Support NeoGAF

[Empyrean Heaven]

"On Switch: Nintendo CEO says company won't make loss by selling it; but also listening to what consumers expect from us when setting price."

That's worrisome. Remember when "listening to what consumers expect from us" led to them selling the 3DS at $250? Considering all the tech in the system and how small it is, and Nintendo not wanting to sell it at a loss, I'm thinking $349 at minimum.

 

[Durante]

I hope for Nintendo that they don't try to sell it for more than $250.

sounds like someone tested the cpu perfomance by some browser benchmark. why would nintendo of all people be more interested in cpu perfomance than gpu?

Well, if you want to get ports of another system to your own, having equal or better CPU performance is quite important. If your GPU is half as fast you can still get a port with half the resolution (e.g. 720p rather than 1080p), if your CPU is half as fast a port might not even be in the cards.

I'm not saying anything about that CPU speculation by the way, just giving a potential reason why you would focus more on matching CPU performance.

 

[Dark Cloud]

"On Switch: Nintendo CEO says company won't make loss by selling it; but also listening to what consumers expect from us when setting price."

That's worrisome. Remember when "listening to what consumers expect from us" led to them selling the 3DS at $250? Considering all the tech in the system and how small it is, and Nintendo not wanting to sell it at a loss, I'm thinking $349 at minimum.

You don't even know the business deals Nintendo got for making the Switch. If the Nvidia rumor is true then they got an amazing deal from them alone.

 

[Jawmuncher]

Sounds like Nintendo is banking on scarcity to drive up demand.

 

[Shiggy]

The number is difficult to evaluate. If they launch in early March, it's obviously not enough. If they launch in the final week of March, it seems like a sufficient amount. Not really possible to draw conclusions based on this, apart from maybe assuming that they will launch in late March.

 

[BGBW]

It's a portable home console.

That covers all bases.

 

[OryoN]

On Switch: Nintendo CEO says company won't make loss by selling it; but also listening to what consumers expect from us when setting price.

This is what happens when everyone says it will be $299 or $349. Nintendo stick to that price instead of going lower because apparently no one can see it going lower.

That's one way to interpret the statement, though I believe your chose the most indirect way.

He could also be saying that plan is to price the device so not to incur a loss (this may be reasonable, relatively high, or exorbitantly so), *but* based on expectations(sounds more like expectations/desire for decent price, not expecting/desiring an overpriced product), they may consider going a bit lower, thus taking a lost. Hence the warning.

In other word; not taking a lost sounds good to investors, but Nintendo must also keep the expectations of their consumers in mind, and take a loss if necessary. I believe that statement was meant for investors to be mindful("please understand") in that regard. So, it could be the complete opposite to what you suggested.

 

[ozfunghi]

The Hell? The Earning Result literally show this on Nintendo Net Sales where it shows that Dedicated Game Hardware revenue is big and last year, is even bigger vs software.

How can this be false?

Do you know what bread & butter means? It doesn't mean an equal or near equal share, it means the overwhelmingly larger share. Which it is not. Especially if you look at WiiU... a system generally seen as overpriced, meaning not selling, meaning no software sales, no software royalties etc...Which is what this discussion is about, setting a pricepoint for the successor to WiiU.

Royalties just to patch out the losses they will incur? That's not productive.

A console is a success if it's overall profitable, not just because it overwhelms the competition with sales numbers.

Not productive? You're right, it's not productive if your console is a WiiU. It is however VERY productive if your console is a Wii. Look up how much Nintendo gained from 3rd party publishings. And that's why it brings us back to pricing the Switch. Price it too high (and after the failed WiiU, people will not likely be taking chances on Nintendo hardware as easily) and you're again stuck with a device the general public doesn't find attractive at that pricepoint. Basically 50% of nothing is still nothing. So it's useless to take a sizeable profit on your hardware if you aren't moving any systems to begin with. In that case, yes, it's better to make sure you're moving units, especially in Nintendo's case as they move by far the most software with their hardware, especially coming off the failed WiiU. Don't take any chances, because this time your customers surely won't.

