ElkinFencer10

@HeadPirate I would absolutely pay an extra $150 for access to first party games. That's why people buy Nintendo platforms. PS5 and XSX have dozens of exclusives, but they'll also been on the market for nearly five years, so I'd argue that that's a little apples-and-oranges a comparison for exclusives for a five year old system vs a system that hasn't even released yet.

@mikejs78 Excellent points made here. Also worth noting that the games we have seen are either launch games or cross gen games, and those always look the worst relative to games later in the life cycle. If all you saw was Resistance: Fall of Man and Red Steel, you'd be grossly underestimating the potential capabilities of the PS3 and Wii, respectively, because those early launch games weren't showcasing the system's full range of abilities.

@HeadPirate If what you want is to play Mario Kart, Zelda, Metroid, Smash Bros, and Fire Emblem, I'd say it's a fair price even exclusively playing on TV. You can't play those games on Xbox or Playstation, so other systems' prices cease to be particularly relevant.

@HeadPirate Options. On the rare occasions I'm on a plane or stuck in a doctor's office waiting room, I have the option of playing handheld. Beyond that, it offers Nintendo games. Short of criminal piracy, where else am I going to play Zelda, Metroid, Mario, Fire Emblem, Mario Kart, Animal Crossing, etc?

@HammerGalladeBro Here you go! It's not my website, so I should be good by community rules for posting this link.

https://www.vooks.net/nintendo-confirms-no-download-codes-needed-for-physical-switch-2-edition-games/

@HeadPirate I play exclusively docked on TV, and I'm still arguing it's a completely fair price ¯(ツ)/¯

@Overzeal All really good points. Nintendo's generations are weird with the Wii U's short lifespan, so I would personally call the Switch a second 8th gen console and the Switch 2 their actual 9th gen console (Wikipedia has them labeled the same way, for whatever that may be worth), but that's really splitting hairs; generations haven't meant what they used to since the PS4/Wii U/XB1 days with the bizarrely long lifespans the Switch, PS4, and Xbox One had. Either way, the console's price is completely reasonable even if the upper end (I personally guessed $400 with $450 as my back-up guess), but as @goldgriffin360 said, people forget what games used to cost. This standardized thing has only been since the 6th gen consoles. It used to be the wild west. And as I've stated ad nauseum in other comments sections, $60 in 2017 is literally the same thing as $80 in 2025 once you realize inflation is a thing that exists; even with the few $80 games, you're still getting games for the same value or cheaper than Switch games were when it launched.

@Darthmoogle So apparently they're NOT the Switch 1 game and a code. Nintendo explicitly said in a Vooks interview that the Switch 2 editions will have the full Switch 2 version of the game and all content on the game card. But still, at the price I paid, it was cheaper to get the Switch version and buy the upgrade pack. I may still do that with Legends ZA and Metroid Prime 4 just to have them on my Switch shelf instead of the markedly less attractive Switch 2 boxart.

I'm not in Japan, but I did just buy a copy of Mario Party Jamboree specifically in anticipation of the Switch 2.

@MSaturn That a retailer's jurisdiction, not the manufacturer.

I think the console price is completely reasonable. For that matter, I think the games' prices are fairly reasonable, although I teach economics and therefore understand concepts like inflation and overhead. As for the debate about the power, as has been mentioned above, the Series S maybe a bit more powerful than the Switch 2 in some areas, but it's also lacking a physical drive to allow for backwards compatibility like Switch 2 has, it's not a handheld form factor (miniaturizing technology is always expensive; look at gaming laptops vs equivalent gaming desktops), and the Series S doesn't have a screen. The screen is also 1080p and 120 hz. That is NOT cheap for a screen that size. Additionally, the Switch 2 can play games in 4K; the Series S can't do that. Roughly equivalent (even if slightly lower) hardware power, the small form factor, the impressive screen, AND the stellar lineup of exclusive games all make an aggregate that makes the $450 price tag extremely reasonable once you factor in a profit margin. Sony and Microsoft may sell their consoles for a loss, but that's no reason to expect Nintendo to do the same. Those companies sell things other than video games; Nintendo doesn't. Beyond that, it's ridiculous to demand any company sell any product at a loss regardless of context. Corporations - including Nintendo - literally exist to make a profit.

