’s not a simple component change.
Am I the only one that thinks a 500% markup is quite small for this kind of thing? Most other companies charge way higher than that.
This is news? Most $300 earphones cost literally $40 each to make in bulk. It's like people don't know how factories work.
Nintendo isnt some guy laying Switches like eggs, there's a massive cost for shipping and labour, let alone marketing and dispatch. $10 to $50 for parts is actually very generous.
Nintendo will always try to get the highest margin they can get away with when things are going well for them. Yes, it seems like the markup is on the higher end of things here. No, I don't believe their other costs are as significant related to this as some speculate, which is fine to do and believe. As the screen is bigger, this will automatically be considered a premium model, so it has to be more than the regular one. But I think a lot of people would react better to this report if they had made the joycons better. That might be worth it to a lot of people.
Nintnedo at their best.... Ripping us off
@UltimateOtaku91 lol, I guess all commerce is a rip off.
People are mad about this? 😂
Nintendo knows fans dont care. In fact most beg Nintendo to take their money for little to no return.
@nessisonett
Very normal and even arguably generous markup
People who are mad over this had no iea how business works.
The Switch is still selling for the same price as when it came out. No way it's costing Nintendo the same price to make it. The price of the unit has precious little to do with the cost to manufacture. It's what they assume people are willing to pay.
Can we stop reposting articles from Bloomberg. They're not the most trustworthy when it comes to news. Plus, this is info no one asked for nor cared to know. No surprise Nintendo is making profit, every company does it. How dare Nintendo make profit on us.. just like Sony, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Samsung etc. Nintendo is a corporation, they're not friends. They exist to make profit. Companies still take L's on consoles for quite a bit of time before turning profit.
@RupeeClock I almost posted the same thing. Glad to see someone beat me to it. You can’t deny the investment a company makes before a product ever hits market.
@GCromie Thankfully, you are wrong. Not all manufacturers are like this. Nintendo is the Apple of videogames; they sell overpriced products because they know they have a loyal fanbase who doesn´t care for value. For $300 you can have a XBS and access to hundred of great games with Game Pass. Or you can buy an Oculus Quest 2, the best VR system in the market. The video game industry is changing, and Nintendo´s greed will not be tolerated for much longer.
I think it would sell out at $400. And scalpers would sell out at $500.
@eaglebob345 actually standard business markup is 100% of product not 500%. And typically in videogame industry consoles are marked up just to offset associated costs so there is minimal profit. Profit comes from the games.
There simply isn't healthy competition for the switch and they know it. they are selling at the price they know they can get and still entice repeat buyers.
It is almost like all businesses do this. You can’t make a profit if you don’t sell stuff for more than it cost
@AlienigenX
You obviously don’t know how businesses work if you think this is scummy. To make a profit you need to Mark things up. All businesses do this
Why why why why why why why did we end up with a world where everyone keeps reciting the corporatist mantra of "it's not the cost, it's what what the market is willing to pay".. it gets more infuriating every gaming business article that comes up. Seriously, are you all so young that you have never known anything but that and merely recite what you've been told over and over? That's simply not how business used to work. That's "new" business. And it's disastrously unsustainable as a model. It's a short term, one way siphoning of resources to the investor base by cannibalizing the economy itself. Business and free markets work as a symbiotic relationship. When it becomes parasitic it's a one way trip to despotism, which will replace the free market with a command economy by popular demand, while the new tyranny is celebrated as liberation. This isn't how things worked not long ago.
Otoh, this is the same media outlet that was certain this model had 4k output. Now they're certain it's $10 in parts. I wouldn't trust them if they said they were certain it plays Nintendo games.
@sixrings
$228.60 US.
Only reason it costs 350 for the OLED, is because Nintendo wants to clear out the old unit and replace it with the new one next year. Don't expect the LCD switch to stick around. That way when they drop the price to 300 for the OLED people will think Nintendo is finally dropping the price on the switch etc. Welcome to the psychological warfare that is marketing.
@NEStalgia heh slow down their economics professor. This is still within the bounds and is more about clearing out old inventory. Nintendo has always followed this trajectory. Once the LCD models are out of stock we'll see this unit drop to 300. It'll make consumers think their getting a deal. It's fine.
@nessisonett it’s all done on a percentage. I wouldn’t even believe the pricing here first of all and I highly doubt they are charging 5xs the price although If doing so they are doing it from a future cost standpoint
Good thing those OLED screens dropped in price so now we got what the Switch should had been. Waiting over time for advance techs to dropped in price is not new to Nintendo. Rumble was expensive in the N64 days so Nintendo wouldn't be able to implement that feature for N64 day one so later they made the Rumble Pak after they could afford rumble.
Eventually for GameCube rumble got cheap and become a standard in gaming by then so GameCube got rumble vibration out of the box. The Wii motion control is another feature of tech that is not ready, Nintendo want the Wii to had free stable gyro with their games but couldn't affordable the more advance gyro motion control so they implement a limited motion control feature at launch instead. Many years passed when free stable gyro is affordable then Nintendo would implement that with Wii Sports Resort and Skyward Sword as Wii Motion Plus.
It's the same story with glass-less 3D on the 3DS, they could not affordable stable 3D effect for the system at launch so they go with whatever cheap option they had, then years later when stable glass-less 3D tech is affordable, they finally re-introduced the New 3DS and New 3DS XL with the updated 3D feature. Switch is pretty much the same thing with the OLED screen as was the GBA as well with its frontlit and backlit screen evolution.
Technically they could made it $300 and they still would be making profit. But it is $350 and they can get away with that cause the switch is selling like crazy at its original price. This model probably would not sell well but thanks to the climate we are in it will probably sell out and stay sold out until sometime next if that.
So…. Should we be angry at supermarkets too? The profit margin percentage for the average product over there is without a doubt comparable.
@onex,
Of course it is, the way some talk on here Nintendo should operate as a non profit charity, which would of course put them out of business, so not sure what the complainers end game is in all this.
@Friendly,
And sofa/ furniture companies too, the markup is massive on those items, and also branded clothing etc.
