I'll laugh, and wait for a price drop after it bombs.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nikkei: Nintendo Switch to be 25,000 yen (Roughly $250) [Up: Maybe speculation]
- Thread starter Kaneda Shotaro
- Start date
I'll laugh, and wait for a price drop after it bombs.
No chance in hell this happens. Nintendo will fuck this up like they do the supply of all of their products. The fact that you can't find brand new 3DS XL right now is ridiculous.
Vampirolol
Member
When it comes to Nintendo devices, some people can't be satisfied even with 99$.
vasametropolis
Member
I'm not one of them as it's a little ridiculous to me, but I understand their perspective. If you can only own one thing that plays games and you like third party, Nintendo stuff isn't even worth $0. As always it's going to differ from person to person.
Why do you think it will bomb?
vasametropolis
Member
It'll bomb at $299 100%. I think $200 will never happen but if they can hit $250 with a pack in they've done a good job I think. Without a pack in they are rolling the dice hard with their future at that price.
Napalm_Frank
Member
Ideally you don't want to go more expensive than PS4.
For some weird reason people think handhelds shouldn't be ''expensive'' even if the tech justifies it (The Witness effect) and as a home console if you don't have the power to compete with the other two you need to go cheaper. I don't think it being a hybrid is a huge selling point, people who are interested in that kinda stuff are propably the handheld market anyway.
Vampirolol
Member
I don't think it'll bomb at 299$ if the software is there, but that's the maximum level they could try to sell this thing for sure. Anything more needs a miracle.
But this is a console that is new, the PS4 has been on the market for 3 years already. Basically between what GAF is saying and what is actually realistic, there is no way Nintendo can succeed.
PdotMichael
Banned
Should be closer to $200.
I don't see how people will pick a Switch over a PS4 if the price factor isn't in favour of the Switch.
I don't see how people will pick a Switch over a PS4 if the price factor isn't in favour of the Switch.
Bioshocker
Member
Brexit hasn't happened yet, though.
For us Swedes 249$ probably means about 2999 SEK, roughly 310 euros. Our beloved government has just added yet another tax on electronics.
Some folks like the idea of more options as opposed to more power.
vasametropolis
Member
It doesn't matter if it's new. It matters what it offers. I love Nintendo, but the PS4 is a way better value proposition no matter which way you slice it at price parity, even if you completely ignore specs. They need to be lower than PS4 and Xbox as they have even admitted the thing is primarily a home console and no matter what they do it is a competitor to those machines first and foremost.
They can't beat them on third party or specs, so they sure as shit need to win on price.
MatrixMan.EXE
Member
Just like that Wii U price drop...
And herein lies the problem. By constantly referring to Switch as their next home console, Nintendo has created a narrative whereby this thing is going to be directly compared to PS4 and Xbox One. The specs aren't on par, and if it isn't priced cheaper than the competition then Switch is in trouble. The presentation this week is yet to come, but I'm confident in saying that this thing won't receive anywhere near as strong third party support as XB1/PS4. That much is obvious. I'm willing to bet some of the biggest games on 2017 skip it entirely, so if Switch doesn't have those, doesn't have a price advantage and doesn't have a power advantage, what value proposition does it actually offer the consumer who is looking to buy a new home console?
Doesn't really matter if PS4 has been on the market that long. It still likely has another 50 million units to sell globally before it is phased out. How would pricing it above PS4 be a good move for the "would be" customers out there? It is not exceeding the PS4's hardware footprint in any way. That isn't to say Scorpio's approach is correct, but that is a discussion about pricing on the opposite end of the spectrum. We've seen what pricing works on Nintendo hardware, and what does not.
vasametropolis
Member
That totally reminds me... why does it seem like Nintendo actively refused price cuts over time? It's not like they've never, but they avoid it at all costs. Not sure I can really get behind that strategy.
mugurumakensei
Member
if you want a price drop, you should probably be hoping it's a success. Nintendo typically doesn't drop the price on bombing.
PdotMichael
Banned
Well, for 250 the Switch would be even the less powerful but more expensive device.
Napalm_Frank
Member
It's the same as Vita memory card situation. You'd think it makes sense but at some point the amount of new customers your failing product will attract after a price cut is not worth the revenue you lose.
They could have priced Wii U at 99 dollars Gamecube style in the later years, people still wouldn't have bought it in droves.
And pricing it below the PS4 could cause them to eat it on every unit and Nintendo (along with every other business in the world) ain't in it to lose money.
immortal-joe
Member
They won't go above $250, and at that price, they are likely getting a nice return per hardware sold. $200 "basic package" is very feasible.
Didn't they drop the price of 3DS fairly early after it's lackluster start in Japan?
vasametropolis
Member
Do they even price cut successful products? I mean they cut the 3DS I think, but they released a new model to maintain the higher price. They just hate cutting.
I think they may have, but does that not contradict their no bomb price drop strategy that has been observed with the Wii U? I don't know.
Yeah, that one was head scratching. Even when they knew it wasn't selling well they just left it. Even when they knew it was coming to an end, they could have had a fire sale and sold some units.
Napalm_Frank
Member
2DS and Wii Mini are their versions of large price cuts for their successful products.
Ok, with that type of thinking, how much do you think it costs just for the components to make one unit? Then don't forget there are shipping costs and then the marketing/advertising costs before the units are in stores.
