The graph gives a big clue to the Switch 2 price

[@PixelPikmin]

$400 at launch makes the most sense. Also I have a feeling they’re gonna launch a $300 Switch 2 Lite in 2027-2028 so that’d be the budget option for kids

[@KawaiiCat2]

Or travelers. I have a switch lite for traveling and a regular switch for docked use at home

[@silver_soul]

Why would they not release them simultaneously?

[@SSukram_]

Because they want people to buy the more expensive one first, also that's what happened with the switch​@@silver_soul

[@sippingthe]

@@KawaiiCat2but… why make a portable console not-portable?

[@thebravegallade731]

​@@SSukram_ Well actually its so they can steamline production

[@whiteforestfox]

Babe wake up, there’s a new Nintendo Forecast

[@richtersundeen6105]

As you pointed out, a $399 system today is pretty much on par with a $299 Switch in 2017. The inflation calculator I use got similar but not quite identical results to your chart but said that the Switch's $299 price in March 2017 would be $388 in today's money. $399 is basically being flat with the Switch and would be fine for Switch 2. This reminds me of people freaking out about the new XBox Series X model going for $599 and asking if they've forgotten what happened to Sony with the PS3. $599 in 2006 would be $935 in today's money. That's how you should picture PS3 launch price.

[@Loundsify]

Yeah I remember PS3 launching in the UK for £430 in 2007. Jesus that was a lot of money. £700 in today's money. Meanwhile the PS5's rrp is £480

[@Dairunt1]

The giant enemy crab would be even bigger in today's economy

[@richtersundeen6105]

@@Dairunt1 No matter how big it is, you still hit its weak point for massive damage just like they did back in historical Feudal Japan. Some things never change.

[@Dairunt1]

@@richtersundeen6105 It's Riiiidge Raceeeer! Remember that one?

[@InkyBlitz]

You left out the part where the freaking out worked and they lowered the price. Sony gave the 360 a very strong start. The price of the Xbox One also didn't help it.

[@HeroicAge616]

I have to disagree with you here. Anything more than $400 would be disastrous for Switch 2 sales. Inflation has jumped, but consumer expectations has not. A $100 increase will cost consumers more as wages have not adjusted, and while I think the market can take that a $500 Switch will be met with derision. Add in an expected Xbox handheld and the Steam Deck gaining, well, steam and you have the recipe for a disaster. After all, no one would have predicted the Wii U’s failure after the Wii.

[@radonbox6569]

I agree with most of this, but I do think Xbox handheld and steamdeck aren't a threat at all. Without Nintendo's first party games, kids don't care. Without good multiplayer games that can be played on the couch together locally, families don't care. The switch has cornered the market when it comes to families, PlayStation at least tries to compete with them, but Xbox has never showed any interest in creating family friendly multiplayer games that can be played locally.

[@PhoticsTV]

While I think it's nicer for consumers if Nintendo launches their new system at $400, the reality is that lots of gamers will buy it regardless if it's $400 or $450. And if the system launches early in the year, that creates plenty of time to create holiday sales for the Switch successor. It also depends if there are multiple models. What if Nintendo releases a cheaper model at $400 and a more expensive model at $450-$500 - then you'd both be right. 😄

[@LJAlex-]

​@@radonbox6569 I think a bigger factor is marketing. Steam Deck would have sold well if let's say it were published by Nintendo. I think most people who play videogames don't know Steam even makes hardware. Xbox isn't known for handhelds and basically doesn't even care how well their hardware sells at this point. Sony gave up second place in the handheld space a while ago.

[@OrbsApp]

@@PhoticsTV Gamers will. Families and casuals will likely not.

[@GAHAHAHH]

They can always drop the price later but they can't go up. $450 seems to be what most people are expecting/wanting/willing to pay at least on the diehard Nintendo fans side of things. I think the main thing is Nintendo is expecting their consoles to have a much longer run than in the past; they used to average 5 years between consoles now it's been almost 8 since they released a console that was essentially a panic button so it was released even sooner than it was originally expected which likewise should mean that it's successor should also be released sooner, yet it's still been so long, so for the next console I wouldn't be surprised if they were planning on having it last 10+years therefore they will need a price that can stand for that amount of time. Nearly every thing for computing has assumed that customers are willing to spend more money than they were in the past for electronics so I don't see why the "Successor to the Switch" would be any different. Also $400 in 2025 money would ( unless some deflation happens ) put it as less than the "Switch-OLED" adjusted for inflation and I doubt they want to do away with the OLED-screen, on launch they want it to feel like an upgrade in every way. But as you said no one can see the future so for all I know they could charge more than $600 or less than $300 no outsider has any idea what Nintendo is doing. But I highly doubt Nintendo would mess things up $450 would still be cheaper than it's competition and the Switch sales don't seem to be some sort of one off fad that alienated their core demographic like the Wii so I doubt the price of $50 more than an inflation adjusted Switch-OLED would be too much let alone "disastrous". Personally I don't like the idea of it costing less because that either means it will be made of cheap materials or they will feel they can or have to get even more egregious and greedy with their prices on other things like "Nintendo Switch Online".