And in Nintendo's case it makes much more sense to "overwhelm" competition with sales numbers, because they are the number one publisher on their own platform. It's better to have 3DS sales numbers at zero profit on hardware, than to have WiiU sales numbers at a profit on hardware. Especially for Nintendo who have a large software attach rate per sold console.

 

[z0m3le]

I hope for Nintendo that they don't try to sell it for more than $250.

Well, if you want to get ports of another system to your own, having equal or better CPU performance is quite important. If your GPU is half as fast you can still get a port with half the resolution (e.g. 720p rather than 1080p), if your CPU is half as fast a port might not even be in the cards.

I'm not saying anything about that CPU speculation by the way, just giving a potential reason why you would focus more on matching CPU performance.

I feel like they should put $299 worth of tech in it, Pascal could do PS4 graphics in that form factor but price would be too high, so if they can charge $50 and get closer to PS4, I'd be sort of upset if they didn't, you know?

If it's $249 and under 1tflop effective (when compared to 2011's GCN architecture) then why not make sure it gets a lot closer with that extra $50, obviously it can't sell for more than $299, but the teaser has over 18m views and a high like ratio, it is being well received, so if it shows up in stores and the games look on par with what the other consoles are giving you, but is also a portable, why would that be a bad thing? Seems like the extra function of being a portable would be a compelling selling point when put next to the other two. Also considering it's mobile nature, it should be able to drop price quickly to match PS4 and XB1.

 

[10k]

We comin for you, PS4 and Xbox One.

 

[TwilightPrincess]

I feel like they should put $299 worth of tech in it, Pascal could do PS4 graphics in that form factor but price would be too high, so if they can charge $50 and get closer to PS4, I'd be sort of upset if they didn't, you know?

If it's $249 and under 1tflop effective (when compared to 2011's GCN architecture) then why not make sure it gets a lot closer with that extra $50, obviously it can't sell for more than $299, but the teaser has over 18m views and a high like ratio, it is being well received, so if it shows up in stores and the games look on par with what the other consoles are giving you, but is also a portable, why would that be a bad thing? Seems like the extra function of being a portable would be a compelling selling point when put next to the other two. Also considering it's mobile nature, it should be able to drop price quickly to match PS4 and XB1.

the tegra x2 has only 750gflops. I wouldn't hope for more, it's also still a handheld, batterylife is a problem, you can't cool it like a console etc. If it's around 600-700gflops, has enough ram/vram/cache and a capable CPU i couldn't wish for more in that formfactor. But it won't be 1:1 on par. And i think with that we are already @300dollars, including the dock, controllers, touchscreen, rumble etc. etc.

It can't have the rawpower of a PS4 in that formfactor.

 

[Spinluck]

I'm gonna bet on shortages.

Also, I'm not sure if I should be afraid of not regarding what he said about pricing.

 

[random25]

That's not entirely true. Long term viability is important. There's no point beibg shortsighted on profitability if your company goes bankrupt in a few years. Another Wii I type failure so mean the end id the dedicated hardware business the bread and butter for the company for several decades and a significant down sizing of the company likely resulting in many layoffs. The fact they even released this device means it's something they want to avoid. Breaking even but continued viability within the space would be the best case scenario considering the trajectory id their hardware business as a whole. Those profitability margins will disappear if the product doesn't sell so even in that context it's a bad idea. What you don't aNy to di is a loss leader mindset, but break even has plenty of benefits.

Selling the device just for break even or at a loss does not guarantee that it will sell gangbusters. Gamecube dropped to $99 and it still continued to struggle. Wii U was also sold at a loss after its initial struggle and it still never recovered from its sales disaster. Continued viability also works when the console is sold at a profit. What Nintendo needs to worry is getting the games at a constant rate, and getting a strong launch lineup for a good first impression. That's what sells consoles and makes them viable, this is especially applicable to Nintendo's consoles.

