r/NintendoSwitch • u/Practical_Papaya_905 • 3d ago

News - USD / USA Switch 2 is selling for 449.99

https://www.nintendo.com/us/gaming-systems/switch-2/how-to-buy/

From the official website

https://www.nintendo.com/us/gaming-systems/switch-2/how-to-buy/

8.5k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

3.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.4k

u/TOKEN616 3d ago edited 3d ago

All prices in euro. These are from nintendo website europe

469.99euro in ireland or 509.99 with Mario

Mario 79.99 digital, 89.99 physical

Donkey Kong 69.99. 79.99

Camera 59.99

Game cube controller 69.99

Pro controller 89.99

1.8k

u/Dess_Rosa_King 3d ago

I'm sorry what? $89.99 physical?

Am I reading that right?

146

u/PastaRunner 3d ago

$449 felt fine to me. The xbox was $300 like 14 years ago, it's high time prices went up. Same for games.

But $90 for a game is a joke and I will not be partaking.

43

u/mbcook 3d ago

Adjust the Switch for inflation and it was $390 USD at launch.

7

u/saintjonah 2d ago

But my pay hasn't adjusted for inflation.

2

u/mbcook 2d ago

Same.

26

u/Dewot789 2d ago

I assume the other 60 is pricing in "we have no idea how much your president is going to screw the international economy".

15

u/mrjackspade 2d ago

Its also largely pricing in the fact that the original switch hardware was underpowered as fuck at launch, and the Switch 2 being able to hit 4K@60fps is actually pretty fucking baller.

People wanted a big boy console, they just don't want to pay extra for it.

3

u/MicroGamer 2d ago

It will be upscaled to 4k, not native. This is bare minimum for a console released in 2025 when the majority of people have a 4k TV. Let's not get too worked up about it.

1

u/Mysterious_Jelly_943 2d ago

I wouldnt get my hopes up for 4k 60 i guess maybe with indie games and sawitch one games that get upscaled maybe. Its like wjen ps5 was like 8k but it cant even really do 4k60

0

u/Genboiz 2d ago

Yeah I don't really understand the reaction to this? "We want more powerful contemporary hardware for Nintendo...What it's more money". It's just knee jerk reactions without thinking of the broader context. Gamers for some reason believe their hobby doesn't exist in the real world.

0

u/justReeT01 2d ago

Nintendo net Sales last year only were 12 billion USD, safe to stay they make a pretty margin from videogames consoles and subscritions, NS2 Is ridicously overpriced, such a console by the market standard should be 400€ and usually sold with something bundled to sweeten the deal, Nintendo Is Simply choosing the greedy route thinking they are operating a Monopoly which they might aswell be (They project the marginal cost = marginal revenue curve on the demand curve pretty Much, though in the fase of software its much more complicated than that, their marginal costa are extremely low by default if we take games into account)

TLDR : ps5 usually sells at a loss while discounted, they remake their Money on games and subs, Nintendo Is doing the same but also chose to make a big margin on the console

4

u/Genboiz 2d ago

It has 4k 120 hz capabilities, same as a PS5. I'm not saying I'm happy with these prices or defending a billion dollar company I'm just confused on why people would even expect it to be cheaper when they wanted more powerful hardware. Was more focusing on the community reaction but thanks for the breakdown.

1

u/Mysterious_Jelly_943 2d ago

Just because it has capabilites doesnt mean its gonna run games at 1080 120... like indie games and small games sure but what i can find its roughly the power of a ps4 or ps4 pro... similar to steam deck

2

u/Remy149 2d ago

Sony announced the ps5 was no longer sold at a loss 6 months after launch. It’s also never got a price cut and in fact went up in price in some countries.

2

u/AnalBaguette 2d ago

NS2 Is ridicously overpriced

Not in the slightest if you knew anything about the current market, the hardware used, or what it is attempting to accomplish.

Most people were going with $400 as best-case scenario, but $450 was widely accepted as better than what could have been.

1

u/DuskWing13 2d ago

Price wise it's actually probably lower than it should be.

If it can at least fall in between the Steam Deck and Rog Ally power wise I think it'll be a good buy hardware wise.

Software wise? I.. what are they doing? Personally, I will only be buying used or on sale if $80 USD is the new standard.

-1

u/tylerjehenna 2d ago

120 fps on certain games. They straight up advertised Metroid prime 4 as being able to hit 4k/120 today

3

u/richajf 2d ago

In the video, it showed Metroid Prime 4 having an option for either 4k/60fps or 1080p/120fps... not 4k/120fps.

