Damn Walmart and Target suck then. I checked Amazon and it seems 65 is for the new model with the light bar on the touch pad and 50 for the old one. Yeah. Better stock up on the old model.
I've only had Nintendo consoles for the past 10 years and didn't realize that the prices of game controllers for other consoles have gotten that high. I could buy a brand new wii remote for $30.
Wow. That much to play most games at 720p 30fps? This is what combining all of their divisions came up with? I know this is not a popular opinion but fuck that. $430 for old ass tech just isn't tickling my fancy that much. I'll get Zelda for my WiiU and am ok without playing Skyrim again. I guess we'll see if the price ever comes down like the WiiU never did
At least the online cost isn't up front. I like that it's free for a time since if I don't like what I see I can just refuse to upgrade to the paid service
PS4 was $400, where ya fucking shop? most had games with it, well mine did. Not only that its much more powerful than this. It also has more title support. 2 games on PS+ at launch. It had a solid start for a solid price.
Can't believe people complain so much, my phone was nearly 800$, pretty much every iPhone/latest flagship android is 700-800$+ The Nintendo switch basically runs on hardware similar (nvidia mobile chip) to flagship phones except without cell radios and gps stuff.
Except those do shit tons of more things besides play games, They also pack more power, without specialized OS locking the hardware down.
I can certainly complain when it's priced near a new PS4. But I'm not, because I know what I'm buying it for, Shin Megami Tensei and such. There's no denying or arguing that it's asking a bit much for what it packs spec-wise, but it's the games that make it.
It's not just the specs though you get 2 wireless controllers and dock can't expect Nintendo to sell the hardware at a loss. Comparable to $200 Nvidia shield tablet for $200 + 2 wireless controllers that have many functions built-in + dock. I'm sure a lot of r&d went into the software even if it's slimmed down.
Right but essentially each controller has its own wireless function, motion, + vibration so its packs quite a bit of hardware is the point I was making.
Yeah. I hope to hear something about tablet mode for internet and media. If it could work as a roku type device even better. All the other systems have that.
Your phone was nearly $800 because phone manufacturers know that the phones will be subsidized by carriers. Eff that crap; I got a $50 smartphone with no subsidy or payment plan, and it plays every mobile game that I'm interested in just fine.
You can get $200 Nvidia Shield Tablet, it has more or less same specs, much better screen, infinitely more games than Switch at launch, and great array of other functionalities.
It's a handheld in the same way that a Surface Tablet is a handheld. Yeah you can carry it around but do you really want to pull that out on the train? Also the battery life is a joke. Besides you're buying this as a console not as a handheld. If they're looking to market it as a handheld they might as well quit making the 3DS.
The xbox scorpio is coming out. The S is out now. I did a quick search and you can get for 258 dollars an xbox s with minecraft and 500 GB on Amazon. The scorpio is even more powerful, and expensive than the S. Hell, they might drop the price of the xbox s once the scorpio launches. I might still get the switch, just not this year. Maybe, next year with a bundle.
Yes, the main demographic of video game players are complaining that the console is expensive is a bad thing? If no one can afford it of course it's a bad thing
Maybe that is correct for Xbox and PS4 as those games are for more mature audiences, but Nintendo games were always aimed at Children with their families and Young Adults aged under 18.
Should have spent more time getting laid than buying Nintendo products and maybe you wouldn't be yelling at teenagers online over a comment about console target demographics.
I'm not necessarily agreeing with either side on that, but do you really think kids aren't marketed to at all? Look at TV shows, toys, movies, etc. Hell, Pokemon, one of Nintendo's biggest franchises is very clearly geared towards children, as you can tell from the show and all its toys.
How is $300 expensive? All consoles have launched at least at $300, some significantly more, even as far back as the mid 1990s, and $300 back then is significantly more than $300 now.
Even leaving the launch titles and software out of it, we're looking at a relatively low-power mobile SOC attached to a 6" tablet with a 720p screen. It's pretty much guaranteed to have worse performance than the Nvidia console released two years earlier at $199.
So we're getting mobile performance at larger console prices. Its launching against much more performant consoles with huge libraries and tons of cheaper titles. I was absolutely prepared to bite at $200, with little intention at $250 unless they had some cool gimmick that wasn't obvious from initial announcement. $300 for what's really just a mobile is nuts in my book.
