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

H

hatchx

Banned
There's a lot of speculation over two things regarding the Nintendo Switch. The cost, and what's under the hood. It's even more interesting because some have said 'over 249.99 and it's dead', and others have said 'under this spec, it's dead with no 3rd parties'. Well which one is it?

It looks as if it will either go two ways.

One being a cheaper cost of 249.99 or 299.99 that would probably be a souped up WiiU with 32GB of memory.

The other being a more expensive cost of 349.99 or 399.99 with much more power, almost equalling or rivalling an Xbox 1.

I don't see a scenario where we get the best of both worlds. I really don't. You want 249.99? Say goodbye the next-gen parity. You want bells and whistles and all that power? Say goodbye to the cost.

Personally, I'd pay 399.99 or even 449.99 for power. If the thing has parity with X1 and Ps4 (not saying PS4Pro or Scorpio), then it will get reliable ports, allow for extremely good-looking Nintendo games, and have more of a future-proofed life. They can always continue dropping the price years into the console's life, but they won't be shooting themselves in the foot early for a cheap entry point and no 3rd parties.

I think gamers and the general public will recognize if the console is underpowered again.
Gamers seem to care about specs, and the cost of PS4/X1 didn't seem to detract gamers. If the console is underpowered with mediocre/bad ports (if at all), gamers will recognize that and a low-cost entry might not matter.

Regardless, it's a tough call on Nintendo's part to make. Certainly they've already made it, but what say you Gaf? What say you?



What say you
 
Higher price with power and battery life so it can stand a chance to attract third parties to port their games over.
 
Don't care about power at this point, Nintendo games already look great

I'd rather they not come out with 100 different controllers to litter my living room with
 
I would pay for more power so that it actually has a chance of getting some ports and also not have crappy performance on the go.

$399.

Honestly expanded Japanese third party support is what will make it or break it for me on this system.
 
As high-demand thrid party games won't be there for long anyway and Nintendo makes software specifically for their hardware, less power, lower price.
 
Prefer more expensive but competent screen technology and power, but those usually don't happen.

I feel like that Skyrim Special Edition for Switch, that apparently isn't even announced, is a benchmark that is going to bite them in the ass. I don't think the graphics on the thing when docked will be that good.
 
Needs to be $250-299, I think. $250 is ideal, so the most they can get out of the system with that. Mario sure does look nice, so I guess the power is fine so the price needs to be right.
They might be able to charge more ($300-350) if it is indeed Xbox One level spec and can run everything xbox One can...but that seems unlikely to happen.
 
Honestly, I would prefer a real handheld with clamshell design. I don't care about power and noticed how little I've played the Wii U. There are still so many unplayed games on the shelf I'll probably never play them all... because I usually decide to play something on the small screen. The Switch is just not portable enough for my taste.
 
Higher price with an option that lets me prioritise performance or battery based on how long I'm going to be away from a power outlet.

If I am just going to work, then I want full perofmance. On a flight, I generally want low performance.

[e] For market success, it needs to be affordable from day one. Third party support doesnt need parity, it just needs reasonable effort to develop the games for Switch.

Devs are soon going to be stretching from Xbox One to Scorpio, so hopefully these considerations are already taking place to some extent.
 
They are in a difficult position with what the console is trying to acheive.

Would PS4 power in a portable device even be possible at this stage without it going Note 7 in your hands or draining power at a Game Gear pace? Forget the price, I don't know if it's even possible.

On the other hand, surely they could have easily made a PS4 equal for $299 at this stage. These consoles will have been out for over 3 years when the Switch launches, so seeing that as a high benchmark for power is kind of laughable.

Anyway, damned if you do and damned if you don't.
 
It's a tablet; it's power will always be relatively crippled so the the answers to the question won't make that much of a difference (this is for those thinking a handheld could compete with a console power-wise).

As for the Switch as it's own product (likely a companion item) I say the cheaper the better because it cannot compete as a main device. Even in a pure gaming handheld sense, it's limited battery due to it being a tablet is already a disadvantage from portable gaming systems.
 
Ninja Scooter said:
$299 is probably the absolute highest the price can be if they want it to be successful, so whatever amount of power that gets me.
Click to expand...

i agree with this. i also think the system will be $299.99, with subsequent upgrades coming in at that price, and smaller all-in-one versions landing at $199.99 or so a couple years down the line.
 
I’d pay more for increased power - 1080p while docked should be the minimum. It’s a console being released in 2017 and I am not going to give Nintendo another pass this time.
 
I was fine with the Wii U's specs. The games Nintendo could put out on it were gorgeous. It's just that 3rd party developers were not. Nintendo need to swallow whatever cost it takes to get this thing near XB1 level at 299 or lower.
 
The question marks I have aren't really over the power, but the online infrastructure and the level of support for developers.