Not productive? You're right, it's not productive if your console is a WiiU. It is however VERY productive if your console is a Wii. Look up how much Nintendo gained from 3rd party publishings. And that's why it brings us back to pricing the Switch. Price it too high (and after the failed WiiU, people will not likely be taking chances on Nintendo hardware as easily) and you're again stuck with a device the general public doesn't find attractive at that pricepoint. Basically 50% of nothing is still nothing. So it's useless to take a sizeable profit on your hardware if you aren't moving any systems to begin with. In that case, yes, it's better to make sure you're moving units, especially in Nintendo's case as they move by far the most software with their hardware, especially coming off the failed WiiU. Don't take any chances, because this time your customers surely won't.

And in Nintendo's case it makes much more sense to "overwhelm" competition with sales numbers, because they are the number one publisher on their own platform. It's better to have 3DS sales numbers at zero profit on hardware, than to have WiiU sales numbers at a profit on hardware. Especially for Nintendo who have a large software attach rate per sold console.

Selling a console at a profit does not mean pricing it too high. They just need to be competitive when deciding it. Like in your example, Wii was a wildly successful console, but it wasn't sold at a loss at launch, or ever. For all we know, Switch is pretty "affordable" for its value proposition but it still provides profits back to Nintendo. Pricing is one thing, but the most important thing is a strong launch lineup and good impressions from hands-on reviews to get the train moving. That's where you get the confidence of third party publishers to bet on making games for it.

Edit: And we forget the investors. Do you think they'll allow the console to be sold at a loss? They'll already pushing Nintendo to go full mobile, you'll just give them more ammo if they don't see profit from consoles lol.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

How does this compare to month 1 sales of, say, the PS4, Wii or Wii U? 2 million units at launch sounds like an awful lot.

 

[Buggy Loop]

Oh wow, i've got a feeling there will be shortages. Pre-ordering ASAP.

 

[sir_bumble_bee]

Oh wow, i've got a feeling there will be shortages. Pre-ordering ASAP.

Yeah, that's always the plan. Whenever that January direct goes live, I'll have a separate tab for Amazon just in case.

 

[ffdgh]

Huh that sounds reasonable compared to past estimates...tho I fear it may be an amiibo situation if the switch has limited stock.

 

[metalslimer]

It seems like a reasonable forecast especially since we don't know the price or launch lineup.

 

[z0m3le]

the tegra x2 has only 750gflops. I wouldn't hope for more, it's also still a handheld, batterylife is a problem, you can't cool it like a console etc. If it's around 600-700gflops, has enough ram/vram/cache and a capable CPU i couldn't wish for more in that formfactor. But it won't be 1:1 on par. And i think with that we are already @300dollars, including the dock, controllers, touchscreen, rumble etc. etc.

It can't have the rawpower of a PS4 in that formfactor.

It is possible to match PS4 in the formfactor, but what I said was that it would be too expensive, I agree with the 750gflops btw, my point is that that sounds like a $299 device, if you brought the price down to $249, you'd have to lower the specs and if the specs at $249 was 750gflops, then it would be better to spend $50 for another SM and do 384 cuda cores instead of 256, Thraktor already pointed out that this would consume less energy for the same performance, and when it is docked you can get more performance, a 1.4ghz clock with 384 cuda cores would reach 1.075tflops 32fp, when compared to 2011 gcn, that gives you 1.430 or ever so slightly above XB1S performance, and if you include 16fp in your titles, you can hit 1.716tflops compared to PS4's 1843 it would be unnoticeable.

This is what people don't understand, the tech has drastically improved and Nvidia is light years ahead of AMD when it comes to power consumption and flops performance, it is only on the newest APIs based on AMD's Mantle API that they even come up even. Which is a big reason why Nvidia even cares to enter the embedded market, AMD has control of development APIs right now, and Nvidia is trying to find leverage.