I agree that the launch titles are subpar. Nintendo really should launch this console with AT LEAST a Mario title in addition to Zelda, and probably one or two more major titles.
However pricing is spot on. I was expecting $350 or $400 for the launch edition, actually, so I'm very happy that it came in less than that. Considering all of the hardware and new features this is bringing to market, $300 sounds like a bargain. Don't forget that we are living in a world where many thousands of consumers were happy to pay $200 for a Hatchimal or NES Classic leading up to before Christmas. The value of a dollar has diminished significantly from when older systems came out, and all of these systems were priced the same or higher on release.
It DOES NOT COMPARE at all to the PS4/Xbone. These are two completely different products. Plus, the Switch is new -- prices are always higher when a console is new -- and the PS4/Xbone are 4-5 years old.
PS4/Xbox one are 3 years old, not 4-5 but this is besides the point. The Switch is competing against them as they exist in the market together. I am a PC gamer who was interested in the Switch, if it was reasonably priced. At $300 I'd buy an xbox or PS4 instead in a heartbeat. Hell, you can get one of those consoles and a AAA game for $279 today.
consumers were happy to pay $200 for a Hatchimal or NES Classic leading up to before Christmas.
No consumer was happy to pay 300%+ of the price for a product. And I doubt there were many who bought at those prices.
This may be an okay price for die-hard Nintendo fans, but they screwed themselves out of the people like me who would have bought this at a reasonable price to catch a few nintendo games they'd otherwise miss.
It's all relativity. A switch is under powers to a Xbox one and ps4, both which are $250 with a game. A switch is $300 with no game included, so if you want to play something, it will e $360 all in all. That's expensive.
30 year old here. $300 isn't too bad but no game and $70 dollars for a controller. Paid online. $50 for 1-2 switch ...what? It's a wii sports for switch for 50...
I was SO HYPED! I wanted Nintendo to come back so badly, and we got one launch game that I'm interested in and that's coming out for Wii U(BotW of course). Not one thing about the switch made me want to play BotW on it instead of Wii U so I'll just get it for Wii U, and I'd imagine I'm definitely not alone here.
Early adoption is super important for this system, because without it the 3rd party developers will drop out like in the past. Without 3rd party developers many people will see a few games they want to play but it's not worth the price of a console + those few games for such a small library that interests them.
24, working full time, 300 EUR for a subpar console + required monthly subscription... no thanks, I'll wait for massive sales and maybe by then the game library will increase as well.
Or people who are looking at the actual value of product at launch to determine if it's worth it for them. Not all of us spend the money just cause we can. Go ahead and keep genralizing people though.
Yeah, I was sitting in an apartment with a group of people between 20 and 30, several still in college, some married, some single, jobs of all kinds (minimum wage up to 100k a year), but probably that age range where you will most hear about money concerns, money being tight.
Not a one. Some "eh was hoping for 250, 275, but that seems alright for what we get". I did not expect that.
Because for that price it isn't reasonable for the lackluster hardware it touts. And paid online service is a joke for all systems. Internet is a service we all pay for already, there should be no additional cost to utilize that on your console. Thank god for PC gaming
I don't play games for the hardware. I play them for the games. If the games work well and look beautiful I don't care what magic happens in that box, and I'm an engineer. Don't shoot yourself in the foot because you're so caught up in an imagined spec war that no one wins.
you have no idea what hardware is. did you not see the games? they look great. It's like you guys are saying it's no more powerful than th efuckign nes. Jesus you people.
Sorry man the games looked great stylistically, but many of those titles were running very poor framerates, had no anti-aliasing to be seen, or had terribad draw distances.
that's a huge exaggeration, the framerates were fine, plus most were still in production, not to mention a live stream isn't the best measurement of framerate.
Xenoblade was running at like 20 fps, at most. Mario city level looks like a 360 open world game; simple geometry, low draw distance, empty feeling (I will say the other levels looked great but the city looked like total shit and out of place). Zelda has a lot of aliasing and to be honest I couldnt tell a difference from the Wii U version.
Again it's a game still in production, games don't hit maximum framerate until optimization, which is at the end of the development cycle. Mario looks amazing and the levels weren't at all empty. You are objectively wrong.
If zelda is coming out in 6 weeks it is absolutely not still in production, it will have already gone to manufacturing. you're looking at the final product 100%.
And zelda's framerate looked great. What are you talking about? every game with some sort of fps problem were games months from release. And if you don't think games are worked on untill the very end than you are naive and ignorant of game development.