[@edArmstrong80]

With a hybrid approach now being the standard for Nintendo consoles, you can guarantee they'll want to release a 'lite' version of the system at some point for younger players, just like they did for Switch. This will require a fairly low price point to be affordable as xmas/bday gifts for parents to buy for their children (i'd say $275 absolute max). This is going to be extremely hard to achieve if the console launches with a $400+ price tag

[@Seacle14]

Smart kids pool their birthday and christmas budget to buy the full version. That's how I got all my consoles back then.

[@supersaiyaman11589]

if the switch 2 launches at 400 dollars Nintendo could price a switch 2 light at 300.

[@evermillcreek]

One thing that's super promising about price is that they are preempting the scalper by having tons of stock in place, which means lower prices negotiated, also on the back of a huge success with OG Switch for them to hold the cards and let suppliers compete.

[@faerierose84]

$400 is the sweet spot, with $450 for a pack-in bundle.

[@PhoticsTV]

I liked the Wii and the Super Nintendo more because of the pack-in game. If it's a game most people are going to want anyway, like Mario Kart, then $450 doesn't seem too terrible.

[@supersaiyaman11589]

@@PhoticsTV if they did a bundle with a new mario cart game for 450 that would seem to be a good deal too me.

[@wandererofclouds]

This was a well done video! I could understand everything easily, great vocal delivery, helpful visuals that stayed for a good long time when they are relevant, great pacing-not too fast or slow, and great commentary!! Keep up the great work! 👍

[@GabePlaysYT]

IMO Anything higher than 400 would be too much and they'd have to lower the price like the 3DS. For the average family looking to buy Mario Kart for their kid, that's too much.

[@Zveebo]

Realistically at first launch, the focus will be more on big Nintendo fans than average families - they’ll be happy with the existing Switch for a year or two more, and it’ll be once bundles start being available that they would likely switch over. So $450 wouldn’t surprise me - though I still think $400 is more likely if they’ve kept costs in check. I reckon they might not drop the existing Switch prices much on launch, so it doesn’t look too outrageous a price.

[@Melchirobin]

It depends if the new Switch will have an OLED screen or not. If it does not have an OLED screen I do not see it going more than $399.

[@metalhed27]

My guess? No OLED at launch. LCD-equipped launch unit will be priced at $400ish. Then, in a few years, the Mini Switch 2 will come out for $249ish. Mini Switch 2 launch will bring about a price drop of the LCD launch version to around $300ish, and with that or some time thereafter, an OLED version will come out at $400ish.

[@Melchirobin]

@@metalhed27 That is my guess as well. I think launch is will be LCD launch at $399. The place where I differ is that I think the switch 2 lite will be at $299 and the OG Switch 2 will not officially drop in price but will go on Promo often for $370-350ish. The Switch 2 OLED will cost $450 and maybe even $500 if it has any hardware upgrade like a bit better processed for 90-120hz gaming.

[@GAHAHAHH]

@@metalhed27 There is no way they won't be selling at least an option for OLED at launch they don't want to go backwards and the only reason why the Swich OLED was released later was because the technology didn't exist in a commercially viable state in 2017. But if you ask me I think it's likely that OLED will be mandatory, I don't have any sort of insider knowledge but the developers at Nintendo have always wanted new features for more game-play possibilities and this includes graphical features too, that was the main reason for the Wii-U to even exist was because they wanted to do things in HD that simply wouldn't be viable in SD like having lots of small characters on screen at once (SSB4 is an example); I believe now that what the developers currently want is to play around with improved lighting ( I mean just look at "Tears of the Kingdom" they clearly want to do more with lighting than what is currently possible ) and this likely means HDR or even Ray-tracing at the very least the OLED is here to stay. Also I wouldn't rule out the possibility of 120hz support but that I can see being saved for a "pro version". Nintendo is anything but predictable so anything could happen. All we know is that it's a "successor to the Switch" which does give certain expectations but it could mean anything.

[@xzane1337]

that is still expensive

[@JaeliusFairmout]

important note on the Saturn price, it came with internal save storage (unlike playstation) and a game, (the biggest arcade game in japan, the one that dethroned the almighty Street Fighter) Virtua Fighter. sony selling it for $100 less without those things really was the equivalent of jingling keys in front of a child

[@nintendoforecast]

This is an excellent point. But even with Virtua Fighter, they shoved the more aesthetically pleasing Virtua Fighter Remix out the door a few months later.

[@BomberDuck]

Iirc Virtua Fighter was way less popular outside of Japan, so having it as the main pack-in just wasn’t appealing in the west

[@ericp631]

And it didn't matter to most consumers. It's the price on the box, what they see, that's what matters. Only the diehards who follow gaming consoles closely know things like that (an extreme minority, especially back then). Also they should have stripped out vf. Fighting games are too niche to sell units, especially vf, as that had no popularity outside Japan. If they wanted to include a game, a platformer would have been better, or no pack in games at all if it brought down price(it didn't hurt their competitors).

[@ravenebony2267]

I don't think any fighting game could sell a console in the end. They aren't exactly a niché genre. But they are also aren't a huge genre.

