Would you prefer Switch be higher priced with more power, or cheaper with less power?

Cheaper with less power. This thing is never going to be my primary system no matter how powerful it is, but I would pay $250 or so to play first-party Nintendo games.
 
Cheaper with less power. $199 would be great.

I don't see the point of $299 because they'd be mixing with Xbox One and PS4. If Timmy's friends are on PS4, then parents will probably opt for a PS4. Sure Nintendo games provide a different experience, but Nintendo games are also higher priced for longer and price is important to many people. One reason there are less 3DS and Wii U sales this generation is because so many people have moved to mobile for alternative and cheaper gaming.

$399 means Nintendo wants to serve the hardcore Nintendo fans first and that they'll worry about the younger audience later. I don't know if that's a great strategy as Nintendo fans are dwindling with each home console release.
 
I've never cared about 'power' when it comes to Nintendo. Price is kind of irrelevant for me but something crazy like $199 at release means I'd buy it sight unseen.

I care about how they are going to give this thing a large and consistent enough game library that justifies putting it besides other platforms after the WiiU disaster.

There also needs to be a good digital library system where I can have confidence that my purchases will stay with me and not be tied to a device. Same with other standard network features.
 
Ideally they would launch 2 SKUs at launch. A ProScorpio like premium unit, and a cheap unit.



Satisfy both parties as long as the base model can at least run multiplat games.
 
I'm not concerned about the price of Nintendo Switch at all - I'll buy it on any case. But I do want Docks (additional ones) to be fairly cheap - I want to grab another one with the system to finally use the living room TV for gaming.
 
18-Volt said:
They NEED to compete on power if they want third party support. RDR2 is coming next year, even missing just that would put Nintendo in a position they don't want to be in. No one can afford two consoles at a time anymore. Well, except me.
Click to expand...

But nobody should reasonably be looking for replacing their other consoles with a Nintendo unit. That is not the reality a lot of people live in where there is PC, PS4 and XB1 with a variety of games.
 
Less for less power. Graphics is the least interesting thing about gaming to me, except for when it isn't but then it isn't about photorealism anyway.
 
Cheaper with less power, easily. Nintendo's proven more than anyone else that they don't need tons of power to make excellent games.

They've also proven that they have no business making anything other than secondary hardware to Sony/MS/PC, so it should be as cheap as possible. Anything over $249 will be a flop, and even that's pushing it if those 32gb & battery life rumors are true.
 
I just want it to be successful enough for Nintendo to keep doing what they do best. Not getting a Fire Emblem title for the Wii U, nor a proper Metroid entry, nor a new Zelda game to call its own was a huge letdown for me. Either I'll get Breath of the Wild for the Wii U and hold off on a Switch or I'll pick up the latter and feel burned by the former. It's disappointing no matter how I look at it.

So I want Nintendo to do a great job of reaching an audience. I'd rather have a wildly successful handheld with sub-par graphics I can connect to my TV and play with a game pad than a compromise that doesnt find its niche. Here's hoping they've judged the market better than I fear they might.
 
i say higher power, higher price. aim towards the late 20s/30s disposable income crowd, then when the holidays roll around little jimmy will get to play mario, pokemon, ect

an "on the go" ps3/360 experience isn't very marketable
 
For me it is about finding a balance. I do feel they can get something close to the XB1 at about 300. I feel that Nintendo may loose some money (for the first time) to get it out at that price or possibly even lower. I will say, I do not look to Nintendo to bring me the graphical powerhouse I want from Microsoft or Sony.
 
For it to succeed it has to hit that price sweetspot, therefore power will have to be adjusted for that, it's just a fact of life, we all want to be driving a Lotus for the price of a Latte, not going to happen
 
Higher priced more power and battery.

Wii/Wii-U were fine for what they were but if i get a switch i want to be able to play new games on the go not just nintendo games and if it's under powered and can't keep up with the one/ps4 it's gonna lose that support. Also, support fucking 3ds games with it, it's a handheld.
 
heck I think it's gotta be $199 to succeed(70-80 mil life time).

$299 will just sell alright but not amazing (40-50mil life time).

and $399 it's going to be competing with the wiiu for worst nintendo console sales of all time.

so yeah... given the choices I gotta go with the cheaper with less power.
 
styl3s said:
Higher priced more power and battery.

Wii/Wii-U were fine for what they were but if i get a switch i want to be able to play new games on the go not just nintendo games and if it's under powered and can't keep up with the one/ps4 it's gonna lose that support. Also, support fucking 3ds games with it, it's a handheld.
Click to expand...