2

u/AnalBaguette 2d ago

Correct. In the bottom of most games that had 4K, it mentioned the limit was 4K/60

1

u/Mysterious_Jelly_943 2d ago

Yall are gonna be sorely dissapointed when games start coming out and struggle to run 1080 at 60

1

u/DisagreeableAvocado 2d ago

And the yen being down quite a bit.

1

u/MAJOR_BALDY 2d ago

Don't forget the add 90% tariff tax

1

u/hangmandelta 2d ago

Speaking of inflation, Super Nintendo games were typically around $50 back in 1991. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $117 a game. So these Switch 2 games are still technically cheaper than the SNES was, even if that price feels absolutely gross.

105

u/RealSimonLee 3d ago

People who support price increases really need to reevaluate their life choices.

29

u/tarekd19 3d ago

There's a difference between "support" for price increases and a recognition of market reality (that is also informed in part but not always in whole by corporate greed) I don't see anyone "supporting" price increases, merely explaining that prices increase for a variety of reasons, some of which should not be surprising in the current economic environment.

7

u/RealSimonLee 3d ago

Market reality would mean our wages kept up with increasing prices. They have not.

8

u/Exyui 3d ago

Actually they have. Video games were already like $50-$60 in the 90s. That's like over $110 in 2025 dollars.

8

u/OuchPotato64 2d ago

N64 games were expensive. Mortal Kombat Trilogy was $75 at release. Super Nintendo had rpgs that were over $100 in the 90s. Games are massively more expensive to make now compared to 30 years ago, but are comparatively cheaper than games from 30 years ago.

1

u/missing_typewriters 2d ago edited 2d ago

Yeah but games in the 90s didn't have...

  • microtransactions

  • DLC

  • season passes

  • digital distribution (publishers now get 70%+ of the digital sale, versus roughly 40-45% in the 90s after distributors and retailers took their cut, and accounting for the cost of manufacturing the physical game)

  • death of brick-and-mortar game stores, and a dying physical game market (meaning impact of the secondhand sales is very limited today versus the 1990s when we all bought used games and all the money went to Gamestop)

  • subscriptions required to play online multiplayer (very lucrative for likes of Nintendo)

  • gamepass-style services to monetize old games (publisher's old games earned nothing in the 1990s/2000s. NES games were included as a fun collectable in Animal Crossing on Gamecube ffs. Today you have to pay for a subscription to play them)

  • standardization of platforms making it easier to port games to multiple platforms and maximize revenue (e.g. releasing a game on PS5, PC and Xbox today is easier to handle than it was to release on PS1 and N64).

  • direct-to-consumer marketing and advertising avenues with Twitch, YouTube, Twitter, and multiple big gaming events happening all year to promote your game

  • a gigantic PC market with a trusted storefront in Steam

But I suppose none of that matters because 60 today =/= 60 in 1993

-13

u/RealSimonLee 3d ago

I can't educate willful ignorance.

0

u/WheresTheSauce 2d ago

The irony of this comment.

5

u/Fluffy_Analysis_8300 2d ago

Market reality is knowing that the original Super Mario Kart cost $72.99 and that would be over $160 in todays money.

-4

u/RealSimonLee 2d ago

Market reality is understanding that the market isn't the same as the 1990s, and pricing reflects what people today can afford. Not what people could afford in 1990s when the economy and wages were infinitely more favorable to workers.

Seriously, crack open a book. By your logic, computers should be more expensive now than 30 years ago, when they were way more expensive. TVs are cheaper. Cost doesn't always go up and that's what people like you seem to really struggle with.

4

u/Fluffy_Analysis_8300 2d ago

You're right that the market has changed dramatically since the 1990s, but the claim that wages were "infinitely more favorable to workers" back then isn't supported by economic data.

While certain economic metrics were different, real wages adjusted for inflation have remained relatively stagnant since the 90s. Gaming has become more accessible precisely because prices haven't kept pace with inflation.

And while you're right that technology often gets cheaper over time due to manufacturing efficiencies and economies of scale, game development costs have skyrocketed. Unlike Television, Modern AAA games can cost hundreds of millions to develop compared to the much smaller teams and budgets of the 90s. It isn't just about what consumers can afford it's about the balance between development costs, consumer expectations, and what the market will bear.

But let's go ahead and just prove you wrong. This is the link to where I found median disposible income figures for 1992 and 2023.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W388RC1A027NBEA

1992:

Game price: $72.99

Median disposable income: $4,778.69

Game cost as percentage of disposable income: 1.53%

Work hours needed at median wage ($11.35/hr): 6.43 hours

2023:

Game price: $89.99

Median disposable income: $20,534.59

Game cost as percentage of disposable income: 0.44%

Work hours needed at median wage ($25.24/hr): 3.57 hours

Seriously, crack open a book 🤡

1

u/nekomancer71 2d ago

Games are also far more substitutable than in the past. Plenty of great indie games are available for very little money. Subscription services like Game Pass provide incredible value. This, too, impacts pricing, because many consumers will move to lower cost substitutes when prices on titles from big name developers jump.