[@nintendoforecast]

VF was a respectable launch title although PS responded with Tekken which was a very good comeback as well. Sega had Daytona but then PS responded with Wipeout. Sega ported the anaemic Sonic 3D; Sony responded with Crash Bandicoot. At every stage, Sony were just a bit more nimble, a bit more experimental, a bit edgier, a bit hungrier - and they lucked out in having some great third party developers working on them although the fact that the system wasn't a complete pain to develop for surely helped. Also, there wasn't a lot of depth in the launch window game line-up - VF, Daytona... Myst was pretty cool at the time. But what else? I mean Clockwork Knight wasn't exactly going to bring the masses to the market and of course they missed the boat on Sonic. By the time Sega figured out their own tech they really started pounding out amazing quality games - Panzer Zwei/Saga, NiGHTS, Guardian Heroes, Baku Baku, Fighters Megamix, Shining Force III/Holy Ark, etc. etc. - a silent golden age of gaming and in any sane world you'd think this was the greatest console ever. But by then they had to go against FF7, Mario 64 etc. and so even games as joyous as Panzer Saga and NiGHTS kind of went under the radar.

[@bizarduno]

500 € would be crazy. 450 € would be a better stop, 400 € if the screen ends up being LCD.

[@dinar8749]

What would really hurt the switch 2 is not even a $500 price, but the games. If nintendo doesn't manage to keep development times down enough the switch 2 could be in serious trouble. Playstation and xbox just play 3rd party games only at this point, they have almost no exclusives. But nintendo is reliant on their own 1st party games. Nintendo would be wise to continue not focusing on graphics and realism, and not making their games' scope incredibly big like other AAA games (ex. starfield having thousands of planets).

[@badlatency9979]

I disagree on scope, Nintendo has the absolutely largest open world (or open worldish) RPGs which has been pretty successful. Nobody is creating game worlds with the massive scope of TotK or the Xenoblade games, the closest right now being Elden Ring. Scope is something Nintendo is doing very well.

[@dinar8749]

@@badlatency9979 I mean games like Pikmin 4, Metroid Dread, Fire Emblem engage, etc... They shouldn't try to make these series open world or have ultra impressive graphics for switch 2.

[@SB-ex8nt]

Easier said than done with how big franchises feel obligated to keep upping the ante to wow audiences.

[@dinar8749]

@@SB-ex8nt The switch has proven time and time again that big scope is not necessary. Look at pokmeon scarlet and violet. It may be open world but it has ps1 level graphics. It has sonic 06 levels of bugs. It's almost the best selling pokemon generation of all time. There are some big scope games on switch such as botw, totk, xenoblade chronicles...but the majority of nintendo games are small to medium scope.

[@TMS-Oddbot]

@@dinar8749 I hate using Pokemon to justify anything. It’s Pokemon, and for some reason that means they can get away with an objectively terrible launch with hardly any actual scratch.

[@MidlifeCrisisJoe]

The real and only question on my mind is backwards compatibility/transferability. If I can play all my Switch games on the Switch 2 and my Switch Online account transfers over, the new console will instantaneously have 7 years of increased value and I will buy it for new games while still finishing my library of games for my switch. At this point, especially with Steam demonstrating the power of the MASSIVE eternally backwards compatible library, I don't think Nintendo can afford not to do this.

[@malo932]

I would gladly pay more for an oled screen at launch

[@NemoSaybloo]

I can see why you'd want to separate the price of Switch 2 from the existing models. But I also think that consumers seeing a number starting with "$4XX" would be intimidating. So as a compromise, I'd say launch Switch 2 at $399 and cut prices for all existing models by $50.

[@ekurisona663]

the guy at my local gamestop said they were originally being told it was luanching this fall and at some point that changed and are now expecting a january reveal and march release like switch 1

[@RichKetones]

Word of mouth is the best word

[@hps362]

13:18 "On the higher end, it seems impossible to imagine that they could charge more than six hundred dollars for even the most cutting-edge Nintendo Switch successor that can generate 3-D 8K surround sound holographic immersion experiences while making apple pies." 🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@jacksonlovesnintendo]

There’s no shot it’s $500. I even think $450 is pretty unlikely considering this thing will likely have the specs of a PS4 Pro (which I’m perfectly fine with tbh) at best. I think $400 feels right unless they drop the current Switch family prices down, in which case the lowest possible price could be $350. But yeah, I’m saying 90% $400.

[@extremepayne]

PC handhelds and the PS Portal are different markets than the Switch, but their relative success makes it seem likely that someone is going to try a portable or hybrid true console soon. I believe Xbox has said they’re aiming to do just that

[@XenoPon2]

gormott day, Good music choice 👍

[@XenoPon2]

And argentum day.

[@dinar8749]

Xenoblade Chronicles is such an amazing series.

[@XenoPon2]

​@@dinar8749 Indeed!

[@jasonx5292]

I appreciate the XC2 music in the background

[@Louis_Varga]

I'm thinking the Switch 2 will be $400. But I can see a $500 model that includes an OLED screen and increased storage.

[@goliath2068]

Personally, I call it the Swtichcessor.