@siavm,
It will sell out because the Switch has been in demand for four years now, of course the pandemic will contribute to all this, but not the only reason, the machine has tonnes of momentum which will not be slowing down anytime soon.
You also can't underestimate the amount of Switch owners within the more mass market user base, that will wan't to upgrade because it's a newer and better model.
The OLED screen, surely a massive upgrade over the current screen, only adds $3 - $5 to the cost of each unit? Really?
@NEStalgia,
Think you are reading way to much into all this, the new model in the U.K is £30 more than the original, which seems a pretty fair price to me, and a people on here suggest the price may drop if Nintendo phase out the original LCD model.
And also as you said the source of the latest cost is hardly that reliable, and are not taking anything else into consideration, as the new model has quite a lot of changes too.
As for the more expansive question to modern business ethics, I would deffer to your own knowledge on that one, not a debate I think can be easily covered in a comment section, but your's is an interesting take on the situation however.
$40 of profit per unit on the components, but hardly likely $40 more after everything else. I'm sure all the staffing, assembly, marketing, R&D and tax will leave them barely making anything extra per unit in the grand scheme of things, and I'm surprised they bothered considering how many flaws people are desperate to drag out of the whole idea.
If they'd released a 4K switch with 256GB memory and double the RAM but had to charge $200 extra to make it worth it for them, everyone would be livid. They probably decided they can't win either way but theres more risk in doing the Pro right now, so why not go for the evolution rather than revolution.
@johnvboy the Oled Switch costs £60 more than an Xbox Series S and is only £40 cheaper than a digital PS5.
@Mr-Fuggles777,
Totally different products aimed at different demographics, both Sony and Microsoft have other business avenues so can afford to sell their consoles at a loss, both those machines should cost way more than they do, but they both work on a software paying for the hardware loss business model, which is fine when you pretty much have triple AAA games coming out all the time, from a myriad of third party and exclusive developers, Nintendo do not have that luxury.
Nintendo relies on it's consoles and games for profit, and they charge what they feel is a fair price, and looking from the sales I would say they have it just right, unless of course we are somehow suggesting people are being somehow forced to buy overpriced Nintendo Switch consoles.
Value in any product is also very personal and subjective in the first place.
@Silly_G The bigger picture? "potential losses through replacement consoles, warranty."
Those are Nintendos concerns, not the consumers, and quite rightfully so, too. You forgot to mention their lunch expenses, travel, their kids college tuition etc.
If Nintendo don't want the expense of honouring warranties, they should remember the company that they used to be and design and ship a decent product. This is supposedly the same company that famously would abuse prototypes to the point of destruction in order to ensure a solid and robust product. They would literally throw them against a wall, to see how they held up. The original DS, by the companies own standards, needed to be able to survive a drop of 1.5m to a hard surface ten times over and still operate. Is this the same company that insisted that the Wii had to be able to withstand 80kg of pressure for a minute?
Contrast those rigorous quality control standards to a product that required a screen protector at launch so that the dock wouldn't damage the screen of the console it was paired with, that soon after launch the controller needed to be slightly redesigned because the antenna had been sited incorrectly within the left Joycon. A handheld that, just exposed to its own heat, will warp and bend, resulting in the rear panel cracking and needing to be replaced. Nintendo having quality control issues is not a sign that they should increase the price of their products, it's a sign that they should get their house in order, and they need to know this.
@Mr-Fuggles777 yep, but at least it has some games 😁
Part of this markup is taxes, import fees and so on.
Actually for a markup this ain't so bad (also compared to Sony or Microsoft, Nintendo doesn't like to sell hardware at a loss, and earn back from game sales)
Not protect Nintendo, you should Google the markup Samsung and Apple ask for their phones.
People sure are complaining a lot for $50 bucks more on a console they'll buy once in a lifetime.
I mean, if there was a $0.50 price hike on food they wouldn't even complain that much, despite the fact that food is something you'll spend your money everyday and that this price hike will actually leave a hole in your pocket.
Removed - unconstructive feedback; user is banned
@nessisonett
There are costs to research and development, software and hardware integration, testing, country certification, labor overhead, etc.
Pure parts costs is a very poor way to assess a system's overall profitability / pricing reasonabless.
I'm sure if Nintendo sold its systems at-cost and fired a bunch of people that also wouldn't make you happy.
You can buy $250 phones that are far more powerful than the Switch and even use higher res screens etc. I don't see why people get surprised when Nintendo is selling their hardware at high profits, it is something they always do.
@tatchy "staffing, assembly, marketing, R&D and tax". Are you a consumer, or a part of the marketing department? Nintendo aren't some startup scrabbling around to make ends meet, they have more capital than Sony, and all the things you mention are part of running the business they're running. It's Nintendo's problem to manage the scale of what they need to do to send their product to market, and if they need to raise the price of a product in it's fifth year on the market by 17%, they're doing something wrong.
While you wouldn't have to look too far for someone that speculated 4K or asked for it, you know that's so far out it's basically a strawman. 1080/60 would be nice. Hell, even 1080/30.
Nintendo can't just unilaterally decide they're going to make products for the PS3/360 era, because display technology has moved on.
@NotSoCryptic That's a bit optimistic. Nintendo under Furukawa are so greedy, the only chance the oled will see a price drop is if it doesn't sell at $350. I think it more likely that Nintendo thought they could get away with raising the price but needed a new model to do it. the original will be phased out if the oled sells. The new price stays.
@sixrings the trouble with the “how much does it cost to make” question is what do you include in that.
Is it just the BOM (Bill of materials) I.e. the parts themselves. This is usually the lowest number and the one clickbait articles and youtubers use to say technology X is a ripoff as it only costs half the retail cost to make. (It doesn’t)
Does it include the skilled labour, and machines to make them.
Does it include the cost of factories, energy & transport.
Does it include the millions in Research and Development, or advertising and staff costs to successfully market and sell a product worldwide.
Does it factor in wholesale vs retail price and the cut for retailers?
There are a LOT of different costs you COULD include in this number and the difference will be huge.
This is why Xbox can say under oath in court “we have never made a profit on an Xbox console” and not be lying and yet PlayStation said to investors that the PS5 (disc version) is already profitable. Neither lied but they are talking about different numbers.