So I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, vote with your dollar. I see their point. On the other hand, the digital-only future is inevitable. Collectors like me are pushing to hold it off as long as possible, but there will inevitably come a day in the next ten to twenty years when all video games are released exclusively as digital downloads. It's inevitable. To that end, let's say you boycott these key cards. More power to you, that's your prerogative. But what's the alternative? Never playing these or buying them digitally. For the games I really want to play, I'm not just gonna not buy them. And the collector in me says "If I'm going to pay for the game as it is, I might as well have something to put on my shelf." There are a fair number of Switch games that don't have the entire game on the cartridge and require a download, and this is effectively no different; if you can't play the game with just the cartridge, it doesn't really matter if the cartridge has 3/4 of the game or none of the game on it. You still can't play it. This at least lets me trade, give away, or sell as used the games since the cards aren't going to tie to a specific account.

tl;dr the outrage over this is ridiculous, and the belief that boycotting or resisting it will change literally anything is naive.

The price is fair. It's not fun - I hate paying $70 let alone $80 - but I'm not going to sit here and pretend it isn't fair. $80 in 2025 is literally the same value as $60 in 2017. All they're doing is not eating a drop in profit margin on their biggest system sellers, and they'll still be bringing in less for each "regularly" priced game at $70 today than they did at $60 in 2017. The laws of market economics don't stop existing just because gamers don't understand or refuse to acknowledge them, and Nintendo doesn't stop existing first and foremost to make a profit for its investors - not to make cheap for the sake of gamers' expectations - just because we adore the company's products.

Definitely should have been a pack-in, but I don't think it really matters. People won't buy a Switch 2 for Welcome Tour (people did buy a Wii specifically for Wii Sports), so they wouldn't have profited, per se, from making it a pack-in, and most people probably wouldn't play it for more than five or ten minutes if it were. Most people won't buy it, but they'll have at least some miniscule revenue coming in from selling it separate. So yeah, it definitely should have been a pack-in, but I don't think it's as big a missed opportunity as having 1-2 Switch be a pack-in was.

That's SO cool

@Jeronan All launch lineups are a "Your mileage may vary" situation depending on an individual gamer's preferences, but Switch was a great one for me.

1-2-Switch, Fast RMX, I Am Setsuna, Snipperclips, and Breath of the Wild remain among my favorite games on the system. Five games on day one that I still adore playing eight years later? Yeah, for me, that's a stellar lineup.

Probably unpopular opinion here, but I think Wii U takes the cake. A handful of its exceptionally good launch titles were ports, sure, they were ports of REALLY GOOD games. Switch and Switch 2 are a very close tie for #2 in my book. But really, only N64, GBC, Virtual Boy, and 3DS had bad launch lineups imo.

I'll be getting the NSO GCN controller because I'm a foolish man who makes foolish decisions with his small income, but I'm glad that I'll be able to use my adapter for multiplayer games (heck yes, Soul Calibur 2)

1. When will we in America get to preorder?
2. Why haven't you brought Wind Waker HD and Twilight Princess HD to Switch/2?
3. Is there a chance of getting Namco to port Soul Calibur 2 HD to Switch 2 since we can play the Gamecube verison on it?
4. When is Mother 3 coming to NSO in English?
5. Why do you hate F-Zero?

Ew 480p? What is this, 2004?