[@rudro7690]

I feel like the next console will be $350 because it will still maintain Nintendo reputation for having the cheapest console families. While the switch launched at $300 (which is around ~$380-400 adjusted for inflation, Nintendo was largely able to subtlety inflate the console price with the oled model. The Oled model released with the same specs but with some new quality of life features yet was priced at $350. New customers will likely buy the oled model over the old model since its the latest switch model. On the contrary, having a new model with a higher price without raising the normal switch msrp would avoid fan complaints that the switch is overpriced (especially with budget conscious customers). A similar situation could happen again with the new console where they launch the base version at $350 and launch an oled version later at $400 and a lite at $250.

[@PhoticsTV]

I looked at inflation adjusting pricing of consoles in a video last October. When I created the chart, I excluded the 1985 Nintendo because it included R.O.B. and a Zapper. So, excluding the NES, the average was ~$392. I think Nintendo sees the hype for their next system, so they might feel that they could push the price a bit… especially if the screen is bigger and if it's a lot more powerful. I think $450 is the sweet spot, but that depends on pack-in games. It also depends if Nintendo releases two different models, such as digital only vs physical games. Wii Sports on the Wii and Super Mario World on the Super Nintendo was a lot of fun. Getting the console was so much nicer with a pack-in game. $499 seems too expensive. It would have to be an amazing bundle to justify such a high jump compared to the pricing of previous Nintendo systems.

[@MrGuy__]

$300 was considered kinda bold for the original switch, i was always seeing that it shoulda been $250 before it ended up flying off the shelves. so who knows, maybe they could get away with $450. i wouldn't like it though !! >:(

[@PhoticsTV]

I didn't buy the Switch when it was new because I felt $300 was too expensive. And eventually, I just skipped the whole generation. When I looked at inflation adjusted pricing, the Nintendo Switch was about average. So, I started wondering if I missed out But if the Switch successor plays Switch games, then it kinda works out. 😄

[@MrGuy__]

@@PhoticsTV missed all those games? i mean. if you get the next one, you can play em. seems a long time to wait though. you into nintendo much?

[@PhoticsTV]

@@MrGuy__ It's been a long wait. 😄 The logic was that I had an iPhone, so I have lots of mobile games to play. Apple Arcade was fun too. But lately, I'm not liking how that scene works. Apple raised the monthly subscription fee by 40%… and I wasn't excited by the new games, not enough to continue a subscription. So, the next Nintendo game console is an opportunity to *_switch_* back to a more traditional gaming style.

[@DANCERcow]

The switch at $300 was too expensive! But that $800 iPhone 9 tho, oooh hey gorgeous! Get the fukk outta here

[@MrGuy__]

@@DANCERcow a phone is pretty much mandatory in modern day society. a game system? not so much

[@OptimisticEpicist]

You also have to consider that handheld pcs like the steam deck or rog ally or others. Nintendo has more then just the classic competitors. Also the emulation handheld driving a new market to play classic games on the go.

[@Zveebo]

I think $400 is most likely. But $450 wouldn’t be too surprising, perhaps for a premium bundle. I don’t think the existing Switch prices will drop too much when 2 is launched, partly to keep the new console prices looking reasonable.

[@Loundsify]

I dunno, I could forsee switch getting a perm price reduction this winter.

[@thebravegallade731]

​@@Loundsifyyep. Not much but a permanent 50$ price cut for the OLED while discontinuing the standerd would work

[@lowelldolney2986]

I agree, less than $500 to stay under the PS5 (which will be more powerful) offer free NSO to compete with Xbox and dip into the nostalgia well. They could offer different models to keep price point on par with Steam Deck, etc. Super Switch OLED has a nice ring to it! Maybe some would pay $500+ for that.

[@samuelturner6076]

Great video and I feel you've covered Nintendo's potential thoughts really well. However, just like Nintendo might I also think there may be a hitch in the price, the average consumer doesn't consider inflation much when thinking about product value. Although inflation adjusted something above $400 wouldn't be that bad I feel it could provide friction amongst casual audiences. I personally see 450 as the max for a successful one skew launch as above that it may become a 3DS situation, especially with the handheld PC market providing competition in the average consumers eyes (they look at a steam deck or ROG and see it can play more graphically impressive games for a similar price but don't realise the battery issue etc).

[@fomomofo6917]

People want more powerful hardware, but don’t wanna pay powerful hardware prices. Geez come on people, you don’t even know well designed or powerful it is and you’re already whining about price. I always thought modularity and portability should demand a premium.

[@GiancarloThomazSenoni]

5:13 that too pricey, Switch sucessor should/would be around the $400/450 price range, Nintendo is always the more afordable option, pricing it next console $500, would severaly limit the console reach/appeal

[@jellyface401]

I feel 450 this time around. Do you think they would go for a lite and deluxe version like the wii u?

[@thierrys85]

One of the main reasons Switch is so successful and everyone has one, is because it's affordable. $499 would be insane and they'd price themselves out of the market. $449 even would be too much, imo. Nintendo are not Apple or Sony, and they're not perceived like them by the market, at all. $399 max would be the way to go, if they've learned anything from the 3DS launch price debacle.