 

[MisterR]

How does this compare to month 1 sales of, say, the PS4, Wii or Wii U? 2 million units at launch sounds like an awful lot.

The PS4 sold over a million on the first day.

 

[BGBW]

Last time Nintendo tried to price something based on feedback we got the 3DS' launch price.

 

[OnionPowder]

Great, another Nintendo launch with supply shortages

 

[Hoo-doo]

$299 is too damn high.

Handheld gamers never drop that kind of money on a handheld and console gamers get an underpowered device in comparison with the competition.

Not sure whether the hybrid aspect alone is enough of a selling point. Nintendo should go fucking balls-out trying to make this thing dirt cheap.

 

[KingSnake]

If they indeed ship just 2 million at launch and this is not just a "be on the safe side" estimation then yeah, the will be shortages at launch. I hope they open the pre-orders rather sooner than later.

 

[z0m3le]

$299 is too damn high.

Handheld gamers never drop that kind of money on a handheld and console gamers get an underpowered device in comparison with the competition.

Not sure whether the hybrid aspect alone is enough of a selling point. Nintendo should go fucking balls-out trying to make this thing dirt cheap.

So instead of parity with XB1 @ $299, it should go for a half step above Wii U for $199? doesn't sound like a great plan when you consider that mobile hardware drops in price much faster and they can hit $199 in just a couple years.

 

[MacTag]

How does this compare to month 1 sales of, say, the PS4, Wii or Wii U? 2 million units at launch sounds like an awful lot.

First quarter results:

1.50m Xbox 360
1.84m PlayStation 3
3.19m Wii
3.06m Wii U
4.20m PlayStation 4
3.00m Xbox One

Keep in mind each of those systems had 6-7 weeks of sales and a holiday season.

 

[KingSnake]

nvm.

 

[maxcriden]

If they indeed ship just 2 million at launch and this is not just a "be on the safe side" estimation then yeah, the will be shortages at launch. I hope they open the pre-orders rather sooner than later.

This is where I get confused about estimations vs. actual shipments. If it is a "be on the safe side" estimation, do they have to tell investors beforehand if they plan to ship more? So we'd know well in advance?

 

[Hoo-doo]

So instead of parity with XB1 @ $299, it should go for a half step above Wii U for $199? doesn't sound like a great plan when you consider that mobile hardware drops in price much faster and they can hit $199 in just a couple years.

What are you talking about when you say parity? Price? Power?

Parity (power) with XB1 is never going to happen. Best get that out of the way now.
But it would sell gangbusters at 199$. I would be fucking thrilled it was a portable Wii-U in terms of graphical performance. The Wii-U pumped out some great looking titles and it would be a very impressive handheld in it's own right.

Regardless, the extra 100$ entry price is going to do a whole lot more damage to consumer appeal than it not running games at exactly XB1 level. Let's be honest, the casual consumer doesn't give a damn about that. Wii-U games look good enough and on the handheld it'll look spectacular.

Why do you use the $299 price? There's 0 confirmation of it. You always advise people to avoid speculations and replacing facts with their hopes and dreams and yet you do this?

There's speculation in this thread that a 299$ pricepoint is potentially in the cards. That's what i'm adressing.
That's not my speculation or what I think will happen, it's about a theoretical scenario.

Also, could you not jump at my throat every time I post in a Switch thread? Christ dude. Ignore me if you really have to.

 

[James]

Comparing it to the PS Vita, the vita launched 6 years after the ps360 generation started, was sub 360 power level, and started with a $250 price tag.

The Nintendo Switch will launch a little over 3 years after the start of the ps4/xb1 generation and will be sub xb1 performance. I am not sure the relative powers between the two in their respective console generations, but there are some other factors to keep in mind:

1: The improvement in mobile processing.
2: Increased form factor coming in at a tablet like size.