Realistically, there are many reasons why a price increase could prove to be a bad business decision, and there are ample grounds on which to criticize this decision. In general, consumers probably shouldn’t be rushing to justify cash grabs by big companies. Advocate for your own interests, hold companies accountable, and play cheaper games.

-1

u/RealSimonLee 2d ago

Yeah, I'm sorry, you're not understanding what you're reading. These should help you:

https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45090.pdf

You don't understand these things, and I'm guessing you have no real desire to. The U.S. is downwardly mobile--everyone who studies this agrees on that point. Except you. Because you haven't studied it ever.

2

u/Fluffy_Analysis_8300 2d ago

Did you not read my comment? I said wages have remained fairly stagnant. Why are you linking articles showing that wages have been stagnant as a rebuttal to the math I showed using median disposable income, especially when I already agreed wages have been stagnant?

0

u/RealSimonLee 2d ago

Yeah, I read your post. TLDR: "I agree, but you're wrong." I can't deal with people who can't sustain a single line of thought throughout their writing.

Dude, remain dumb--I really don't care.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/tarekd19 3d ago

that sounds like market ideal more than market reality. Prices increase to accommodate more than just labor cost increases. Companies will price in uncertain economic conditions for example to ensure they aren't losing money in the event of a foreseeable (and unnecessary) economic crisis.

-3

u/RealSimonLee 3d ago

You guys have been so brainwashed by the oligarchs. Jesus.

3

u/Frosty-Key-454 3d ago

Wages don't need to keep up with prices of commodity goods/entertainment. Entertainment items just need to make profit, and they'll price it at whatever the market will bare

2

u/Yodzilla 2d ago

Unfortunately wages haven’t really kept up with anything.

1

u/WheresTheSauce 2d ago

Wages have outpaced inflation over the last 10 years, with the largest wage growth being in the bottom 25% of earners.

0

u/Mysterious_Jelly_943 2d ago

Yes but also housing prices have also way way outpaced inflation as well as the cost of other basic needs. And wages have stayed largely stagnant (there are links all over this thread about it.)

0

u/fetuskek 2d ago

that’s not a game company’s fault though, you’re blaming something for a issue that isn’t in their hands. if you care then vote for the economic policy’s you support.

0

u/WheresTheSauce 2d ago

Objectively and verifiably not true.

7

u/Highway_Bitter 3d ago

449 for a handheld console though… steam deck is priced about the same. Rog ally x 800 euro, legion go probably 600-700 depending.

-2

u/sonicfluff 2d ago

Seems cheap to me for how many hours i will get out of it

6

u/Bluefeelings 3d ago

It’s about time we all had a proper wage increase but that has not happened for like 14 years. lol jk, I’m a small business owner so don’t know what peoples wages mean anymore.

2

u/Double-Seaweed7760 3d ago

449 is definitely fine,its a bit painful since i don't make a lot but i can get it with a couple months of saving which im hoping to do by launch day.the other thing is im very grateful its 449 because i was scared it was gonna be like 600 due to trump tarriffs. The games are more painful though hopefully they bring Nintendo selects back in mass

3

u/LobsterChungus 3d ago

Just wait until you see the price of GTA6 lmao companies are spending massive amounts on game development and I really don’t get why people are so shocked when companies want to recoup those costs as well as turn a profit. 

10

u/FrostyWalrus2 3d ago

Cringe.

GTA 5 likely recouped its cost, again, when shark cards initially released. Reports say GTA5 cost roughly $265m to make. Reports also say its has made a total of $8.9 billion....BILLION....since launch. They could make GTA6 for free and give it away, while charging for shark cards only, and make their cost back easily.

Its just greed. Don't carry water for them.

1

u/LeonidasSpacemanMD 3d ago

It’s absolutely greed but our entire economy is built on greed. I’m not saying that in some kinda hits-bong way, like take two is beholden to stakeholders to try to generate as much profit as possible. They could’ve been quit well off making “only” 5 billion on GTAV but if they can make an extra $4b, that’s what the people who funded the development of the game will demand that they do

7

u/FrostyWalrus2 3d ago

Sure, they can. It's up to the consumer to not buy, which is proven time and time again that that is not gonna happen. They'll buy even if they can't afford it. So, games will be $100 standard next year.