[@Phiidyn]

$499 with a dock and a bundled game. $349/$399 for handheld only. The Switch 2 dock has extra processing and cooling built into it, so it’ll be a significant cost add. To maintain the “affordable” competitive edge while getting into 4K gaming, a split launch like this will be the best route to go. This way people have a choice and can upgrade later. If they did $499 w/ dock, $399 w/o dock, and charged $150 for standalone docks, that’s what I see as the best way forward for fans and Nintendo.

[@dogidogediggidydogedd957]

You are crazy if you think this is what Fans want, 150 dollars for Standalone Docks? Buying a brand new nintendo switch for 399 with no dock? Paying 500 for a gaming system? That has the specs of a PS4? The switch will never have 4K graphics. Unless it's the Nintendo switch 3 or 4. The screen will also be LCD so that's already some bad news. Anything over 400 it's EXTREMELY overpriced. Speak for yourself and not the "Fans"

[@JacobDragyn]

I'm inclined to expect $400 for the new system while having it coexist with the original Switch. I'm willing to pay more than that for the new Nintendo console, but I'm not sure enough other people are. I could see them going $50 higher or lower though. I hadn't considered the idea of bundling one year of Nintendo online with the next system. That makes sense because it's a relatively low cost for them, adds to perceived value and might incline more people to keep paying for it.

[@gintoki48]

I agree $450 just seems right

[@Redpoppy80]

Something that has to be emphasized is that Nintendo targets the casual market as much if not more than the hardcore gamer market in attempts to expand their player base which has mostly met with success (save for the Wii U) and the causal market does not have the money to plop down $500 dollars for just a slab of hardware especially today as in the USA debt is running rampant with no relief in sight. Nintendo also does not focus on graphical fidelity to woo people over like Sony and Microsoft do because in today's high spec environment, most games can be of acceptable quality without needing to overcommit to hardware power. With the general economy as it is today, Nintendo is much better served selling a new console at something like $400 or less/as a bundle to help make sure that as many people as possible are able to buy it.

[@TextileGeorge]

if they support the console with lots of great 1st party games and it has the classic nintendo build quality i'll pay 800 dollars for the console

[@lennywright5655]

I’ve had a theory for a little while (that’s probably wrong). Nintendo could pack in the next Animal Crossing as a free game, or maybe as part of the operating system, when you think about it AC (online) operates kinda like Miiverse anyway, you can see them already toying with a similar idea back during the Wii U era. This strategy would allow Nintendo to charge at least $50 more, but still making the system seem like a better value, and a reason to upgrade to the new console. On top of all that, the new Animal Crossing wouldn’t have the added pressure to sell as well as its predecessor, which it likely will not. But that’s all just a game theory. 😉

[@mikayel6175]

Ive heard a leak where ppl would have to pay more for a switch 2 capable of backwards compatibility. How likely do you think this is?

[@nintendoforecast]

Seems unlikely. I guess having a model which is basically two systems in one could be more expensive and I could see them ditching BC in a mid-gen refresh but it seems overly complicated to have two versions at launch at the best of times, let alone with such a niche difference.

[@evermillcreek]

For me only 10-15% more than the OLED model and I think the first party games will for the most part continue on both consoles as one piece of software (no more people complaining about Donkey Kong price with a free upgrade patch). NSO GameCube games and more exclusive to new console but otherwise exclusives I think will mostly be third party with maybe Monolithsoft leading the way to show Nintendo games come first.

[@DannyMexen9]

Love your consistency. I wish I could sub twice. Best I can do is share the video.

[@nintendoforecast]

Thank you!

[@JEZ346]

Speaking of NSO, I wonder why Splatoon 3 DLC was never added to NSO like Splatoon 2 was? Could it have something to do with its staggered release.

[@nintendoforecast]

Splatoon 2's wasn't added until a while had passed IIRC. I could see Splatoon 3's being added in the next couple of years.

[@HenrikoMagnifico]

I'm probably going to wait a couple months until after launch (unless there's some must have game on launch which, albeit possible, sounds unlikely to me) until there's plenty of steam behind the console. Then, if it flops, I'll be safe from investing into a zombie-platform i.e. the Wii U.

[@ekurisona663]

nf, i was under the impresison that N had $30-$40B in cash when wii u launched - surely they're even stronger now after the switch...right?

[@mfreddy22]

Awesome video. 399 is the only price I can see.

[@RETR0_P0CKET]

I would launch at 400 and if they need to raise the price later do an OLED model or similar again.

[@KB________]

Ugh, im spoiled with this channel

[@fivestringpat]

It would be interesting if they shipped a dockless sku and also if the OG dock was forwards conpstible, for ppl who are upgrading from the old switch... But we know the dock is actually cheap for nintendo compared to its sale price

[@slyguy8943]

Lol this is just a bad take by someone who knows nothing about the hardware. The old dock will NOT be forward compatible. It simply CANT be.. It’s hardware limited. If you think you’re gonna be able to use your old dock you’re just going to be disappointed. The switch 2 power supply is 60W. The current switch uses a 30W power supply and it’s even more limited to only deliver 18W..

[@fivestringpat]

@@slyguy8943 neat!

