Support NeoGAF

[McGruber21]

Do you anticipate a future where the Switch is someone's second (or third) dedicated gaming device? Lower price is preferred.

Do you anticipate a future where the Switch is the only hardware people will buy? Good luck, but high price works here.

Basically what he said

 

[bounchfx]

Neither matters to me so much as quality games on the system.

But if I had to choose, 299 price point

 

[Dekuboy]

If it is a handheld cheaper with less power.

If it is a homeconsole, so cheap that you still can ply BotW without these ugly Pop-ups

 

[DeuceGamer]

I am willing to pay for more power, but for Switch to be successful it's going to have to balance price and power. I think it needs to be a maximum of $299 and hopefully $249 fairly quickly in it's lifecycle.

For those wanting more power hopefully Nintendo has a plan for incremental upgrades. They seem to be picking an archeticture that will allow them a lot of options moving forward and I think that may be key.

 

[DarkGorgon]

Cheaper, less power

Anywhere in the £250 range and it's day one

 

[LegendofLex]

I think that Nintendo should aim for a price point that's at or below $250 if that's an option they can achieve without giving any of the kinds of games we saw during the reveal trailer a performance hit. I'll personally pay up to $400, provided the games we saw are in the lineup for the first six months, but the market reality demands a device with a lower price.

tbh, this concept doesn't benefit tremendously from added power. They can always drive the price down through volume and sell an upgraded model down the line. I totally see this thing getting incremental model releases (better battery, more size options, set-top only version) over the course of its life. I'd rather they do the best they can at achieving the core vision in the first-generation product without making it prohibitively expensive, then make it better over time. As a mobile device, I expect to have reason to own more than one and will probably upgrade it at least once anyway.

 

[Popcicle]

I just want unique and fun Nintendo games. I'm not concerned whether this console purchase attracts more third-parties with like system specs to Sony or Microsoft.

If they can do that for less, all the better. I play my bleeding edge games on PC and other consoles anyway, and enjoy Nintendo games with a different mindset.

 

[Spinluck]

Well, I'm gonna guess it's $249 since I need something to base my response to OPs question off of.

If it can run Zelda BoTW and Wii U games better than the Wii U can. I think it's set. I expected a system reasonably more powerful than Wii U with the capability of running some 3rd party ports.

We will get the usual 1st and 2nd party efforts which are awesome. But those PS4 and Xbox1 ports will surely run at 720p, which is fine because that screen is small, but when docked it might not look all that great. Good news is I have a PS4 and PC for 3rd party games, and if I buy 3rd party games on Switch they'll be the ones I prefer to play in the comfort of a portable.

I don't think more power is worth it, same with the whole "more money for a better battery" sentiment. It can pretty much run any type of game as is, and it's better to worry about battery with future revisions after it establishes itself. The ceiling of entry has to be low as fuck imo, and that includes price point. Nintendo can't afford another slow start with this console, they're not in that position at the moment.

 

[pvpness]

They aren't going to meet my power desires (4k/VR) so I'm hoping it'll be cheap. 200.00 would put me there day one.

 

[Parsnip]

What I would actually prefer is if they sold me a "budget" version without the screen and joy-cons. Just a box with the hardware and a pro controller.

Would be the first Nintendo system I would buy since GameCube.

 

[tesla246]

Definitely give me power, as much as possible Nintendo.
I do not care about battery life and will buy day 1 if price is below €500.

 

[TyrantGuardian]

As cheap as possible. I have no interest in horse power when I already have a high end PC. I just want to play Nintendo games without spending too much.

 

[Kiote]

Nintendo should Target Xbone Power at $299

$250 would be an exceptional price point, but it's hard to see them hitting the performance they need to move the console.

As much as I hate to say it, this thing will be competing with Phones and Tablets. It is going to be competing as a Premium Content Mobile Device. It must Definitively pull off Graphics and Gameplay that you cannot get on a Cellphone or Tablet. If they can prove the capabilities of the device, they can easily justify a $299 price point when people pay $500-$800 dollars for those other devices.

Nintendo could reasonably push the Price Point to $349 if they can hit Xbone performance with a stellar battery life >6 hours. This might turn off some early adopters, but should be enough to push sellouts for at least two months.

The real key to success isn't really going to be price point though. The real key here is going to be non-gaming functionality. This thing absolutely must have some kind of data streaming for Video Content and a Fully Functional Web Browser. Ideally, it will encourage the development of Non-Game Apps as well. The broad reaching demographic is going to be looking at this as a Tablet replacement, not a home console.

That's not to say it needs all that to be successful. I'm fairly confident Nintendo has already sold this to gamers. They can probably count on 40-60 million units already, assuming the price isn't outlandish (PS3 Launch). But if they want to get back to the 100 million mark, they are going to need broadly appealing functionality beyond high-end gaming on the go.

 

[SpookyBlackFish]

Personally, I normally pick a higher price for more visual fidelity in games. But in the case of Switch, it may not be the smartest pick. I think this time Nintendo is quite close to the edge with efficiency. Size, weight, noise, power draw, heat, price, this is hard to balance when going with a concept of flexibility.

No, this time I do not ask for more power. But not for the sake of it being cheaper, but for the sake of usability.

 

[Terrell]

Why? Because more power means more expensive and we all know that the market isn't interested in an expensive Nintendo system. Unless Nintendo wants to fail, they should stick to cheaper system, lower specs.

Let's be fair, there's not a wealth of examples of high-priced Nintendo hardware beyond Wii U and 3DS before the price drop, and there was a LOT working against those than just price.

Definitely cheaper with less power.

I think most people don't want to spend more than 199$ on nintendo hardware.
So 199$ powerful.

How long was Wii at $250?
People will spend if they find a good value proposition. Period.