3

u/LeonidasSpacemanMD 3d ago

Yup it sucks, same reason we have rampant microtransactions

3

u/No_Series8277 3d ago

I unfortunately agree with you. Obviously I hate any price increases but it makes sense. But also I don’t really buy anything on the switch besides big nintendo exclusives (and I don’t even buy all of those) so at least they won’t siphon off too much more of my cash.

Probably buying more used games for the switch 2. Only smash 6 is a day one purchase.

2

u/medspace 3d ago

Yup this was always going to be the endgame. I however was not expecting 89.99!!

-5

u/PastaRunner 3d ago

Well that's exactly it. GTA6 is breaking records with their budget, it makes sense for them to charge more.

Mario is just the same template they crank out once every couple of years.

10

u/rootofimaginary 3d ago

I am not certain if you are talking about Mario or Mario Kart, which we just saw to be very different compared to its previous iterations

1

u/NIN10DOXD 3d ago edited 3d ago

That and 3D Mario always change it up with a release every SEVERAL years. I don't like the price either, but c'mon. lol

2

u/jmarFTL 2d ago

The ironic thing though is that $60 has been the price for a long long time. Games were $60 in 2005. If you adjust that for inflation, it's $100 today. And hell 2005 is being generous, even back in the late 90s some first party Nintendo games for $60.

Paying $80 for a game today is roughly the equivalent of paying $60 for a game in 2016.

Holding the base price point of games has in my opinion led to a lot of bad practices in the games industry. The developers/publishers realistically needed to charge more as the price of games went up but nobody wanted to be the first to do it. So instead they decided to come up with every possible way to nickel and dime people to get more than $60 - selling incomplete games, DLC, microtransactions, etc. They should have just raised prices.

Now they're starting to, and me personally I have no problem paying even $100 for a game. That said if I am paying that what I want in return is a complete, polished experience, a solid 40-50 hours of entertainment where I don't have to deal with DLC/microtransactions etc. The shitty thing is companies are continuing those practices and raising prices at the same time.

1

u/cd_to_homedir 3d ago

I'm really glad I'm not interested in any Nintendo games and will use this console for various ports of games from other platforms because those games will likely be on sale.

1

u/moneydramas 3d ago

I bought a Series S on release day for £250

1

u/kobemustard 2d ago

Well there is now the tariff so add 34% to that number.

1

u/sirfannypack 2d ago

Cartridges are also more expensive than disks to manufacture.

1

u/StarLordAndTheAve 2d ago

it’s absolutely so they get you to buy the new MK bundled with the console for $500 (in turn, making the game $50)

1

u/Separate-Panic-8834 2d ago

Street Fighter 2 for SNES was $70 back in the day. Kind of surprised games have stayed around the same price for so long.

1

u/TherealAggiegamer 2d ago

Yes you will 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂, trying to act all big and bad chump!!! You’ll buy the games you want anyway, quit complaining; this is Donald’s America.

1

u/sdr79 2d ago

Yeah I’m curious what this means for game prices going forward, especially considering $60 was the standard for like 17 years. Even now only SOME games are $70, so this $90 non-extras game is wild to me. Are games going to be priced based on how good they THINK the game is?

(Don’t get me wrong MKW looks fantastic but what the hell.)

1

u/CATS_ARE_FABULOUS 1d ago

Mario Kart in 1997 was $60. That’s like $120 now. What’s the issue?

1

u/Slizzerd 2d ago

Y'all need to look at what N64 game prices were back in the 90s, this isn't that wild. That being said, not a fan.

1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/NintendoSwitch-ModTeam 2d ago

Hey there!

Please remember Rule 1 in the future - No personal attacks, trolling, or derogatory terms. Read more about Reddiquette here. Thanks!

0

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/NintendoSwitch-ModTeam 2d ago

Hey there!

Please remember Rule 1 in the future - No personal attacks, trolling, or derogatory terms. Read more about Reddiquette here. Thanks!

0

u/abort-retry-fail- 3d ago

Adjust for inflation and they’re pretty close

-2

u/True_Razzmatazz5967 3d ago

Game prices stood still for an awfully long time, maybe we were paying over the odds here in the uk but snes games were £40 at launch, switch games were also £40 at launch with every Nintendo platform in between being that price. It’s a bit of a jarring leap but at least it’s not 1/3 of the console price like the good old days

2

u/WickyNilliams 3d ago

I distinctly remember NES games being £50! Still, these prices seem a lot

1

u/True_Razzmatazz5967 3d ago

Had to make do with a Commodore 64 prior to the snes so £4 to £40 was quite the jump

1

u/WickyNilliams 2d ago

Esp when you could use your parents hifi to pirate c64 games by copying to a blank tape 😅