@Ramouz lol not wanting to take a loss with rising manufacturing costs, inflation, and tariffs is greedy? No, that's just business. The only prices in what you listed that is, in my opinion, debatably excessive is Welcome Tour, and that's debatable. $400 to $500 is what pretty much everyone expected for the console, and tacking on an extra $50 for a game that sells for $80 separately is hardly a ripoff. $70 - $80 is standard for a new controller, and while I could see $90, I think $80 is far more likely. Extra Joycons? There's a lot of tech in a small package there, so $80 for a new pair is fair since that's essentially a controller. As for $60 for the camera, that might be a bit high, but given that we don't have specs for the camera, we really don't have enough information to make that determination yet. Yeah, DK is $70 like most AAA games on every platform. $10 to $15 upgrade packs? Hardly unreasonable, and while not as nice as Xbox's Smart Delivery free upgrades, Sony's PS5 has done the same thing for five years.

I'm really not seeing the outrage aside from entitled gamers who think they have some bizarre inalienable right to having Nintendo consoles, games, and accessories stay cheap forever. Everything gets more expensive over time, and that's especially true when your last console refresh was eight years ago.

I really don't mind Friend Codes. It's obnoxious to type in, but at least I don't have to worry about finding which variation of the same username is my friend's like I often have to on Steam.

I know the $10 price tag on Welcome Tour is controversial, but I'm personally looking forward to it. I definitely think it should have been preinstalled on every system, but $10 isn't a huge amount, and it looks like a really neat even if not groundbreaking experience.

What I expect is Switch 2 to launch at $500 or maybe even $550 instead of $450 and then see a price drop when the president comes to his senses and realizes that these tariffs are a horribly ill-advised idea.

It's a little higher than I wanted, but I can swallow that.

I was expecting $10 or $15, but it's nice to see the lower end of my expectations confirmed. I'm still expecting $15 for the ones that add new content, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're $20. And I'd be okay with that; if they add enough content on top of the performance boost, it could easily be worth $20.

Looks like there's a little more antialiasing or post processing in the Switch 2 version vs PS4, but otherwise, they look pretty identical. Although the PS5 version of this game doesn't exactly wow me visually compared to PS4.

Native 1080p will always look better than the original upscaled, and they made some major QoL improvements with WWHD especially with the Triforce hunt at the end. This is definitely the version we need.

Okay, so this isn't ideal, and I'm definitely not happy about it, but it's not a scam or false advertising or anything ridiculous like that as I've seen people say online. Nintendo never said "The Switch 2 version will come with a Switch 2 cartridge that contains the full Switch 2 version of the game." If you inferred that, that's on you. Beyond that, though, it's hardly the worst thing we've seen. The Resident Evil 4/5/6 collection on Switch only gave you one game actually on the cartridge; 67% of your physical purchase was a download. Let's not pretend this is some unprecedented affront to our sensibilities.

The pricing is definitely not ideal. The current global economy isn't ideal, though. At the end of the day, things cost what they cost, and Nintendo is not your friend; they exist to make a profit, bottom line. Our hobby is a luxury, and unfortunately, economic realities are going to force gamers to make unhappy choices.

That's pricey for an amiibo, but inflation and tariffs made that inevitable.

@Ryu_Niiyama Same dude, I'm stoked. I remember seeing Resistance: Fall of Man on my friend's PS3 the day it came out and thinking "Holy crap, this looks incredible," and it looked like it was just PS2 game rendered in 720p instead of 480i. Fast forward to The Last of Us, and it didn't even look like the same system. With how good Switch 2 games seem to look now, imagine what the 2030s will bring.

@Ryu_Niiyama Same. I've got a PS5 and a Series X, but the Switch was always my favorite just for what they managed to do with a handheld. I'm stoked to see what Switch 2 is capable of for a $450 handheld.

@Gamer83 Then buy it on Switch 1 for $60 (maybe $70)

I played Cyberpunk on Xbox One at launch and on Series X when that version was released. I was horrifically disappointed with the former and utterly blissful with the latter. Regardless of how high or low the resolution is or how high or low the frame rate is, the fact that we're getting this port on Switch 2 at all is amazing in my book. I'll definitely be double dipping on this one.

I'd rather have a port of Wii U's Wind Waker HD than an emulation of the original game, but it's a heck of a lot better than no Wind Waker on Switch 2 at all.