[@Loundsify]

I still think £400 is the sweet spot. If they charge £450, Sony could drop their consoles £50 on each SKU and nintendo would look vastly over priced.v

[@MrGreaterGargadon]

I think this analysis is overall good, but I find it a little strange that the current trend of Hybrid Gaming PCs like the Steam Deck or ROG ally weren't taken into account. The Switch is no longer alone in its hybrid, and if its price starts to climb closer to its competitors, people will start to question the relative value of Nintendo's next console relative to the stuff Valve and other PC manufacturers have on offer.

[@nintendoforecast]

At some point I will properly look into these but my impression is that their market share is very low. At this point in time, they're too niche to really be in Nintendo's waters. But that could quickly change of course.

[@sboinkthelegday3892]

On the sales potential of these hybrid PC's, you might want to check out the looming threat of used Wii U's in the after market, there's a quite a few million of them in circulation.

[@wakemeupinside8627]

Considering the steamdecks offerings, I think 400 to 450 with a pack in is my guess

[@filipmarkovic369]

There is so much hype for switch 2. The way to mess it up is a $500 USD price

[@samplautz5586]

It’s going to be another Wii U if it’s 500 dollars

[@porygon-q2619]

I don't think it will be any cheaper than $350 (USD) or any more expensive than $400 (USD)

[@Scarftail]

My guess before watching based on the current record and inflation: $350 (lowers to $300 a few years in to continue targeting the mass market). What you said after watching the video: $400+. I guess inflation is a stinker, huh? If the company will really be able to charge much higher prices than they have in the past without a noticeable reduction in sales, I'll be impressed.

[@richtersundeen6105]

@@Scarftail $299 in 2017 dollars is $388 in 2024 dollars. A $399 Switch 2 will be basically flat with Switch 1. $449 as he mentioned would be a real price increase. I think the video's $499 but includes a year of NSO+Expansion Pack is probably a bit excessive but $449 with the same deal, phasing the deal out a year in and just making it $449 might work. Big early adopter advantage and has inflation factored in.

[@Dave_McKee]

They have to keep in mind how popular the Steam Deck is, which has numerous price points. Granted it does not have Nintendo first party games but a lot of current switch holders will ju8st use their oG Switch to play those for a few years atleast.

[@jsostick]

Even tho I'm super excited for the switch 2 i know i wont be able to buy at lunch since i live in latam and the prices of electronics here are higher than the US so I'll have to wait until a price cute or maybe the pro model releases (hopefully the oled screen)

[@RiqMoran]

yeah buying tech anywhere outside the US is a nightmare

[@jsostick]

@@RiqMoran it's really unfortunate, but I'll wait until either i can get a used one in good conditions for cheap or the pro model with the oled screen, i got the switch oled screen recently and i really love it but i wish it was 1920 x 1080 but I'm sure the switch 2 will be at least that resolution

[@56ty_]

450+ is madness

[@diskdem0n]

i’m thinking 350-400

[@TMS-Oddbot]

I’ll be honest, if rumors are true about the graphical jump, then $500 doesn’t seem out of the ballpark. It also means selling more Switch models, which still goes into Nintendo’s pocketbook, and it could be perceived as something they have intentional stake in pushing for still, compared to past generational jumps where the previous systems weren’t still selling as much. Nintendo is also probably going to actually innovate beyond graphics anyway, as they do.

[@tjdmt297]

It’s not going to be a switch 2. It will be a totally new system and it’s still in development.

[@MD-se8ft]

300-400, anything beyond that will be a failure. unless its a traditional powerful home console

[@RightNowMan]

The Nintendo Dominator?

[@clydefrosch]

It can't be more than 399 or people will boycott it

[@cookeecutkk]

450€$ would definitely be pushing it. Unless the final specs have significantly deviated from what has been leaked, so far. Xbox series S retails for €250 for the past two years of Black Friday sales in my country….

[@dogidogediggidydogedd957]

Recently even with no black Friday XBOX series S it's around 289,99 bucks with 12 months subscription. I am not really interested on Xbox since I have still have my PS4 but I certainly will look deeper into it in the future. Overall nintendo should be smart on not pushing the price.

[@HotdogDivebomb]

You're crazy if you think Nintendo consumers would see a year of NSO as a reasonable reason for the console costing anywhere from $50-$100 more than they think it should cost.

[@nintendoforecast]

What consumers see as reasonable and what Nintendo can/will sell at are two very different conversations as evidenced by any number of pricing controversies of which $60 LM2 and $70 TotK are just the most recent.

[@PhoticsTV]

That was a part of the video where I didn't like the theorizing. Personally, Nintendo Switch Online is not an attractor. Playing physical games - offline - is my main plan for the next system. I've not been satisfied with digital downloads or renting games, which is the primary reason I'm even considering the Switch 2. Yet, I can imagine Nintendo making a move like that. They must know that early demand for the system is going to be high. So, regardless if it's $400, $450, or even $500, lots of gamers will buy it. So, by including a year subscription to their online service, it's a low effort way to justify a higher price.