So given all that, are the general specs of the hardware reasonable with a $250 price point w/o a loss?

 

[Aikidoka]

I suppose that sounds doable just from Nintendo's core base especially coupled with BotW and (maybe) a new Mario. But, I wonder if not starting the marketing campaign until 2017, will limit the momentum at launch.

 

[KingSnake]

There's speculation in this thread that a 299$ pricepoint is potentially in the cards. That's what i'm adressing.
That's not my speculation or what I think will happen, it's about a theoretical scenario.

Also, could you not jump at my throat every time I post in a Switch thread? Christ dude. Ignore me if you really have to.

As you wasn't answering directly to any post I thought it's your theory. I read the continuation of the discussion after my post and I understood it's not so I edited the post, but too late. Sorry for this.

 

[Dark Cloud]

I suppose that sounds doable just from Nintendo's core base especially coupled with BotW and (maybe) a new Mario. But, I wonder if not starting the marketing campaign until 2017, will limit the momentum at launch.

Super Bowl commercial for America is good enough.

 

[KingSnake]

This is where I get confused about estimations vs. actual shipments. If it is a "be on the safe side" estimation, do they have to tell investors beforehand if they plan to ship more? So we'd know well in advance?

I guess they can update the estimate in January.

 

[Branduil]

Comparing it to the PS Vita, the vita launched 6 years after the ps360 generation started, was sub 360 power level, and started with a $250 price tag.

The Nintendo Switch will launch a little over 3 years after the start of the ps4/xb1 generation and will be sub xb1 performance. I am not sure the relative powers between the two in their respective console generations, but there are some other factors to keep in mind:

1: The improvement in mobile processing.
2: Increased form factor coming in at a tablet like size.

So given all that, are the general specs of the hardware reasonable with a $250 price point w/o a loss?

Well, the GPU for Vita was probably more costly than the Tegra considering how ahead of the times it was.

It also had an expensive OLED screen.

 

[z0m3le]

What are you talking about when you say parity? Price? Power?

Parity (power) with XB1 is never going to happen. Best get that out of the way now.
But it would sell gangbusters at 199$. I would be fucking thrilled it was a portable Wii-U in terms of graphical performance. The Wii-U pumped out some great looking titles and it would be a very impressive handheld in it's own right.

Regardless, the extra 100$ entry price is going to do a whole lot more damage to consumer appeal than it not running games at exactly XB1 level. Let's be honest, the casual consumer doesn't give a damn about that. Wii-U games look good enough and on the handheld it'll look spectacular.

Regardless of what I want to happen, ~750gflops looks to be what we are getting with a Pascal Tegra with active cooling. X1 was passively cooled at 512gflops which with better API and no memory bandwidth issues (it has half the bandwidth of Pascal Tegra) it would sit at 50% XB1. So yeah 750gflops is parity with the other consoles, it is noticeably lower, but actually closer to XB1 than XB1 is to PS4.

There is no way you'd need active cooling if this thing was only Wii U class, don't forget that Wii U is only 160 shaders @ 550mhz, X1 is already 256 shaders (as is what we assume the Pascal Tegra chip is) and passively cooled at 1ghz, Pascal can be passively cooled at 1.4ghz according to Nvidia, so this is north of that number when docked.

 

[10k]

Achievable in a few weeks for a launch.

 

[R00bot]

Well, the GPU for Vita was probably more costly than the Tegra considering how ahead of the times it was.

It also had an expensive OLED screen.

I heard the Vita had roughly the same hardware as an iPad 3? Not exactly super ahead of the times but still pretty good.

 

[Okami Haundo]

My hot take is that the 2 million "shipped" figure could mean:

- Nintendo are playing it safe to avoid investor rage. Their investors seem to primarily want Nintendo to focus on mobile, being bullish with console sales #'s they can't meet won't help their argument against that.

- The Nintendo Switch is launching late in the month and thus, won't have much time on the market before the FY ends.