@Spider-Kev It was supposed to, but that's not how the world economy works anymore. Protective tariffs went the way of the dodo decades ago for good reason; globalization makes products cheaper when countries specialize. Autarky is horrifically inefficient, and economies seek efficiency.

I think he looks great.

@Medic_alert I wish it were a little more novel, too, but improving a proven success is the smart move here. I do, however, hate the name. Even Super Switch would have been better. That said, given the absolute debacle that the "Wii U" name caused (other reasons for the system's failure aside), I understand wanting to make it ABSOLUTELY UNMISTAKEABLE that this is a successor system, not just a different model of the same system or some similarly absurd misunderstanding.

I'm stoked. 4K is an amazing option and one that I honestly didn't expect - I expected native 1080p for all games, maybe 1440p - but the solid 60 fps and occasional 120 fps is really what has my hyped. Generations since 2006 aren't like generations in the 90s. The improvements are always relatively incremental and usually not truly evident until a year or two into the system's lifespan when developers have had a chance to really learn the new system's architecture and capabilities.

I'm finna drop like $800 on games alone on launch day T.T

For a Switch game that's been enhanced for Switch 2, this looks fantastic. I can't wait to see what Nintendo's games made specifically for Switch 2 are going to look like because they always look better than remasters or upgraded ports.

@Jawz32U No one is holding a gun to your head and making you buy it. If you're worried about privacy, just...don't buy the camera?

As I probably won't use the camera often anyway, I'd happily take a modest resolution drop for this. For comparable resolution, I'd happily pay 20 quid above the price of Nintendo's camera. This is just cool.

Gamers need to learn the basic economic principle of inflation; $60 in 2017 = $80 in 2025. $70 games are actually cheaper than the Switch's $60 launch games, and $80 games actually cost the same (wealth, not dollars). The games aren't more expensive; the dollar is less valuable. That's not Nintendo's fault, and it's not their responsibility to eat the loss. And that's just pure inflation over the past eight years. That doesn't even begin to address the hit to profit margins that tariffs the United States's new tariffs will bring if companies don't raise prices. You don't have to like the prices - I certainly don't - but you can't logically claim that they're just being greedy or unreasonable. They're making a completely logical business decision that is backed by math and rationality.

That's what I expected and a completely reasonable price. Would I prefer a free upgrade like Series X provides? Absolutely. But this is reasonable and right on par with Sony's PS4 to PS5 upgrade costs.

I'm not a fan of the big banner at the top of the Switch 2 cases, but at least they're different instead of the Xbox Series X cases being literally identical to Xbox One cases except for saying "Series X" instead of "Xbox One."

I don't understand how people on here are so up in arms about this. I simply do not understand. This is super cheap, and regarding game prices, people should learn the basic economic principle of inflation; $60 in 2017 = $80 in 2025. $70 games are actually cheaper than the Switch's $60 launch games, and $80 games actually cost the same (wealth, not dollars). The games aren't more expensive; the dollar is less valuable. That's not Nintendo's fault, and it's not their responsibility to eat the loss.

@Flynnsworth I expected a higher price. Most of the world - especially the West - has faced relatively drastic inflation since the Switch launched eight years ago. They also try to keep relatively parity in console prices across regions, and our president here in America is implementing numerous tariffs which will either drive up the cost of the console or drive down the profit margin (which is usually negative at launch anyway) of the console here which may translate into a higher-than-otherwise price across the pond.

To be clear, I'm not saying that I'm excited about the price. I'm just not surprised given the technical and economic circumstances of the day.

Definitely not outstanding. While Nintendo's website had some of these details, the direct made no mention of MSRP for the console, no mention of MSRP for the games that are launching in two months, no mention of MSRP for the pro controller or camera, no mention of when preorders will open, no mention of how much those digital upgrade packs will cost. The presentation itself was quite exciting in my opinion, but there were a lot of frankly very critical details that weren't mentioned at all.