Like BC with 3DS? Doesn't seem to be happening. Nintendo's dropping BC like Sony and MS had to do this gen in order to move forward with better more future proof architecture, more power and keeping the price lower.
 
I would personally prefer massively more powerful with a price to match. I think better innovation and ideas could be implemented with that power.

But I also think they will be more successful with less power and much lower price, so they can achieve mass adoption.

I unfortunately expect less power with a generally higher price than most will want to pay, around that $399 or higher price point. This is an iPad like device with more compute and graphics power than most tablets, and a multitude of peripherals to be bundled with it to boot. I know they are competing with much more powerful consoles at a similar or lower price, but I don't think they think of it like that. And their competitors aren't doing anything like Switch in the slightest. Not sure if people are tempering their expectations on price TBH.
 
Go cheap option to get it into as many peoples houses as possible. Then have an upgrade 2 years later.

Upgrade shouldn't be that expensive as u wouldn't need to rebuy the docking station or controller.
 
higher priced with more power but nobody would buy that because people have been burned too many times by Nintendo so they need to reprove themselves with a cheaper console and maybe work there way back up later.
 
I personally would prefer higher price with more power but I want lower price because then it'll be more successful and thus more games will be on it.

I'm still in #Team$300 though.
 
My ideal situation would be the cheapest price possible for a handheld that can play Xbox one ports at little to no visual hit but at 720p. I'm hoping for a nice checkerboard upscaling in the dock. There's a class of open world games, jrpgs, that I pretty much ignore now because I don't have time to play them, but factoring in commutes and breaks, they would become doable again.

However I don't think this is in any way possible. I feel that the upper limit we can feasibly hope for is 750 gflops, which would still only put it at 1/2 Xbox one.

So failing this possibility, we're not going to get AAA ports anyway, and I'd just say something that is appreciably better than Wii U and as cheap as possible.
 
I'm thinking it will go middle of the road in terms of cost and power. It won't be anywhere near even Xbox One in power, more like somewhere between WiiU and Xbox One (A Wii U Pro, if you like).

As to cost, I'm not holding my breath for anything less than $349.99, which was the launch price of the Wii U Deluxe.

A number of factors are taken into account:

1. Screen size (it's fairly big for a handheld);

2. Memory (rumoured 32GB minimum internal memory);

3. Battery (got to be top notch to get a decent battery life);

4. Processing power / Graphical power (this thing has to do all of the above AND be a decently powerful 'console').

So you are essentially looking at a super-Wii U in terms of components. I just can't see it going for less than $349.99. I also don't think Nintendo could afford to launch at more than $399.99 (and even that would be risky, seeing as it is still chasing the family demographic).


EDIT: In terms of what I would like - I'd say $349 with a decent amount of power.
 
Man we simply don't know what kind of custom Nvidia chip Nintendo had them develop/co-develop nor what kind of deal price wise they agreed on for said chip. This will be the key to where they price the console at.

All this "underpowered" talk again is getting annoying. Nintendo is on record saying they learned alot from the Wii U being "underpowered" which basically made third parties vanish overnight.

I think we're gonna be pleasantly surprised about the performance.

We already see Sony and Xbox refreshing their consoles to make them even beefier performance wise. I think Nintendo has a solution for this as well.
They'll be able to sell Switch docks with added processing power when in console mode. Calling it now
 
Why would anybody pay 400-450$ for something as powerful as a 250-300$ PS4/XBO?

I hope Nintendo has some aces under their sleeve, because the price-power battle is unwinnable.
 
Many answers here make no sense. I dont think they can achieve close to Xbox One performance at a 300$ (speaking for the portable part alone without any dock enhancements), though Im not an expert in thse things. Imo if that was possible it would be ideal.

Personally Id want the best they can do at 300$.
 
For the mass market, the Switch would be a 2nd console purchase. It needs to be priced as such. Getting 3rd party support would mean nothing since most would play those on their primary console. The Wii was successful because it was priced low enough that it was a no brainer impulse buy. The Switch needs to be priced to do the same.
 
If generally prefer more powerful. Even though they seem to think power isn't that important, I think their teams could really use it.

See the new Zelda. The frame rate starts to chug in areas. Seems like they can't quite get the performance they want from Wii U specs (but hopefully can't with Switch specs).

Price can always come down. Power cannot (please don't bring up SCDs). Maybe if Nintendo does the iterative consoles, it wouldn't be so bad to have lower initial specs.
 