My money is on the first scenario. I don't think Nintendo wants to rock the boat by predicting insane sales of the Switch that they can't meet. This way they have plenty of room to impress and prove the validity of their approach.

Please let the Switch be a success... Please let the Switch be a success... Please let the Switch be a success... Please let the Switch be a success... Please let the Switch be a success...

 

[Hermii]

Comparing it to the PS Vita, the vita launched 6 years after the ps360 generation started, was sub 360 power level, and started with a $250 price tag.

The Nintendo Switch will launch a little over 3 years after the start of the ps4/xb1 generation and will be sub xb1 performance. I am not sure the relative powers between the two in their respective console generations, but there are some other factors to keep in mind:

1: The improvement in mobile processing.
2: Increased form factor coming in at a tablet like size.

So given all that, are the general specs of the hardware reasonable with a $250 price point w/o a loss?

It has at least 3 major advantages with porting to Xbox one over the Vita compared to 360.

1. If lcgeeks leak is correct, the cpu is superior to current consoles.
2. The carts will match bluray Storage capacity.
3. The gpu is using a desktop class architecture.

But we dont really know until we see ports running on it.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Regarding the CPU talk, i think it would be hard for Nintendo to go for a CPU weaker than Jaguar from 3 years ago, which wasn't even strong then.

The bandwidth of DDR4 can be mitigated with Nintendo's usual on board high speed memory solution(even though i dont know how that would actually play in a mobile form factor or if its doable in that factor) and the ram capacity..while tricky, can be worked around somewhat.

and the GPU as durante said, is just a matter of lowering resolution enough in many cases, since the architecture isn't like the Wii U GPU, this GPU supports all modern kinds of rendering out of the box

 

[Neoxon]

Regardless of what I want to happen, ~750gflops looks to be what we are getting with a Pascal Tegra with active cooling. X1 was passively cooled at 512gflops which with better API and no memory bandwidth issues (it has half the bandwidth of Pascal Tegra) it would sit at 50% XB1. So yeah 750gflops is parity with the other consoles, it is noticeably lower, but actually closer to XB1 than XB1 is to PS4.

There is no way you'd need active cooling if this thing was only Wii U class, don't forget that Wii U is only 160 shaders @ 550mhz, X1 is already 256 shaders (as is what we assume the Pascal Tegra chip is) and passively cooled at 1ghz, Pascal can be passively cooled at 1.4ghz according to Nvidia, so this is north of that number when docked.

This. Even Emily said that the Switch would at the very least outpace the Wii U by a considerable degree. That being said, I'd expect multiplatform Switch games to run at 720p if PS4 has a game at 1080p & the XB1 has a game at 900p.

 

[z0m3le]

This. Even Emily said that the Switch would at the very least outpace the Wii U by a considerable degree. That being said, I'd expect multiplatform Switch games to run at 720p if PS4 has a game at 1080p & the XB1 has a game at 900p.

This is pretty much exactly what we should expect, especially considering the tablet screen is rumored by Emily to be 720p. The dock might give the extra clock for checkerboard rendering though, remember Nvidia is cutting edge and behind all the tech of the device.

2 million probably isn't enough units, if they have another million ready for April, maybe, hard to tell, this will do a lot more in japan and europe than Wii U did, even outside of the holidays.

Also the bottom of the device seems to be USB type C, if that is what really is connecting to the dock, they could offer future docks with its own GPU, and I'm thinking that was what the SCD patent was all about, there is no reason they couldn't sell you a console that functions as a dock and allows higher fidelity later on. The only reason I think that sort of thing might miss 2017 is because they will be limited in what they can produce, and if pokemon is announced, this thing is sold out the entire first year IMO.

 

[Aaronrules380]

This is pretty much exactly what we should expect, especially considering the tablet screen is rumored by Emily to be 720p. The dock might give the extra clock for checkerboard rendering though, remember Nvidia is cutting edge and behind all the tech of the device.