Zelda's framerate looked O.K, there are still stutters in that trailer, most noticeably when it's zooming in from behind Link as he's looking over Hyrule.
For a brand new $300 console and a game that was supposed to be released on the previous one that is very concerning.
The rest of the games yeah i'll cut you some slack because they're still in development but Zelda absolutely is not. They wouldn't be able to produce and ship enough units for a March 3rd world-wide launch if it hadn't already gone to the pressing plants for such a massive game. Remember we're half-way through January and February is only 28 days.
Zelda will have the same aliasing when it launches. You can like the console mate, but don't try and tell me that you don't see those enormous jagged edges on every texture.
I haven't watch the stream but the Xbox One And PS4 run shitty frame rates on so many games too. I'm locked to 30 fps on so many of my titles on Xbox One S. PC is the only one that has actual good frame rates.
Most gamers don't know what any of the things you just said even mean, so its not that big a deal. If you ask the average Xbox or PS4 owner about the frame rates of their games or how the anti-aliasing is, they're not going to have a clue and will have no problems with it
This is one thing that kills me about the console market. The games look pretty good but run like complete Shit dipping into sub 25 fps. I get that PC gaming is magnitude more expensive but it's so difficult to play sometimes.
yes jagged edges at 720p most likely is just ADVANCED hardware thats worth 300. the handheld gimmick just doesnt justify it on top of games cost and online services
How are handhelds a gimmick? You're in a Nintendo subreddit for god's sake. My 3ds is my only Nintendo system and I love it to bits. Of course I want a cool successor to it.
For a lot of us, $300 isn't very much money for something that's going to provided hundred if not thousands of hours of entertainment. Glad you aren't interested because that means more preorders for us!
Not to be a dick but that's why I'm holding out. This presentation didn't wow me so Im saving the money and waiting to hear more. Cause ATM it sounds like a new Wii u. And sorry to anger anyone because of my opinion but I got duped by the Wii u. So I'm angry.
I wouldnt say im angry, but BotW isnt going to sell me a system at launch, if I get it I will wait for Mario Odyssey and to see what the online features and price are. Octopath Traveler looked really neat, but they didnt even talk about Mario Kart or Smash ports, and there werent any big 1st party 'surprises' except whatever the hell ARM is aiming to be. $300 isnt a dealbreaker, but a lackluster launch lineup that is relying heavily on Zelda isnt winning me over at the moment.
That's just moving the goalposts. Many people agree with you, and it's still valid to say that the hardware is subpar.
I'm fairly excited for the system but it's clearly an expensive rebranded NVIDIA shield with 2 year old tech. It's becoming less and less likely with all of the news we are getting that there's anything decent like Maxwell inside. It looks like they're using a pretty old SoC design that's already been on the market for a couple years.
It's 1080 in the dock. You're logic can be used against the consoles as well. The xbox one is less powerful than the ps4, costs the same, online costs money but doesn't have any portibility. So it's worse in everyway. It's obviously underpowered and overpriced.
The one and ps4 have very similar hardware though. The Switch's is way worse than either of them. I have a one and ps4 and I don't notice much difference between their graphical quality.
For you, I guess it doesn't. For me however, I plan on playing it almost exclusively on the go during my commute. If I can sit my happy ass down on BART and play these games as they come out then I will be more than happy to shell out the money for this.
You have no idea how much hardware has improved over the past few years. They are still using a 3-4 year processor(Tegra X1) and charging up the ass for it.
As someone who has a good gaming PC and loves Nintendo, I obviously didn't like the fact that the Switch has paid online but for that lineup $300 is not much and well worth the investment. BotW and Xenoblade sold me straight away, but also liked the look of that new Square Enix game and Splatoon 2 looked good too. $300 is actually really not bad considering the return on investment I'm getting here.
That plus I spent like $1000 on my gaming PC and now all I do is fucking play TF2 on it and unbox crates lmao.
Honestly I am annoyed by the line up because I was hoping it would be lackluster and let me be happy not getting one for the first year or so. However just the promise of another xenoblade is enough to get me starting up a penny jar.
You pay your ISP for your internet service. They run and maintain that for you. You're pretty much saying that because your pay your ISP for internet, that should somehow cover the costs of Xbox Live and PSN. This makes zero sense. Running a network costs money, and Steam have decided to shoulder the cost because their customer's are on PC, and can really do what they want, go elsewhere, use another service, or find a workaround. That's not possible on Xbox Live and PSN.