[@sboinkthelegday3892]

Physical game price stability is nintendo's response to US anti-trade practices, where stocking physical goods is difficult due to taxation and scalping eating fast into the supply, and transfers into nothing but bad PR as "consumer" blames Nintendo for asking money for the consumption. Nintendo just sees stock disappear into US GDP and every copy turns into lost sale on the SECOND wind, of the scalper moving the game to another customer. USA has always acted like China in this dishonest market manipulation way, even so much as massively outbuying the underpriced PS3 stock for a military computer array. Consumers regularly tank the prices of goods on store shelves by painfully taxing them to death, which is why "old tech" goes down in price, at the cost of the manufacturer. Nintendo adding $10 bulwark on physicals because USA is anti-capitalist, is wholly different from the idea of Nintendo leveraging outright digital sales as part of their hardware pricing. That would only saddle a year's subscription to NSO, with the upfront-cost of needing to manufacture an entire console for it and not just a disc, plus server cost. It's quite ludicruous even though similar things happened with Wii and its pitiful sales of anything that isn't Wii Sports.

[@MP-sy4zc]

@sboinkthelegday3892 I only understood a fraction of what you just said. What consumer is taxing anything to death? The problem with scalping isn’t just reselling the good. It’s the exploitative markup and the way it artificially limits the supply

[@GAHAHAHH]

"Nintendo Switch Online" was already considered unreasonable to have to pay for something that was previously free. I won't be surprised if they they give every console a "free" trial but I think they would do that more because they want people to have to commit to their purchase and get people "introduced" to the online service. In fact they straight up did do that with the Nintendo Switch Online it was free for the first year but that was more to ease people in to the idea of paying for it and now that it's no longer considered "previously free" most people are going to think of it as a "deal". Also most people seem to think it will cost around $450 and if they raise the price of the online service with the new console that $50 won't be extra it would just be the price but they are making it mandatory for the first year or so while also obfuscating the price increase. The more I talk about this the more it seems inevitable and what can you do, KZbin even removed your ability to see dislikes so people are going to be even more oblivious to how other people feel.

[@rb2007]

For me it's not the dollar price that's important. It's the euro price. If it's above €400,- mostly early adaptors will buy it. I think otherwise people will find the price too high. But this my opinion, so we shall see.

[@Zveebo]

I think they’d be fine with that initially tbh - they will only be able to produce so many for launch. More casual users can be brought in later with bundles etc, or just as inflation eats away at the pricing.

[@alphamarigi]

$500 is too much. I don't use the handheld mode so I only bought the switch for the exclusives. Paying just as much as ps5 feels like way too much

[@vaelegoro7782]

If consoles started being $600+ I think I might actually quit or do that ... other thing

[@imaanlatios6790]

Reminder that the biggest cause of inflation has been shown to be corporate price gouging 📢

[@vanilla8956]

What? How does that make any sense? Price gouging is real but in what world is that the "biggest cause?" Competition prevents this and even when there's conspiracy it's industry specific and impossible to match the sheer permanent damage that government over production of currency does to an economy. Walmart and target can gouge the price of their eggs for a month and cause a panic, but that falls through over time and is not the reason why the value of bank accounts are depreciating

[@imaanlatios6790]

Take a look at Economic Policy Institute, April 2022: "Corporate profits have contributed disproportionately to inflation. How should policymakers respond?" Fortune had an article in January 2024 you can read as well, "‘Greedflation’ caused more than half of last year’s inflation surge, study finds, as corporate profits remain at all-time highs" which is based on a report by the Groundwork Collaborative which found that corporate profits accounted for more than half - 53 percent - of inflation from April to September 2023

[@imaanlatios6790]

@@vanilla8956 Take a look at Economic Policy Institute, April 2022: "Corporate profits have contributed disproportionately to inflation. How should policymakers respond?" Fortune had an article in January 2024 you can read as well, "‘Greedflation’ caused more than half of last year’s inflation surge, study finds, as corporate profits remain at all-time highs" which is based on a report by the Groundwork Collaborative which found that corporate profits accounted for 53 percent of inflation from April to September 2023

[@imaanlatios6790]

@@vanilla8956 bruh I keep trying to respond but KZbin keeps deleting my comment. Anyways it's widely reported. See report published recently by Groundwork Collaborative.

[@vanilla8956]

@@imaanlatios6790 Are you joking? Your source is a partisan political lobbying group? Even if you were to ignore the obvious bias and take their opinion as gospel they only claim this is the case for 34%. That's not even close to "the biggest" like you said. This is like someone citing the heritage foundation and then stretching what they say to be somehow even more extreme. It also ignores that this isn't what inflation means. Gouging to capitalize on inflation is real and can raise prices in an industry but that itself can't devalue spending power globally like overproduction of currency can. The more money in circulation devalues itself.

[@RMarr-uy9hf]

The inflation argument makes sense from a seller perspective, but paychecks haven't moved as much as inflation has for consumers. How I see it, paying 350 today for a gaming device on what's left when food, shelter and bills are paied is like paying 700$ 10 years ago.

[@kippkippington]

What about the games themselves? Do y'all think $70 will be the norm for 1st party games? I think it's more than fair. Video games have been $60 for decades at this point, so it's amazing that they haven't increased in price already. Also, they provide you with potentially hundreds of hours of entertainment, so I think they deserve to charge more for them.