Ultimately we don’t know how much the Switch costs to make. But whatever number the Internet says is likely missing many costs involved in bringing that product to market.
@WhiteUmbrella I don't work for Nintendo. The reason they have capital is because it's factored into their pricing of the things they sell. Microsoft and Sony frequently sell their consoles at a loss / as low as possible to get people invested in the platforms. They compete with eachother for a totally different type of audience. Nintendo don't have a competitor in the hardware market in the same way, and I think comparing the costs of the consoles as people have is a bit apples and oranges.
When plenty of people have expressed disappointment that the innards are the same and there isn't 4K output, it's hardly irrelevant to the conversation about the OLED Switch. There clearly wasn't a chance that big internal upgrades were happening for a price Nintendo thought was worth risking at this point.
Yup, and take it from someone that knows shipping container costs have quadrupled in the two years.
Nintendo are hiding this extra cost in the new model's upgrades.
This is also why many people dislike Apple, overpriced hardware to return very high profits.
Luckily not everyone is the same otherwise we'd have little progress.
Alternative article name business reportly seeks to make profit but costs of parts measured against cost on shelf for consumer does not accurately reflect the realities of a manufacturing and supply chain.
But that would be bit too accurate and less eye catching.
What about the other changes?
@Roibeard64 Well I've always built my own PCs bar my first one that was prebuilt, and a cheap Dell Optiplex. Why bother buying Apple computers when you can build your own to get better performance and have it cheaper? Apple are a prime example of being overly greedy. It stalls progress and price/performance.
@nessisonett Unlikely, seeing this : https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2021/07/nintendos_record_on_conflict_minerals_is_praised_but_with_an_important_catch
@pitchblack It could be added, yes, but Nintendo has no need to do that yet, they feel comfortable developing games on it, and third parties have upped their game a bit as well, so you won't be seeing any internal upgrades until next year or even 2 years from now
Really they should have just replaced the original model with this and kept the price at 300 if it only cost them that much.
@FlyingFoxy well building pcs is a little different as definitely a decent accessable market for parts often straight from manufacturer (so can cut out the middlemen of shops etc) but not everyone has the skill or knowledge and patience to do so which keeps premades pcs viable so suppose you are paying for ease and all the Apple applications software and guarantees etc.
Like without skill there's a risk you would mess it up.
Whether they are worth price is questionable the market seems to say so but I'd personally agree with you that apple products are not worth the cost.
Like while a minority builds pcs no one builds likes of phones really.
@Dethmunk All we've done here is report in the $10 figure which has been confirmed by Bloomberg. Where are we 'gaslighting' anyone?
@JGruns R&D would've also applied to the OG Switch, and it's way less for a revision like this. So that doesn't hold up.
Do the commenters think that OLED Switch just magically appeared at factories and started making itself? Imagine thousands of work-hours that has gone into design, R&D and administrative work of Nintendo's hundreds of employees.
Not to forget that those profits fund the development of their next consoles. Unless there's a Kickstarter for Switch 2 that I haven't heard about.
@RupeeClock If they got 20 off the OG model, that means they're making 60 of this one, that's an increase of 300%. So it could be a huge difference in profits. But yeah, depends on how much they make per unit.
@pinta_vodki Like I said, R&D would've also applied to the OG Switch, and it's way less for a revision like this. So that doesn't hold up. This isn't to cover R&D. They just know they get away with it, and people will come up with excuses why it needs to be more expensive, so why even try to sell it at 300?
The shock and horror this 'revelation' has caused is staggering. Retail usually commands around a 50% markup alone. That means if a company is lucky enough to be an authorized retailer for Nintendo (or anyone else) the wholesale price is about half the price to the end consumer. This in addition to all the costs others here have mentioned like R+D and it's actually surprising that the OLED costs so little over the standard switch.
@MrGlubGlub Yeah. It doesn't consider distribution, how much the retailer pays for it, R&D, assembly (perhaps?).
Also, by the logic that it should just a little more than the components, all digitally transferred games should be free since the component manufacturing cost is 0.
@tatchy "They compete with eachother for a totally different type of audience". This an often repeated fallacy. They compete for the same audience, gamers. For that claim to be true, this means that Nintendo have their own pool of customers that, during the Gamecube and Wii U era, decided not to buy any hardware at all because they didn't like what Nintendo had produced. The Wii sold over 100 million units, the direct successor Wii U just below 13 million. A significant proportion of those 87 million likely bought hardware from Sony and Microsoft.
"comparing the costs of the consoles as people have is a bit apples and oranges". A lot of people have compared the cost of competing hardware, so the very fact that many people will factor the price disparity into their purchasing decisions makes it relevant regardless of whether you or Nintendo want it to be. Plus, am I the only one to find that expression strange? I eat fruit, and while there are obvious differences between apples and oranges they both fulfill a similar need and I have frequently chosen between them.
Thw Switch has been an interesting experiment. As a handheld it's a success (the hardware reliabilty issues aside) but as a home console it's a failure. Let's face it, Switch isn't really a "hybrid", it's a handheld masquerading as a home console, with a dock designed to hide that it's a handheld while connected to a tv.
If Switch had launched as a handheld only, the power would have been considered impressive, and quite rightly so. Now imagine if it had launched as a home console only. With that power and pricepoint Nintendo would quite rightly have been laughed out of the room.
Therein lies the problem. While the Switch has been marketed as both handheld and home console, when considered as a home console only, the hardware is too weak to justify it's price point. It was too weak in 2017, in 2021 it looks weaker still, especially when compared to the competition you say they don't have.
It represents value to the handheld player, but is a rip-off for home only. Why should those who prefer home play only be paying for a screen, a stand, a battery, a dock and joycons when they could have had a pro controller, maybe support for an exterior drive and upgraded internals, and paid the same as those that wanted to be able to take their console with them wherever they went.
As they say, hindsight is 20/20, but I believe that Switch should have been two SKUs not one. A more powerful home console and another that sacrificed that power for portablility. It might have been more difficult to market, but who knows? Some might say that Nintendo wouldn't want to dilute the core message of the design, but haven't they already done that with Switch Lite?