Cheaper with less power. The console'll fail if it's priced more in line with the PS4/XBO, and nintendo have proven they don't need lits of power to make games that look good and perform well.
 
Zambayoshi said:
I'm thinking it will go middle of the road in terms of cost and power. It won't be anywhere near even Xbox One in power, more like somewhere between WiiU and Xbox One (A Wii U Pro, if you like).

As to cost, I'm not holding my breath for anything less than $349.99, which was the launch price of the Wii U Deluxe.

A number of factors are taken into account:

1. Screen size (it's fairly big for a handheld);

2. Memory (rumoured 32GB minimum internal memory);

3. Battery (got to be top notch to get a decent battery life);

4. Processing power / Graphical power (this thing has to do all of the above AND be a decently powerful 'console').

So you are essentially looking at a super-Wii U in terms of components. I just can't see it going for less than $349.99. I also don't think Nintendo could afford to launch at more than $399.99 (and even that would be risky, seeing as it is still chasing the family demographic).


EDIT: In terms of what I would like - I'd say $349 with a decent amount of power.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning of this price point. I'd go as far to say most of the tech for the Switch, though modern, is relatively inexpensive these days due to the rapid growth of the mobile sector. The Wii U had expensive new tech in the controller and very advanced streaming found nowhere else. The controller alone likely added on a hundred or so dollars to the system. Nintendo's moving away from the exotic and more for the standardized. Much of what the Switch is doing is not exactly new, there have been controller attachments before for tablets, and there is also the Nvidia Shield. The Nvidia Shield is even priced at $200.
 
Cheaper with less power. Nintendo consoles are secondary to me and I want Nintendo to be able to create as much content as possible. PS2 and Wii have proved that you don't need power to be successful.
 
A PS4 Pro is going to be £349 and is launching this year...

Switch is launching next year and, straight off, being Nintendo, I'd assume lower specs but, like the Wii U, that screen is going to drive the price up.

I dare say it's going to, very much, be a case of £200-250 at most for a decently performing piece of kit, but nothing mind blowing. Anything more and the public at large won't care.
 
Cheaper with less power (I'd take expensive and more battery life though). Why? Because no Nintendo system is ever gonna be my 3rd party machine. And Nintendo has show that as a developer, regardless of their systems power they can create some of the greatest games out there.
 
The console being $299 without a pack-in is the sweet-spot. Being at that price point it will probably be a bit less powerful than the XBO but still enough to get some multi-platform titles from it while not being completely overpriced or underpowered.
 
I hate to burst some people's bubbles, but they can't solve the portability problem by just throwing money at it. The only way to increase battery life without reducing performance is to increase the battery size, which means making it bigger and heavier. The only thing we can hope for at this point is that the dev kit being used at the time was TX1-based and that the final unit is Pascal and runs passively on the go, and that the battery is in the 4500+mAh range.

Doctor_Thomas said:
A PS4 Pro is going to be £349 and is launching this year...

Switch is launching next year and, straight off, being Nintendo, I'd assume lower specs but, like the Wii U, that screen is going to drive the price up.

I dare say it's going to, very much, be a case of £200-250 at most for a decently performing piece of kit, but nothing mind blowing. Anything more and the public at large won't care.
Click to expand...

A 720p 6.2" IPS screen only costs around $20. The screen was not the reason Wii U was overpriced.
 
I'd pay for more power up to a point. I don't really agree with the estimates of 349-399 for something "almost as powerful or rivaling XBO" but I'd go up to that price.

I see a lot of posts like "Nintendo doesn't need power to make good looking games," but Nintendo isn't unique in that regard. Plenty of games on other platforms that make use of great art direction. The extra hardware power just helps those games look even better.

Also I want the next Monolithsoft RPG to look as good as possible.

primasaurus said:
It would be come an issues for you as others wont buy it, and games won't be made for it
Click to expand...

Well the thread says "what would you prefer" rather than "what does it need to be in order to be successful."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Battlefield fans, would you prefer more incentives to encourage squad play?
2
53
245
Ceadeus replied
  • Featured
Nintendo Switch 2 |OT| Switch 2 Nintendo, because now we're playing with power
77 78 79 80 81
4K
10K
blacktout replied
Condemned 1 & 2 or The Darkness 1 & 2 | Which series would you prefer gets remade?
2 3
117
483
joshwaan replied
Is the Switch the end of an era? Game count, less restrictions making games take longer to make, less ports? Higher price!
8
324
nial replied
DF: Switch 2 power efficiency is brilliant and the battery is good.
33
2K
iHaunter replied
Top Bottom