If the online backend is good enough that we can get a steady stream of games, I'd be happy to pay an extra bit of money for more storage (in some capacity) so I could download those games.

Then again, if the question is paying more to guarantee 720p/60fps in all games, I would probably strongly consider that.
 
Depends, if this console can play Nintendo games in 1080p at 60fps, games that look like that new Mario, then I'm super happy with its power. If not, I'd be willing to pay more.
 
Has to have mass appeal, so hopefully no higher than 300 for a base model. While i usually aim for bang for the buck/middling specs in things where the power is configurable (pcs, laptops), I won't complain about a cheaper Switch, particularly if it has good enough hardware to allow for some toned down ports of the big sellers.

Havent' bought an NHL game in decades but have fantasies of playing hockey on the Switch.
 
Cheaper with less power.

I really think a low price is the key for success here.
 
I'm okay with less power (and maybe even more price) if they focus on usability features, like battery life, HDMI-CEC, and true seamless switching from docked to portable. I really hope its storage solution for digital games is up to task, too.
 
Cheaper price, best battery life possible.

The Wii U and 3DS both show that "weak" hardware isn't holding Nintendo back from making amazing software.
 
Higher price with more power. Otherwise pretty much another Nintendo only console. How many people willing to give up Destiny 2, Red Dead 2, Mass Effect Andromeda, and other games just to play another Mario or Zelda only. That is why Nintendo needs a console that can provide what their competitors can as well.

Unless they plan to only be an add on console. Meaning you buy a Switch AND another console. Maybe that is actually better for everyone. Higher price with better specs and battery life wouldn't be too bad.
 
I mean, for me personally, make it expensive and give me all the power. I want 60fps for every Nintendo game.

But if I want it to sell and be popular, $200-250.
 
If it actually has western AAA titles then higher price and more power. If it doesn't then it can be as cheap or expensive as it wants to be cause I'm not getting it.
 
There is a minimum power level the switch needs to hit to work, and that number is significant. (Around 500Gflps to run modern games at 540p(aka 1080p uprendered)

So that number is always going to make it expensive. Nintendo are just going to have to get that power to consumers as cheaply as possible
 
If it were a smaller handheld my expectations wouldn't be that high...

But this is a tablet, not something pocketable, so it better be something special hardware-wise. Nvidia's tablet with tegra is $200 right now, so I'm also not expecting to be charged much more than that.
 
Im satisfied with Wii U graphics. So Ill go for lower price. I have gotten to a point were i dont care about power. Im all about game play now.
 
Steel said:
If it were a smaller handheld my expectations wouldn't be that high...

But this is a tablet, not something pocketable, so it better be something special hardware-wise. Nvidia's tablet with tegra is $200 right now, so I'm also not expecting to be charged much more than that.
Click to expand...


What is the Nvidia tablet like battery/power-wise?
 
Higher priced with more power. As long as that "power" includes a more powerful battery. No sense in making a more powerful console if I can't take half of it out for more than hour.

It's basically two consoles in one, as long as the price isn't literally the price of the 3DS and Wii U, I'm okay with it.
 
The price should continue to reflect that this machine is mainly for playing just Nintendo games (unless you live in Japan). So powerful enough for that, but cheap enough that it is competitive with what else is on the market.

At $349+, with less power, or AT BEST the same power as the weakest player in the "power" race, you're just setting yourself up for WiiU-levels of failure.

Price it at $249, or $299 with a pack-in title. There is no room for a 3rd player in the high-powered console race, but there IS room for Nintendo to be a lower-priced alternative, or a secondary console for only Nintendo titles. Plus Japan is pretty much done with home consoles, so making the system battery-efficient enough to be portable should be a higher priority for them than trying to just push the most pixels.
 
I just want it to be powerful enough to get ports of Xbone and PS4 games. If it hits that mark it'll have a good chance of doing well, game-wise.

There is no chance of it being cheaper than $299, and I don't think it needs to be either. I think it can easily hold its own with its own merits at that price, and could probably justify a $349 price tag as well. $399 is a more bitter pill to swallow, though I am worried it may be necessary for the tech.
 
Shadowheart said:
It's a tablet; it's power will always be relatively crippled so the the answers to the question won't make that much of a difference (this is for those thinking a handheld could compete with a console power-wise).

As for the Switch as it's own product (likely a companion item) I say the cheaper the better because it cannot compete as a main device. Even in a pure gaming handheld sense, it's limited battery due to it being a tablet is already a disadvantage from portable gaming systems.
Click to expand...

Nvidia Shield 2?
 
They need to target low end. I'm thinking a max of $250. They need mass market appeal, and the dedicated are going to buy it regardless of the power.

If they try to go with more power, they'll be competing with the now cheaper Xbone and PS4, higher still, the PS4 pro.

Impulse buy or bust. They make money on the software anyway, and you know that will stay full price.
 
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
246
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