It's even possible that what I'm suggesting is what Nintendo have planned for their next generation. It could be considered a natural evolution of the same idea.
@blindsquarel shocking! Whats next? Making products with a hidden feature that makes them fail in the short term and become obsolete In order to make consumers buy a new one?
Nintendo makes a profit. News at 11.
@Dethmunk So many people have latched on to this "Nintendo has hidden expenses" argument it's ridiculous. A few points to make. Firstly, Nintendo is always doing research and development, it's the nature of the business. They didn't need to invent an ethernet port, an oled screen or packaging. Those things already existed. The dock could have been a partially rejected earlier design or completely new. If the stand were part of the original design that was rejected in favour of the flimsy stand from the original sku it wouldn't surprise anyone in the slightest. It's obvious that the first dock was cheaper to make than the replacement design, and Nintendo even cheaped out on the wi-fi card (something that has still not been upgraded).
All this aside, if the argument that Nintendo aren't making anywhere near as much money as the $50 increase implies holds little weight. This would have to mean that the cost of altering the design must come close to outweighing the benefits of developing and marketing it. These kind of decisions are made during the planning stage, when the costs of any potential endeavour are weighed up, and the decision is made whether or not to proceed.
To sum it up, why even bother to make it if it's not going to be profitable? Furthermore, if such a mistake was made (which I don't believe was made) it would be Nintendo's mistake, not the consumers.
But really, the $50 rise is clearly profiteering from Nintendo. Stop blindly defending Nintendo over everything they do. you're only doing them harm in the long run. If they listen to you defending every mistake and ignore every criticism, it will lead the company down the wrong path to failure. Just the Wii U sales alone should be enough to tell you that Nintendo doesn't have enough fanatics to sustain the entire company. Laud their successes, but criticise when it's due. It's due, this time.
I almost wish I didn't know this.
Would have been nice if they just took a little more off their margin and gave us 128gb storage. Might have cost them another $4.
Considering that consoles generally sell at a loss, that's gonna be some serious cash is Nintendo sells a bunch of these. And also it's kind of a rip off🤪
Engineering, marketing, and opening separate manufacturing lines costs money too, yo.
Any either way, I'm willing to bet good money that the OLED model drops to 299$ about half a year after they've cleared out stock of the existing SKUs.
Pre-orders sold out everywhere, so the price is clearly fine.
£400 for a Switch OLED and copy of BotW2 is fine by me.
So this comes from Bloomberg, ... 4kay?
Kudos for Nintendo Life and their work.
But in this case I think Liam Doolan could have went more into detail than just forwarding a Bloomberg report.
So we have $10 per Switch with its upgrades, which sound very plausible.
But what is missing are the factors,
Administration
Development (hard- or software)
Marketing
Logistics
Okay one can argue this could be paid for from the profit of the previous models.
But what was produced and development in the past profit belongs to an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit in a economic system base what we call Capitalism. 😂 lol
I don’t mind people making money for doing good work.
@WhiteUmbrella @NEStalgia seriously, it's quite sad to see that everyone thinks this is how the world should work period.
I knew we were indoctrinated into the system we live in since we were kids, but turning customers you only see as potential profit into staunch defenders must be some kind of neoliberal wet dream!
@WhiteUmbrella,
I doubt weather calling Nintendo out on this or not will make an awful lot of difference, they have systems in place that will dictate the pricing and profit margins they work to, and a success like the Switch has a lot of money going into it, it's not all pure profits.
@Silly_G
Now, they aren't meant to be compared, but the 8GB Wii U wasn't worth it in the long run because they decreased the price of the 32GB one anyways.
@Damo,
True enough, and I have to be careful here, as I did have a comment deleted suggesting this was an outrage article for clicks.
But the article states in the headline the cost of the upgrade parts are $10, but the console will cost £50 more, now in itself this seems unfair, but of course the article misses a myriad of other factors that would have gone into all this, it's not as simplistic as the article and others are making out.
As for Gaslighting , who knows.
@pitchblack What good would more Ram do? No one would program games to depend on the additional Ram as they'd shut out the majority of Switch owners from buying their games.
@Damo,
" The Switch is already making a profit, so this will only further increase Nintendo's profit margins if it is successful. Bloomberg reached out to a Nintendo spokesperson about the price breakdown and sure enough, they declined to comment."
Bits like this make me feel the purpose of this article is not as innocent as you are making out, Nintendo or any other company for that matter, have no obligation whatsoever to explain themselves to a media outlet, and kudos to Nintendo for taking no notice of them.
@WhiteUmbrella hardly optimistic. They haven't done anything in the last 4 years that they haven't done under the prior 2 Nintendo presidents. They leave the price high when the market is cornered and drop the price when there is a slump. They phase out old hardware and let the new hardware assume its price point. They did it under the portable market for 3 decades. The wii barely saw price drops during its life. Game prices being fixed at full price for 3 to 4 years till they became greatest hits or what ever they call them under Nintendo has been the practice for as long as Nintendo has been around.
I'm guessing you're mistaking retailer generosity and Nintendo having competition for generosity. However their m.o. has never been one to drop the price of something as soon as they start making a profit on it. They've always been a greedy company. From the moment they were sued for squeezing out competition in the 80s by pulling support for any company that started carrying sega to the swapping of hardware in at the old price point starting with the gbc to the Nintendo switch. This isn't a new strategy, they know that selling at 350 will not hold. Mostly due to a change in the availability of certain games due to limited hardware and other external factors. Nintendo will start to loose ground as sony and ms start having games that can't be downgraded easily enough to guarantee a profit and ms bought out their biggest supporter of the system. PCs are already seeing pre-built portable units in the switches for factor. While they are a good 600 dollars more, 3 iterations will quickly put an end to that. Who wants to play overwatch on switch at barely 30fps in lower quality when they can play on pc the same way at a guaranteed 60 in portable mode. Its already happening.