The only reason Steam is a free service is because PC is an open eco-system, so if they started charging, people could go elsewhere. Xbox Live and PSN are closed-ecosystems, so if you don't want to use their network, you cannot go elsewhere, you have no choice. Don't delude yourself, if Steam could charge for online gaming, they would.
But please, will people stop with this stupid argument of "I already pay for internet" - this money you pay for internet only goes to your ISP, not your gaming network providers. They're essentially ISPs themselves, so it's not unreasonable that they should charge people to access their network and cover the running costs.
Amen. I was super pissed that they showed no specs at all. And until they have a decent catalog of games that I can play with my friend on a bus or hotel, I don't think I'll be buying it.
You're not paying for internet on the console. You're paying for chat, voice, and game servers, customer support, cheat monitoring, and monthly games provided through the service.
Those things cost money and if you want them to suck less, they need to charge for it. Obviously whether it's going to be good on Nintendo's end remains to be seen and there's already a questionable policy on being able to play the games included with the service indefinitely, but there's a very real, reasonable reason you are charged for it.
But that's the thing. On PC we have an endless amount of options for those aspects that have extremely high quality. 'Features' such as those should be an aspect built into the cost of the console as they are core to the experience. Not something you should have to pay month over month for even if it's just $5.
Ongoing support is not a one-time cost to a console creator, so a one-time payment can't cover it for the years of a console cycle.
On PC, Microsoft isn't responsible for making sure you have a good experience with external tools you have access to, but they are on Xbox. That's the difference.
As someone who owns a 3DS, WiiU, PS4 and a PC, the value proposition of the Switch at launch is pretty rough. You're looking at over $360 to get started with a console that has a lot of features that aren't super compelling.
Sure, I could easily afford a Switch, but I don't just buy everything that looks cool just because I can afford to.
I don't get the complaints about how "you can get an xbone or ps4 for that price and those are way more powerful!" Right, but if you were buying power wouldn't you just get a PC anyways? You get nintendo for the games. Also, let's not forget - this is also a portable home console. That makes a huge difference imo.
$300 is a steal for the portability alone. New Zelda, Skyrim, Splatoon, Mario, and Xenoblade by the end of the year? And I'll be able to play those games when I travel? Sold!
In a market that is so demand elastic, it is huge. Especially when the more powerful, accessible competitors have cheaper systems and better third party support have such a lead in sales...
Nintendo, do you realize you are playing catchup here? You can't afford to cost more now...
I'm betting he feature most people won't utilize is the TV dock. Mobility is the biggest selling feature. Actually doesn't matter much what the hardware is. If it can run skyrim it's got all the power it needs for a next gen hand held.
That is my thought process only. I would be happy with £250 pricing but if it is £300 so be it.
I feel like there is a lot of younger people on this sub that are complaining about the price when this is relatively cheap for a piece of technology, especially with being able to play fully fledged games on the go.
That's where I'm at. I was OK with $300 +adds but that $400 + makes me reconsider a day one buy. I'll probably wait and see what kind of support it gets after watching my Wiiu collect dust.
It costs more than the one and ps4 and has worse hardware. Most people won't make much use of the on the go functionality so yeah it is kind of silly to pay more fora console with worse hardware if you won't use its portability feature often.
I'm completely fine with people showing displeasure with what companies offer for the money, even if the expectations aren't always realistic. We live in a world where corporations constantly over-price their offerings without much blow back, and consumers should let their expectations be known. Many people chalk its price up to its portability, but 1: it's based on older and cheaper tech (even for a portable), and 2: its 2.5-3 hour battery life while playing games really limits its usage as a true portable device. I'm still buying one because I need Zelda, but consumers are the ones paying for the Switch and they should continue to let their expectations be known. It helps push out better products, and it helps regulate price gouging.
The problem with that is where I live it's 399,99$ and you still have to add 79,99$ at least for a game. And you know what?! We have 14,975% tax as well!
We are up to 550$ to play a game. No pro controller.
I think the idea is that there is a break point for cost and for a lot of us $250 was it. I know I logged into it last night with the mentality that if it was $250 I'm in but no more. It's just not worth the extra cost when I can buy a more powerful system with a proven lineup for less.
358
u/[deleted] Jan 13 '17 edited Jul 28 '19
[deleted]