2 million probably isn't enough units, if they have another million ready for April, maybe, hard to tell, this will do a lot more in japan and europe than Wii U did, even outside of the holidays.

Also the bottom of the device seems to be USB type C, if that is what really is connecting to the dock, they could offer future docks with its own GPU, and I'm thinking that was what the SCD patent was all about, there is no reason they couldn't sell you a console that functions as a dock and allows higher fidelity later on. The only reason I think that sort of thing might miss 2017 is because they will be limited in what they can produce, and if pokemon is announced, this thing is sold out the entire first year IMO.

I mean it's hard to make judgements when for all we know NX is releasing on March 31st. It could be a full month, it could be 2 million for a week or less of sales

 

[Stone Ocean]

"On Switch: Nintendo CEO says company won't make loss by selling it; but also listening to what consumers expect from us when setting price."

That's worrisome. Remember when "listening to what consumers expect from us" led to them selling the 3DS at $250? Considering all the tech in the system and how small it is, and Nintendo not wanting to sell it at a loss, I'm thinking $349 at minimum.

349 is suicide

 

[Enduin]

2 Million for probably a week or two of sales is nothing to sneeze at. I would hope they could achieve that and also hope they don't under ship the device.

That said anything over $299 is suicide in my mind. And even at that price point I think Nintendo would have to, without question, include an amazing pack in game that really excites consumers like Wii Sports did. Not to mention a killer launch lineup and marketing campaign besides. Anything less and they'll just be pricing themselves out of a lot of potential customers. The only way they're getting something like $349 for the system is with Special edition bundles that include the pro controller, extra internal storage and major title like BotW.

The sweet spot I think is $249, that also includes a great pack in game, though they could potentially sell without one if the marketing is on point and the the launch lineup is great. I'm just really skeptical at a potential $199 price tag given the hardware we've seen. Knowing they aren't taking a lost I personally would be skeptical of the device and its ability to preform both as a console and handheld for such a low price.

At this point Nintendo can't be selling this thing with any kind of healthy profit margin. They need to sell it as close to cost as possible in order to diminish that barrier of entry as much as possible.

This applies to software too. They need to be a lot more aggressive with how they price their games. They've been fairly good in recent years about variable pricing for different games, and everyone knows they're allergic to price drops. So I think it would go a long way if they managed to have a wide ranges of games that go from $29-59 at launch.

 

[Astral Dog]

Sounds good, dont overstimate themselves

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

How does this compare to month 1 sales of, say, the PS4, Wii or Wii U? 2 million units at launch sounds like an awful lot.

PS4 did 4.2 million sold (not shipped iirc) between mid November (EU was late november) and Jan 7th.

Obviously don't expect Switch to have anywhere near the success of the PS4 which had one of the best launches of all time.

 

[TLZ]

Comparing it to the PS Vita, the vita launched 6 years after the ps360 generation started, was sub 360 power level, and started with a $250 price tag.

The Nintendo Switch will launch a little over 3 years after the start of the ps4/xb1 generation and will be sub xb1 performance. I am not sure the relative powers between the two in their respective console generations, but there are some other factors to keep in mind:

1: The improvement in mobile processing.
2: Increased form factor coming in at a tablet like size.

So given all that, are the general specs of the hardware reasonable with a $250 price point w/o a loss?

But you are comparing a handheld only with a portable home console that is supposed to be a home console first and a portable second.

 

[Orniletter]

$299 is too damn high.

Handheld gamers never drop that kind of money on a handheld and console gamers get an underpowered device in comparison with the competition.

Not sure whether the hybrid aspect alone is enough of a selling point. Nintendo should go fucking balls-out trying to make this thing dirt cheap.

You were whining about "use gorilla glass or go home" in the other thread.

You can't have it both ways, demand really high quality materials while shouting from the rooftops that Switch needs to be "dirt cheap ".