Point being Nintendo doesn't exist in a bubble, eventually their strategy has a breaking point that allows for shifting of gears. One of those strategies has always been to pivot hardware changes on the same price point to trick the consumer into an artificial price drop. They just call this thing the oled model for crying out loud, they have no intent of keeping the lid system around, this product is meant to replace it.
@clvr,
So anybody not agreeing to this being some sort of rip off is a defender, why can't it just be they do not agree with how basic is initial argument is, and have taken other factors into account.
Also do not agree with the term defender in the first place, as this implies that Nintendo are doing something wrong and it's a proven fact, when in effect it's all only subjective opinions whatever side of the argument you fall on.
There's a word in Spanish todescribe Bloomberg at this moment, and that is that they're ARDIDOS hahahaha. Who cares? Nintendo could have easily charged $100 more for this, but the price is great, for the QoL improvements the OLED has.
@NEStalgia
That's not corporate mantra, it's fact. Nobody decides prices except the people paying them.
If nobody thought it was worth it, they wouldn't price it as such. Prices are and always have been dictated by the customer, not the supplier. The supplier simply reflects the customer's valuation. Sometimes they get it wrong, but when that happens, the situation corrects itself as low sales necessitate price adjustment, and/or competition swoops in with a more compelling offer (see original $250 3DS, which got a $70 price drop because they got it wrong)
To imply the customer is not in control is to imply the customer is forced to make purchases at gunpoint. Which they are not. Competition and the one-upsmanship of lower prices to garner sales ensures consumers almost always win in the long run. Its how we're able to buy products we couldn't dream of building ourselves. But that doesn't mean you're gonna get products scraping the bottom of raw material costs. If you go buy a LAN adapter you're not gonna pay $3. You're gonna pay $15-30. But thats what consumers feel it's worth, and feel it's more worth it than to go without, or build their own. If you go buy a replacement screen you're not gonna pay $20. You're gonna pay $50-100. Etc.
There is no morality in pricing for luxury items (and electronic entertainment hobby purchases are most certainly that). If you feel something isn't worth it, you can opt to not buy it. Or maybe you think you can build one for less. Good luck with that.
Ranting about a for-profit company and their prices for products you don't have to buy is a fool's errand. And I don't just say this for Switch OLED, I say this for $1000 smartphones, $70 PS5/XS games, $60 remasters, $175 collectible figures, $5 pack of trading cards, $15 coffee cup or even your $200 Nike sneakers.
Don't like it, don't buy it. But if I make something I have the right to put whatever number on the pricetag I want. Its freedom and right to sell, and it applies to everyone, be it a single mother selling a stroller on eBay or a billion dollar company that's only profiting on hardware due to bulk pricing from economies of scale. It's up to you to decide whether you think it's fair. And if you don't, well, just don't buy. It's that simple. The invisible hand is the most magnificent and powerful force on earth. The invisible hand that guides prices into equilibrium, balancing quantity demanded vs quantity supplied.
@johnvboy
" The Switch is already making a profit, so this will only further increase Nintendo's profit margins if it is successful. Bloomberg reached out to a Nintendo spokesperson about the price breakdown and sure enough, they declined to comment."
'Bits like this make me feel the purpose of this article is not as innocent as you are making out...'
It's clickbait at worst and tabloidy at best
I know websites need to make money somehow too, but it's a bit hypocritical to (unfairly) imply shady business practice when the article itself could arguably be accused of the same thing by being misleading and disingenuous.
@Dpishere Course they will why else would they introduce this one? Still they had to get rid of the old one first as production units for those are still out there. Once production units for those ended, then they'll quietly replace it with the OLED mode. Heck they already replace the old dock with the new dock now so it would be a matter of time until that happen.
@NotSoCryptic Your point is a valid one, and if it's a temporary premium do deplete old stock, that's a different situation. My reaction is somewhat knee-jerk. Following both this site and Push Square, and the recent stream of articles about the companies moving everything up up up market, and the rabid fan defense not even of their favorite video game company but of a disastrous business philosophy that undermines the core concepts of the entire economic model as normal, or worse, good, and cause for celebration, just had me on edge. But yeah, if you're right, then I don't see a problem specifically with it, so long as it's a temporary pricing while replacing an old model. The pricing itself was less my problem than the rabid defending of profit maximization.
@JaxonH The concepts of course, I agree with to a point. However the culmination of the past few months of Sony + Industry + Nintendo price gouging and people defending it with the same talking points and catch phrases ad nauseum is just finally infuriating enough to go ballistic over it. Not even the company's so much but the people, the posters. The folks that in your own words have set the pricing, not just in the gaming industry but more and more everywhere.
We've moved beyond cost+margin. That's the building block the stable market was built on. We've moved beyond supply and demand (and artificially constrain the former to exploit the latter.) The whole "charge the maximum the market will pay" mantra needs to die a fiery death in a dark hole as fast as possible as we return at rapid pace back into aristocracy. It was bad economic conceptualization in the 80's the way Keynes ideas were in the 30's. When things are hundreds, thousands of percent profit, that's dangerous to the entire model. It is an inherently unstable, and lopsided model and thus far its large cracks, that become chasms have been temporarily plugged, to hide them, by extorting public money and filling the holes like duct taping the Titanic in hopes nobody notices the water still coming in from new rivet holes. The distribution of prosperity built up over a century from the old cost+margin model, both for individuals and a large array of businesses has been contracting and consolidating at a horrifying pace as they rebuild a proper aristocracy.
It's not about Switch costing $40 too much. Or Sony charging $10 too much. Or Sony re-selling a game a year later for $10 more, $30 to "upgrade", or Nintendo selling a 10 year old game with near-zero effort for $30 too much. It's about people defending it with the reasons they're using to defend it as an economic concept being rooted in a disastrous lie that's visibly dismantling the system that's worked so well for so long from all around everyone. And they celebrate it! While they watch the landscape of business consolidating ever more into a handful, at best, of worldwide players in any industry, all held by the same handful of banks, controlled by the same power-brokers.
@6thHorizon Could you point out exactly where in the piece we're implying shady practices on Nintendo's behalf? Thanks!
@johnvboy "Bits like this make me feel the purpose of this article is not as innocent as you are making out"
How? All Liam has done is point out that there's more profit in this model. That's just maths.
