Login

Nintendo won't sell Switch at loss, but listening to consumer conversation on price



Hmmm...won't sell the Switch at a loss, but also saying that they're hearing what gamers are saying. I wonder how those two are going to line up. I hope it's a good answer for our wallets.

Categories: Top Stories, Consoles
Tags: switch

Comments

Top Rated Comment

Listening to the conversation about price?

"$300 is death!" "$250 is too low!" "Ain't paying more than $199!" "$250 is totally the sweet spot!" "$350 could make sense!" "$250 is the absolute limit!" "$300 is the only reasonable price!" "$200 is the best possible price!"

...Good luck with that, Nintendo.

moldyclay
Wed Oct 26 16 03:48am
(Updated 1 time)

Betting on $300 at least. $350 at most.

They will probably go as low as possible without a loss. That feels as close as they can get.

Nintendo can't be greedy with the price. They're in no position to take such liberties. I would hope and expect a price of €300. €350 at most depending on the specs and its features.

I'm thinking the same thing. It really depends on how strong it is, but I'm willing to got $350 if it's worth the price!

entity
Wed Oct 26 16 04:18am
Rating: 1

They should bundle a game with it. Think people would be more comfortable with a purchase then.

300-350 is the price we've been hearing the most.

I really think those wishing for a 250 pricetag need a reality check though.

Nintendo charged €370 for Wii U, which in hindsight was scandalous. I've bought every Nintendo console since the SNES on launch day but may take a wait and see approach this time around. I'll see when everything has been revealed.

impurekind
Wed Oct 26 16 05:59am
(Updated 2 times)

And that's the problem, because most consumers I've seen online are going to allow Nintendo to get away with charging $300-$400 for this thing, and I absolutely do not believe it should be that cost. This is why all the fanboys need to think about what they're saying when they spout out such numbers, because these companies will go as high as they think people are willing to pay as opposed to actually giving us all a great and fair deal.

I say $199, and I do not care whether you think that's realistic/possible or not.

You're free to disagree with others' price speculations, but I dont think it's fair to assume it's a fanboy thing.

Most of the speculation is based around the current gaming market + how new this tech is + how "must have" it'll be.

Very few would argue against a lower price if possible, but $300 isnt that bad if the power really is close or on par with the PS4/XB1, as those systems cost about $300 new anyway.

"but $300 isn't that bad if the power really is close or on par with the PS4/XB1"

The problem is that no on really seems to be looking at this thing with their eyes truly open: It's basically a handheld you can play through your TV—far closer to a PS Vita with a TV out connection than it is to any actual home console—and it's pretty much obvious it's going to be roughly on par with the Wii U in terms of graphical power.

Nintendo telling everyone "it's a home console first and foremost" doesn't mean it's actually a piece of hardware on spec and on price-par with the likes of PS4.

Now, people can debate my assertions regarding those two point—but let's just see shall we. . . .

so much liberty lol , listening to consumers, I hope they do, I hope they note that freaking annual 70$ for nothing, let ea ubisoft run wild with that market .

t27duck
Wed Oct 26 16 07:04am
Rating: 3

$250 would be a sweet spot, but Nvidia chips, batteries for each piece and the wireless antennas to let them talk to each other aren't cheap. Probably $300.

$350 and higher would be a death sentence, IMO.

$300 at maximum. $350 bundled with a game. Come on Ninty, don't disappoint me.

pc
Wed Oct 26 16 07:30am
Rating: 1

How can anyone expect this thing to be $250 or less? Days of ANY home console releasing at that price are long gone.

Exactly.
Plus we know the thing has a screen that needs to be good, several parts that need okay batteries and to communicate flawlessly with each other.

That's not even taking into account things we'er not sure about, like the screen for example might be a touchscreen (probably is) and the chip might be a custom Tegra X1 which isn't cheap either.

I mean let's be realistic, shall we?

shadowbuster
Wed Oct 26 16 07:32am
Rating: 1 (Updated 1 time)

People expecting this to sell at less than $300 are dreaming right now.

Come on Nin just take a hit on it, I say release the Switch at $59.99 like the Mini Nes & omg you will sell to the masses!

ladida
Wed Oct 26 16 08:23am
(Updated 2 times)

I agree that there's no way it can be under 300 if they're not selling at a loss. "Cheap" Chinese phones with good specs, like OnePlus X, cost almost 300 bucks, and the profit from those only comes in if huge numbers are sold. So having an even bigger device with even more horsepower, 2 controllers AND a docking station for 300 bucks sounds almost impossible.