[@nintendoforecast]

I agree - I'd be surprised if $70 isn't the new $60.

[@user-be3qc7re9o]

I don't think so. Tears was a rare exception that Nintendo released due to increased production costs with the Game Cart that it came with.

[@MegaManNetworkOfCourse]

​@user-be3qc7re9o lmao then why was the digital version 70?

[@user-be3qc7re9o]

@MegaManNetworkOfCourse That doesn't change anything. Why are you expecting Digital Releases to be any cheaper than their physical counterparts? Nintendo has done this for everyone of their games in order to ensure fairness that everyone pays the same.

[@vanilla8956]

If it's actually a "Switch 2" meaning, it's the switch again with PS4 power and quality of life features, I don't think a price learning towards 500 USD would be wise because of the sheer ammount of non-fan consumers who will say "I already have a switch." I'm a super fan and honestly even I would dip out and skip it for a few years if it was that high and use my PC instead. I think 450 is only acceptable with a proper wii sports/nintendo land like tie-in

[@Giggles_iJest]

Nintendo is *dreading* this next gen console's failure and if they want to avoid that anything past $450 is a NO-GO! Idc about today's economy this is a F-ing videogame console aka not essential

[@connorduffus]

The market has also consistently valued the Switch and its OLED model as being high value. Nobody’s ever really complained about the price. I think Nintendo can hit $400 without issue.

[@gintoki48]

I’m seeing lots of people in the comments fearful and doubtful of anything over $400 Nintendo about to shock everyone once more lol

[@stevehero3562]

🐬🐬🐬🐬

[@SplendidNinja]

Switch 2 at 350 would be fucking perfect, and meh at 400. Anything more than that and I simply won't buy it 🤷🏾‍♂️

[@SplendidNinja]

Honestly at 400 it will still be a maybe for me. These prices of gaming is ridiculous 🤌🏾🤌🏾

[@thebravegallade731]

350 is cheaper tgen the OG with inflation so

[@SplendidNinja]

@thebravegallade731 ppl are crazy 😂😂 ill just wait and get a used one later then. I'm not spending 400 dollars, idc about inflation. I'll just game less or play older stuff, they're not gonna "bully/force" me into paying more for something just cause 😂

[@thebravegallade731]

@@SplendidNinja getting a used one is a method. Just dont expect a good condition one below 300

[@sabmis2658]

You can buy the switch 2 for 400 $ but you won't be able to play it on the TV, this is just the handheld. If you want to buy it with the doc that can upscale with its own computing power, then it's 500 $. You can buy the doc separately for 150 $. Ant they will lower the price for the Switch Oled and that will be the only remaining first generation console to buy.

[@xzane1337]

$400 thats $600 dollars aud and thats almost the price of a ps5 and with the quality of the current nintendo switch vs the ps5 that is an outrageous price

[@RiqMoran]

If the price is 500, OLED, high brightness, and thin bezels are a must. 🤷‍♀️ they cannot charge 500 for a device that looks straight out of 2015.

[@work_days8745]

Anything past $400 means the console is doomed. $400 is already asking too much for a Nintendo console, but due to inflation probably can't afford to go any lower than this

[@RiqMoran]

yeah. and nintendo hardware is garbage, the only thing they have going for them is that they operate in the lowest rung of the market, undercutting everything. if they raise prices then theyre in trouble.

[@work_days8745]

@@RiqMoran not garbage. Just 1 generation behind to save cost.

[@AdriaanD2003]

Just make the switch lite $149, switch $249, switch OLED $299, the 256GB switch2 LCD $399 and 512GB Switch2 OLED $499

[@dr.wolfstar1765]

$350 should be the MAX price. $400 is just too much for a console especially when thats close to a steam deck

[@SB-ex8nt]

Sure, that seems fair. I'm a little more flexible, but that's only cause I'm ready to buy the new system when it comes out. $350 is what I think the new system will go for. $400 does make me raise an eyebrow but it's doable. I'm more curious however about what I'm gonna get to play on it. The Switch Library is a tough act to follow after all.

[@hmon661]

I don't think it's too much. Remember to adjust for inflation

[@SB-ex8nt]

@hmon661 My concern is that most of the population won't bother to look at inflation. They might just look at a number like (......oh, placeholder number of...) $600, and go "Yikes, big number. No thanks."

[@hmon661]

@@SB-ex8nt idk I think 399-400 is fine. I've heard lots of people willing and wanting to buy a higher powered Switch. As long as it's cheaper than Series X and PS5

[@work_days8745]

$350 should be, however I wonder if Nintendo fears further inflation. This is why I now understand it might be $400

[@GamesAndAnimes]

The main question is, how strong will be the hardware of the successor? If the stats are too similar to the Switch, it will be hard to have price above 400$ without extra edition with additional goodies. Of course stats are not everything, but the new system must distance oneself from the Switch in design, function and name or it got the WiiU problem. The WiiU was seen from many not as a successor to the Wii instead only as a too expensive update (the other big WiiU problem was the second screen in the controller as a concept, which was in the end even not much supported).