@NEStalgia
That's always been the case. There has never been a time products weren't sold for as much as the market would bear. But competition and lower quantity demanded at higher prices naturally corrects the issue.
Suppliers will stop charging as much as they can get the same day consumers stop trying to pay as little as possible. The two are diametrically opposed, and balance occurs at price equilibrium. There's nothing to get mad about. For one, they're not making "thousands of percent profit" but even if they were, if the market values it as such and still sees that as more worth it than the competition or building themselves or doing without, then so be it.
Voluntary purchases cannot be extortion. Nobody has a gun to anyone's head. And its not unstable- on the contrary, its incredibly stable.
If people defend it, it's because they feel it doesn't deserve the unwarranted attacks. And frankly, I agree. We're talking voluntary luxury hobby purchases. The notion that people are being forced against their will to spend exorbitant sums for recreation is... a bit silly.
That's not to say everyone defending it understands what they're talking about. Many will defend Sony or Nintendo regardless and just conveniently adopt whatever rationale works to their advantage. But I defend it in earnest, as someone who studied macroeconomics and has great respect and understanding of the free market.
@Damo,
Then why just not report that fact and the maths, no need to put the final part in, unless to cause issues in the comment section.
" The Switch is already making a profit, so this will only further increase Nintendo's profit margins if it is successful. Bloomberg reached out to a Nintendo spokesperson about the price breakdown and sure enough, they declined to comment. "
This from a site with all the links for people to pre-order the more expensive than it should be console.
https://www.nintendolife.com/guides/where-to-pre-order-nintendo-switch-oled-model
Oh and the U.S one, just both articles seem to conflict with each other, if the site does indeed believe that Nintendo are acting against the consumer with this one.
https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2021/07/nintendo_switch_oled_pre-orders_go_live_in_the_us_today
@NEStalgia
I also wanted to add that, I've always respected your intellect. You're a thinker- a real modern day philosopher. I don't always agree with your assements (obviously, this being a prime example) but I do agree with your pursuit of truth. I believe you genuinely want to understand things at a fundamental level, and provide honest analysis of how you see the world.
It is for that reason I trust you to investigate matters to the extent needed to modify a belief if necessary. I implore you to consider the perspective of the seller as much as the buyer. As buyers, we tend to see things through the lens that benefits us most, but then when we become sellers suddenly the tables turn and our worldview changes. Suddenly we don't care about the buyer paying as little as possible anymore. A nuanced view requires understanding both sides, and why the balance works.
The only "right" price for luxury products/services is the one for which both the seller and buyer agrees, and revenue is maximized for the seller, who has the right to sell their personal property in whichever voluntary transactions it deems best. If lower price + higher quality demanded is best, or higher price + lower quality demanded is best, or somewhere in between, the equilibrium will manifest, and where it settles down is the only right price.
There is, however, a certain class of products and services in which I would agree with you- those which are necessary and life sustaining such as food, water, shelter, healthcare, etc. Usually competition keeps the balance in check, but when that balance falls off kilter (be it due to monopoly or govt regulation)it can require intervention. But one must separate those products and services with elasticity of demand from those truly without.
And for the record, I'm not a fan of everything in Keyensian economics. I tend to align with Austrian economics and the Chicago school of thought most. I think they both have valid theories and observations.
@johnvboy Where does it say we think "Nintendo are acting against the consumer with this one"?
At no point in the piece does Liam say that Nintendo shouldn't be making more money on the Switch OLED - the thing about Bloomberg not getting a statement from Nintendo is to do with the fact that of course Nintendo wouldn't comment on this. That's all.
It seems to me that you might be reading too much into Liam's story and applying your own spin on it.
@JaxonH,
People would have complained no matter how much this new Switch would have costed, higher than the current model and people are moaning it does not justify the price hike, and if it was the same price as the current model, then that was to expensive in the first place, as for a little more you can have a PS5 or Xbox Series X....
@Damo,
Could be, but sure I am not the only one that read it that way, and to be honest I thought Nintendo would have charged a much higher price for this new model than £30/$50...
But fair enough, and thanks for your return comments.
@NEStalgia,
So apparently you are a thinker and a modern day philosopher, first time I have ever heard it called that before.
@johnvboy Oh, I know. A lot of people have read the story and injected their own perspective - which happens. We all do it!
However, Liam is merely presenting the facts here, nothing more.
@Damo,
Perhaps we can't handle the facts.
@JaxonH Thanks, I appreciate that! And I would extend the same compliment and (and request) to you as well. it's why I responded to you and not some others, because I knew your approach to questions and concepts is sufficiently in-depth to "get" it, even if you reject it.
That having been said, the whole "I studied macroeconomics" thing is a bit of a red herring. Of course you did. Of course you learned "-=NEW=- Macroeconomics(TM) (C)1989 Morgan Stanley." That's kind of the point. Modern business school teaches, and has taught since the late 80's, this "new" philosophy (actually, very old, pre-dating the US, because when the US was founded this philosophy had already been determined to be a guaranteed disaster, and they tried (and temporarily succeeded) in inventing a new modified version of it, that sadly, has been left by the wayside in the pursuit of international mercantilism.) It's not your "fault" that's what model you were taught, but the fact that's the model you were taught is the problem I'm raising.
Cost + margin, cost + margin, cost + margin, cost + margin. It is the root, the foundation, the building block of the market as it has developed over a century. You never hear that anymore. Business school used to teach it as day one. Now they teach "charge what the market will sustain." That's the key. I know you're looking at it from the perspective of what you know and have learned from the "new" thinking and the entire logical justification for its functioning - that's what they've been teaching for a while - but that's kind of my point. That "new" thinking is catastrophically flawed, and indeed is a relatively new replacement for the prior cost+margin philosophy that WORKED. Worked really really well. Built the entire middle class that buys things like video games, patio furniture, televisions, and toaster ovens. And now it's being gutted by the "greed is good" umbrella which you're referencing you learned under.