On the other hand, I think that 300 bucks will really be the "sweet spot" for many customers. 300 bucks just screams "BUY ME NOW DESPITE HOW GOOD I AM OR HOW GOOD MY SUPPORT WILL BE" (and then the support WILL follow, because of the impressive sales numbers), while 350 oder even 400 bucks is really something you think about a lot before throwing out the money... So I hope they find a way to make 300 work. If it has to be 350, they could include Mario Kart (and Splatoon?) in the package, given that it/they probably didn't cost that much to develop/upgrade.

I'm thinking $250-$300.

I dread to think what the UK price will be now...

Listening to the conversation about price?

"$300 is death!" "$250 is too low!" "Ain't paying more than $199!" "$250 is totally the sweet spot!" "$350 could make sense!" "$250 is the absolute limit!" "$300 is the only reasonable price!" "$200 is the best possible price!"

...Good luck with that, Nintendo.

On one hand, I commend Nintendo for not selling at a loss. Doing so, in theory, means they'll have to charge elsewhere to recoup lost costs.

On the other hand, I think they could benefit from doing so for the first few months as an early adopter incentive. $200- $250 for the first 1-3 months, and then add another $100 afterwards.

The more consoles that are in people's hands early out, the more likely devs will jump on board (or stay on board) through the console's life cycle.

About a few weeks back, I had a similar thought. That Nintendo could do a low price for the first shipment of NXs (back when it was still codenamed NX) just to get those consoles flying off the counter and guarantee there's at least a solid base of players to encourage third parties to come to this platform, and to spread the popularity of the console more through word of mouth. Then the next shipment of the 'NX' would then be the regular price. Of course, there can't be too much of a difference in price so as to not upset people too much...

If a company did this, not a single person would be willing to pay the higher price. They would all just wait for the price to return to the original price that had been set as precedent.

Some companies already do it. Arguably more with software and bonus content, but the case is made that the bonus/deal is exclusively part of the initial launch, and that if people sit on it too long, they risk paying for it later or completely missing out.

There is the risk of people trying to wait out Nintendo to bring down the price, but by then, there'd potentially be enough early adopters to carry the system and buy software/accessories, while others are willing to pay the higher price to get in on the fun.

Those who would wait for the discount to return likely weren't going to buy at the original/intended price anyway.

As a consumer, I would love for them to do that. I plan to get the Switch eventually, so a promotion like this would get me to buy it quicker for sure.

But I'm curious, any example of companies that have done something like this? Particularly on a pricier end? The only thing I can think of off the top of my head are software, like you said. And even then, it usually is cheaper stuff like apps.

I honestly can't recall any pricey hardware doing the thing I'm suggesting, unfortunately. At best, I've seen offers of pricey accessories given for free with the purchase of pricey hardware (like smart watches and wireless chargers with smartphones).

And I'll admit, what I'm suggesting is a pretty big gamble. But it's one I'm sure could pay off if executed the right way.

I'm honestly expecting $400 MURICAN, but $350 would be fine. It's a freaking console quality handheld people, FFS... don't be cheap.

ddark
Wed Oct 26 16 10:56am
Rating: 1

I'm expecting $300-$350, but I completely agree with your other sentiment.

People cry and complain that Nintendo doesn't put out the strongest console, but then want the thing to cost $199-$249. It just doesn't make sense to me.

evil-c
Wed Oct 26 16 12:59pm
(Updated 1 time)

Exactly my logic, thank you. The good old days of a $200 US console are loooooooooong gone.

People aren't being cheap predicting that it will be less than $400, there are just a couple of factors at play:
Look at the prices of the competing consoles, original Xbone is $250, Xbone S is $300, PS4 Slim is $300, PS4 Pro will be $400. Putting their price above 3 SKUs and equal to the top SKU is basically suicide for what is seen as a gamble. Gamble because the other consoles are pretty much going to get 90% of games that come out until whatever the next generation is. Nintendo is a risky bet considering their past and bottlenecks that may arise in the future from this being a mobile chip.
Nintendo typically tries to price themselves at an "affordable" cost. $400 dollars does not seem affordable to a wide market
Sure the Switch is going for console quality, but realistically it will be on the low end of that. $400 pretty much says that it should be at least PS4 slim power in handheld form. I don't think that's a realistic threshold they can cross.