Vampirolol
Member
Probably because the 3DS price drop hurt customers' perception so much. I remember that when Wii U launched, LOTS of gamers expected it to drop soon just like 3DS, hence they didn't buy it.
vasametropolis
Member
OK. I get it. To me that's nowhere close to the same as a price "cut" but it's nice to at least recall some of their past strategies.
Unfortunately I think that's just an example of the market being correct and Nintendo being stubborn. The 3DS and Wii U were too expensive, yet they only course corrected 3DS and didn't even attempt to save Wii U. As previously mentioned perhaps the Wii U costed too much to slash prices at all, which just seems like a baffling bungle on their part.
Napalm_Frank
Member
When you think about it 2DS+n3DS is pretty much the same exact strategy Sony is doing with PS4+PS4 pro.
I totally expect there to be a new ''pro'' version of Switch available whenever the old one gets any sort of big pricecut.
PdotMichael
Banned
The WiiU wasn't a good product.
WiiU suffered from the problem that it couldn't really get cheaper without making a loss because of the exotic hardwaredesign, the console would have suffered from it even if the first year would have been more successful.
vasametropolis
Member
New 3DS yes. 2DS... not so much to me. Personally it came off as a gimped device so I'm not sure I'd count it as a price drop. 3DS to n3DS fair enough.
EventHorizon
Member
Nintendo has to deal with the hardware gaming environment the way it exists today. That means competing with its major competition, the XB1 and PS4, which cost between $249-$299 depending if they are on sale, and a three year backlog of games that are mostly heavily discounted. That is what a new console buyer is going to have to give up if they decide to to buy the Switch. All they are going to do is decide which of their options best meets their needs and provides enough value for the price.
I said they shouldn't be pricing it above PS4. Never said it needs to cost substanially less. I wouldn't expect that with the screen being in every unit. But they cannot pull another Wii U and completely ignore the lack of consumer response to a price point that doesn't work.
Also, plenty of businesses burn money in certain segments to gain marketshare. That was Amazon's entire M.O. until very recently. I'm not even remotely suggesting Nintendo take this approach, but you can't pretend the PlayStation division losing money in early days of PS2 or Microsoft writing off $1B in dud consoles to keep their brand relevant never happened. Nintendo should do what they can to build a profitable ecosystem without taking a bath on any one particular aspect of it. They have done this before at $249.99 (and below... which I never specially suggested), they should be able to do it again. The only reason they would fail to do so is poor planning and a lack of recognition as to which price points have previously worked them, and which have not.
They showed a good amount of agility reacting to the market in the early days of the 3DS, so maybe they do it price it higher, and react accordingly if the need arises. But repeating the lack of movement on Wii U's price would be a dead end. I don't see how another piece of hardware remotely resembling a home console gets made if those mistakes are repeated.
Its a handheld with the ability to output to TV
A handheld is primarily (or only) played by holding the device in one's hands. That is only one way of three in which the Switch can be played. The other two do not involve holding the device in one's hands, but playing it with controllers while looking at a screen.
It's a portable console, not a handheld. Power is not the deciding factor here. How it's played is.
Godzilla's Left Toe
Member
N64 Game Cube and 3ds say hi.
EventHorizon
Member
The problem with calling the Switch a home console is that if you do then you also have to say that Nintendo learned nothing from the Wii U's failure. The Switch would be an underpowered console that is also too expensive because it includes a screen and other features that the general public isn't willing to pay for.
It is only as a handheld that the Switch makes any sense.
It is only as a handheld that the Switch makes any sense.
How do you know what the general public is and isn't willing to pay for?
EventHorizon
Member
Did you miss the part about the Wii U being a failure?
If someone, like myself, who will hardly take the Switch out of the dock...is it still considered a handheld? Because to me, I feel the Switch will cater to my gaming habits, and that's minimal portable experience. So to the Switch will most definitely be a console primarily, and a handheld secondary.
I only say/ask this because I see a lot of post with people correcting one another without considering how the other will use it. Perhaps a 50/50? Then that person will probably see the Switch as a hybrid. A replacement to their n3DS? They'll most likely see it as a handheld primarily. A replacement to their Wii U? They'll probably see it as a console primarily.
These 3 groups have a different view on what the Switch is/what it can do. Nintendo will either benefit from this, or it will create another Wii U situation where the consumer is more confused than anything else.
I only say/ask this because I see a lot of post with people correcting one another without considering how the other will use it. Perhaps a 50/50? Then that person will probably see the Switch as a hybrid. A replacement to their n3DS? They'll most likely see it as a handheld primarily. A replacement to their Wii U? They'll probably see it as a console primarily.
These 3 groups have a different view on what the Switch is/what it can do. Nintendo will either benefit from this, or it will create another Wii U situation where the consumer is more confused than anything else.
No. The Switch is a very different console than the Wii U, though, and I don't think saying that what it offers is something the general public won't find value in just because the Wii U's bad design was poorly-received is wise.
hell if i know "what people want" but i think most were confused by wii u or just didn't think local remote play was worth $300. none of this really applies to Switch
Conciliator
Banned
The Wii U failed in large part because of a weak library, timing, and marketing/branding problems. Nintendo has had quite some success selling underpowered consoles with gimmicky features before.
If you ask the general public what a Wii U is and why they didn't buy one, I think you'll find the feature set was the least of its perception problems.
Maybe the Wii U had a weak library at launch or in terms of third party games, but its first party line-up was anything but (hence why a good chunk of them are getting ported). I do agree about the marketing & branding issues, though.
Similar threads
- Poll