The "new" "greed is good" umbrella (also referenced as at least a major component of Thatcherism, Reaganism, Supply-side-economics, etc) is as deeply flawed an economic model, based on equally bad assumptions, as Marx & Engels' ideas. Like Marxism, the concept, on paper sounded great, and you can extrapolate the ideas to produce very logical results in a vacuum. But in practice it's a horribly flawed design that actually has more in common with Marx's solutions, borrowing some of the same logical fallacies from a different angle, to problems than it does with the original model. It should have been categorized swiftly as a bad, failed experiment, as was (mostly) done with Marx's ideas, but, as it has a penchant for moving capital in a single direction, much like Marx's ideas, those that would benefit from it have ensured we expanded and reinforced the model.
Obviously there's endless thousands of words I could keep writing, but for some unknown reason the comments section keeps refusing to post the 934 pages I quickly drafted off the cuff, so I'll have to stop at the back cover synopsis, unfortunately
@johnvboy oh, hush, you!
@Damo
It was pretty clear in my response to @johnvboy's comment- I even copied and pasted his quote from the article into my reply!
The title and subtitle of the article are also misleading because of the over simplification of the maths involved.
The implication being that Nintendo is making $40 more per unit because it 'only' costs $10 more in components yet charges $50 extra per Switch OLED.
Anyone that knows anything about retail markup or any kind of design, development and manufacturing and is being honest with themselves knows that this over simplification is incorrect.
I get that you need to create compelling content- clicks are the bread and butter of your business model and I'm not even knocking the article as such.
I just felt that the reality of the maths involved needed some clarification. Going by the comments here it seems quite a few others did too.
At the end of the day the article did well anyway didn't it?- 125 comments and counting is a decent success
@NEStalgia,
Oh, hush, you!,
I am sure Socrates said that once, or something like it.
@6thHorizon,
The mere suggestion this was for clicks, it's just fact reporting nothing else, shame on you.
@johnvboy Better than the things Nietzsche said....
@NEStalgia
You're not wrong. It is what I was taught. But I don't accept it blindly. I accept it because it makes logical sense to me, and the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. The system works, and has been working for a long time.
To oppose the concept of price equilibrium is to oppose the invisible hand, which is to oppose the very fabric of the free market itself.
I don't believe this is some new phenomenon. Cost + margin has always implied margin at equilibrium (or below equilibrium if competition pressures prices downwards). Otherwise there is no balance. It's not so much greed being good or bad, it's self-interest being the priority for both sides in a voluntary transaction, and the best outcome that keeps both sides' interests at heart is the price equilibrium that maximizes revenue. And that doesn't necessarily translate to a higher price because price =/= revenue. Price x Quanity Demanded at that price is what determines revenue.
It obviously keeps the seller's interest at heart, but it keeps the buyer's interests at heart also because the quantity demanded is half the equation, and that comes from buyer valuation.
That's not to say I'm opposed to an alternative if you have one. I'm always open to different ideas. But it'll take more than buyers defining arbitrary quotas for margin on the seller's behalf to convince me. Especially since price equilibrium is not some man-made construct, it's natural, and nature is hard to fight against.
If I sell you a brand new Ferrari, and ask for $50k, you would probably think that's a great deal. Now. If I then told you I had magic elves that manufactured it for free, would you change your opinion on its value? You shouldn't. It's value is what it is. How much it cost me should be irrelevant. It bears no impact on the value you derive. Yet nowadays there is a sweeping epidemic of judging price based on factors which have no bearing on consumer value. And that is true greed.
You can't force me to sell something for less than I'm willing to accept anymore than I can force you to buy something for more than you're willing to pay. Neither side controls the other. It's a mutually beneficial transaction where both would rather have what the other is offering. A seller trying to squeeze every last dollar from a buyer is no different or morally reprehensible than a buyer trying to squeeze every last dollar from a seller.
@NEStalgia,
Did he not say "You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead", which in all fairness is incorrect as they use graphite.
Not sure what they use in pencils.
I'm almost more bothered by the fact the additional 32GB only costs around $3.50. I'd much rather pay an extra $50 or even $100 for a Switch with 128GB or 256GB of system storage.
I also thought this was supposed to be the "Switch Pro" but fell victim to the chip shortages, so we got every planned upgrade except the horsepower. I was thinking we'd still see that in a year or so or whenever the supply chain is back to normal, but then thought...Nintendo selling this half-upgrade now is cannibalizing their user base, why not wait?
...and then remembered we're talking about Nintendo here, and they're more than happy to release several small hardware revisions at a profit, knowing they'll still sell
@6thHorizon The $10 figure relates to the Bill of Materials, which is the basic way of costing the manufacture of ANY consumer product - stuff like R&D, design, research, testing, etc doesn't come into that figure and never has.
@Octane not to be combative, but it’s very hard to make money. Most r&d is done for the OG switch but adding something like a different screen requires a lot of research. Millimeters make a difference in something fitting or not. The back stand, getting the right supplier, paying for the mold, machine setup etc some of those are 10 grand a pop. That’s assuming everything runs smoothly with the supplier. So while it’s easy to look at unit cost of additional parts it does not include a lot of the costs Nintendo already incurred. Lastly they are going to need money to fund their future switches or systems and that’s what profit should include.
@JGruns,
No all that stuff you mentioned comes for free, Nintendo are just ripping us of for $40, glad I have seen the light and shall be buying no more Amiibo cards or figures.
@johnvboy hold your horses mate! Actually I don't really have a problem with the issue at hand, I was commenting on the fact that a lot of people spout out pro-corporation drivel just like a good consumer should in the eyes of said corporations, and I find that pretty sad.
@clvr,
Sorry about that, I was on my high horse, not my fault really as he keeps following me around.
I think people are missing the big picture. I think the reason some people are irritated like myself is that this could have been included in the revision that so many people bought just for the extra battery life. I guess that has always been Nintendo's way milk it for all that it's worth. Keep making minor upgrades so people keep buying the new crap.
@WhiteUmbrella : That wasn't my point. My point was concerning how the cost of raw materials does not translate to pricing to the consumer for reasons previously specified.