Of course the Xbone is $250 US, it's 3.year old hardware, PLUS it's being phased out dye to the S model. What do you expect, " oh here's Nintendo Switch brand new for 2017 at $179!"

Not gonna happen.

I definitely don't expect it to be $179. The person saying $199 is not thinking about everything that goes into price. Even $250 is unreasonable if they don't want to sell at a loss. XB1 being 3 year old hardware is exactly why the Switch can't be top dollar either. Why would a person outside of the Nintendo bubble want to pay the same price as "top hardware" (not including PC's) for something that is on par or slightly less powerful than 3 year old hardware with a risky future? Yes, it's portable, which is why it makes sense that it be more expensive than than XB1 but how much is that valued compared to future-proofing. That's why I, and likely others are estimating $300-350. Same price/a little more for similar/slightly less experience but with added convience (being portable) compared to directly competing with the highest while getting the lowest.

If it's more expensive than a regular PS4 or XB1, which we can already bet it won't match in terms of graphical prowess, then you can bet that when confronted with the store shelves, the XB1 and PS4, even the old one, will be more compelling. The Switch starts with NO library, since it's not backwards compatible with anything, and the PS4 and XB1 have such a huge library already. Making it hybrid won't make a strong selling point. While the concept is great, many people won't necessarily feel that they NEED that portability until they actually already have one or until they see everyone else benefitting from it. It's the kind of thing that could snowball quickly if it receives the popular games of the moment and many people are seen out the playing them. Kinda like how Pokémon GO has attracted so many people just from seeing other people out there and playing it (though that was a free app, so that helped too). But first, anything that could prevent people from buying it instead of another system must be out of the way. It has to have an attractive price while offering many many of the experiences you see elsewhere, so that when someone sees you with one, playing Skyrim or a Call of Duty game, out there, that looks if not identical to the experience found on other consoles but at least close, and if those people check out the catalogue and see that many other experiences they want are on there too, then they could convert to your system. But Nintendo have to build that from the ground up with a system with no library at first, and not promise that games will come a year down the line, nope, they have to be there from the start, or from only a matter of weeks after launch, but not give us a draught of titles like the Wii U, the 3DS, or even the Wii which despite selling like hotcakes for Wii Sports, didn't get any big other titles for nearly a year.

evan stoopeeder
Wed Oct 26 16 10:54am
(Updated 2 times)

Sounds like 300€$ is the price most everybody would accept. Won't be easy for Nintendo (compare it to tablets and smartphones), but I agree that any higher makes it a tough sell.

300 and a great game bundled. Not Zelda, that's what they can make some money off. Cause I think the majority of launch buyers will buy Zelda anyway, along with the system.

csp
Wed Oct 26 16 12:27pm
Rating: 1

we listen to consumers...PR nonsense people.

they just need to realize that for a console that has wiiu ports the first year of its lifetime, 300$ is too restrictive for WiiU owners. As for the non wiiu owners, I doubt they will want to play splatoon on the go for that price.

also no controller docking device bundled on the basic model So people will be forced to play with two small controllers while sitting on their TV? WTF nintendo?

If they can somehow pull $250 with no loss they'll sell billions.

$300 I think is the absolute sweetspot. $350 only if bundled with a game. I'd definitely go for a $350 Breath of the Wild bundle.

I'm seeing a lot of prices in increments of $50. My guess is $269.99. That'll give them a little extra room for profit and it's still below $300 which is way more attractive to the consumer's eye even though it'll get there after tax.

It will be $349, wait and see. I won't jump in until the sales start and I get it around $250 or can get a game or two packed in for cheap.

$250 = Easy purchasing decision
$300 = Well, I'll save up the money and see if it is popular
$350 = Wait for a sale

Pretty sure that is how the general population will think.

hamr
Wed Oct 26 16 06:37pm
Rating: 2

Hey, Nintendo, remember that time in 2012 when you released a console that had a weaker CPU than a console released in 2005 and then you charged $350 for it and a kind-of-lame game -- and somehow still managed to lose money on every system sold?

Try not to repeat that mistake.

Yeah. The launch game is going to be crucial. The one system-defining big title. Let's hope it's going to a game in the conventional sense. 3D Mario, something like that.

Search

Today's VIP

sabrac's avatar
Joined: June 2018
Apprentice

Social Services

Want to join this discussion?

You should like, totally log in or sign up!