In terms of Nintendo's declining quality issues, yes, I absolutely agree, and I was not defending them, especially on that front. I have a DS, DS Lite, 3DS, 3DS XL, and three New 3DS XLs, and four of the seven consoles have quality issues.
DS - No problems from memory.
DS Lite - Faulty right speaker and a lower quality screen (which exhibits what appear to be interlacing artefacts). Otherwise, in good working order (battery life still going strong after 13 years).
3DS - What I have seen referred to as the "pop" glitch where the brightness of the top screen far exceeds the normal level of brightness, causing the console to making a "popping" sound and switch off immediately. The rubber on the circle pad eventually slipped off as well. I've been able to work around its issues, but it's in no condition to resell.
3DS XL (Pikachu) - No problems whatsoever.
New 3DS XL (Monster Hunter IV) - The decal was peeling off mere weeks after purchase (a common problem for this particular variant, apparently), but I was already overseas for an indefinite period, so, returning it wasn't an option. If I recall correctly, the right speaker was also faulty, and the battery has since failed (it can only be played while connected to the A/C adapter, even when "fully charged" as the battery indicator will blink red a few seconds after turning on the console). One of my 3DSes also had a dead pixel or two, and this may have been the one, adding to its abundant quality issues.
New 3DS XL (Animal Crossing: Happy Home Designer) - No problems whatsoever (that I recall). Everything worked perfectly. The only reason why I replaced it was because the design looked really childish/feminine, and I was a touch self-conscious about playing with it in public places, though I may swap back eventually.
New 3DS XL (Metroid: Samus Returns) - Yet another faulty right speaker. Couldn't be bothered returning it as I had already transferred everything to it (the speaker more or less failed very soon after the fact, unfortunately). The left speaker also started to fail, but still produces sound for the most part.
My Let's Go Pikachu/Eevee Switch console also seems to have an inferior quality screen which exhibits what appear to be interlacing artefacts (similar to my DS Lite), there were two dead pixels out of the box, and there is also a blotchy distortion (more or less in the shape of a circle) that occasionally appears on the right side of the screen, albeit rarely, but it's related to the poor screen quality and is not a software issue. My launch Switch (which I had since gifted to a family member) and Switch Lite have no problems that I am aware of.
So, absolutely, Nintendo needs to pull their heads out of their butts, but the fact that many of us have not returned our consoles to Nintendo for one reason or another (mainly to avoid the risk of losing everything or the timing being inopportune) is perhaps not indicating to them the extent of their quality issues.
Well I'll keep my old switch and rather invest in a steam deck.
@Jalashek In what world is that a 500% markup? That would mean that the Switch OLED would cost 5× as much as it costs to produce it. 😬
@Damo
Yes that's exactly my point and why the title and subtitle were therefore misleading.
@6thHorizon Misleading how?
@AlienigenX
Like what , joy con drift doesn’t render a switch obsolete and it is easy to fix. Only issue I can think of
Why are so many people repeating 'R&D', 'tooling', 'production setup', 'taxes', 'shipping', etc., as if the original Switch's price didn't also include those?
The Switch didn't get any price cuts yet, so it means we're still paying for all this for the original too. Why should we pay these costs for the new display AND the old one if we're getting only the new display? Or did R&D for the new components somehow cost significantly more than for the old ones?
I imagine R&D for the new case would actually be lower, since the new screen is thinner and requires less creativity in cramming all the internal components in place.
So yeah, if we're paying all these costs of new components instead of the costs associated with the old components, and the new components are just $10 more, where's the other $40 coming from?
Cya
Raziel-chan
@Razzy Exactly!
Now do the profit margin of lazy ports.
It doesn’t matter if it’s $400. Some would pay for whatever Nintendo releases. Same with the fans of other systems. What does it matter ? I guess it only matters for those who have limited gaming budgets. If a kid can’t afford a $60 port, it’s because other fans are willing to pay whatever. If fans would stop, Nintendo would adjust and still make a huge profit. By there’s a line at the vampire’s door begging to give their blood.
If fans could sit the OLED out a few months the price would drop and Nintendo still wins.
Lol at expecting Nintendo to sell the Switch at a loss to a niche audience.
I hope is at least as successful as the Switch Lite then. I want it to be as succesful as the standard unit though, this one feels like proper upgrade like the DSi and the New 3DS.
I think the Switch OLED is a decent proposition for me, especially with Metroid Dread included. A bundle with it would be perfect
The only thing it needs to become a second-gen Switch are new features (such as a camera and new joy-cons) and a generational bump in specs and technology.
@Razzy @Octane I'm trying to be polite here, but I don't think you understand all the pieces of how a business works. To put it short, you don't simply release a product and recoup the development costs.
It is always good to stock up on money, because:
1) The money you earn goes into making new products. How do you think Nintendo funds the development of new consoles? There's no Kickstarter for them. The margins they earn is the Kickstarter.
2) There's the cost of running the company. Even not taking the teams developing new hardware into account, there's marketing, bookkeeping, and all the other behind-the-scenes workers (I guess hundreds if not thousands of them) that need to get their salary each month.
3) There's always losses you could incur. A game doesn't do well? Virtual Boy didn't sell? It's good to have some money in your bank account to fund your next project. Otherwise SO many companies would go bankrupt after a single bad product. And I'm not speaking of the OLED Switch exclusively, the games (and ports!) contribute to this cash stock as well.
Trust me, I've worked at a company that had no cash in stock, and we lived just barely keeping afloat. It is hell. If you can stock up some money, do it.
@pinta_vodki Nintendo has literally billions in cash reserves. They could've sustained the losses during the Wii U era, and they would've been fine for another 40 years. They don't "need" to cash in extra now to develop a new console. They make millions on their games as well, which are generally made on a smaller budget than the average AAA game. They've released dozens of ports with minimal effort for $60 (and one brilliant highlight from the Apple-Epic case is the revelation that an average port is a one or two man job for 6-12 months, so we can finally put a number on that as well), it's a fraction of the costs of developing a new game.
TLDR, you don't have to worry at all about Nintendo's finances, they have more, and earn more than you think. The only reason this price hike exists is because they know they can get away with it. People these days are used to pay premium for the bare minimum.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...