Idk, but I would love that. I haven't own any physical games during last 15 years. Of course the cartridge reader as a component doesn't cost that much for Nintendo, but they get way more money from game sales through their eShop monopoly.
But Nintendo would make a lot more money from all game sales going through their eShop monopoly. So it would be profitable for them - I think. But it's true that it would add pressure for including larger SSD.
No, I wrote 30% probability for $449. $449 < $499. But this was just my guess, it's nothing serious. I was comparing to Switch OLED pricing as well as Steam Deck, PS and Xbox pricing, including estimations of BOM price to Nintendo. I'm guessing Switch OLED will continue selling beside the new Switch with just a minor price cut ($319 maybe).
Believe it. Nintendo is selling a Tegra X1 system for $350.
yeah lpddr5 seems like a shoe in due to maturity and cost savings, with the X version saved for 2 years from now for a revision for lower wattage.
There is a huge chance of 399 hybrid. Just because they are selling OLED for 50 dollars more to differentiate it from the base model doesn't mean they will sell it for 499. There are phones with A78 CPUs, 8 GB RAM, UFSs, multiple cameras, 5G and whatnot patents, and royalties selling for 399.
I wouldn't say no chance. But I do think the chances are getting a bit lower, especially since there's no sign that electronic components are going to decrease in price; but rather signs are showing the complete opposite's happening.
I don't think that's necessarily a fair comparison since most smartphone companies, outside of Samsung and Apple, don't really make any profit selling smartphones, especially in price sensitive markets (e.g. China, India, etc.). I think that's one reason LG exited the smartphone market.
You're thinking "What's the cheapest they can sell it without losing money", when Nintendo is very likely thinking "What's the most expensive we can sell the 30 or so millions we can manufacture in the first 2 years".
I see your points and agree with you. From the knowledge of specs we have now, it will probably at best perform like Series S (299, sold at loss) in docked mode in third-party games.
Yeah. Just to be clear, I'm not saying it will be anywhere the PS5, but that graphics-wise it will be in a significantly better position than when the OG Switch was priced the same as the PS4 and was very successful.
The main point would be forcing people to buy everything for the eshop, which Nintendo makes more money on every purchase.
pricing will always also be balanced by Nintendo's own market data about what the market will bear. I agree that given PS5 has shown people will buy consoles at $499, the taboo isn't there anymore and inflation is real.
Nintendo has also additional components that make the price of the console go up significantly:
That is the estimated cost in dollars of two joycon in 2017 according to a company that specialize in this kind of estimation.
Yeah, but this is Nintendo 5 years after the Switch. It's selling like crazy. They have all the reason more to sell it at $450 or higher vs $399. I'm more inclined to believe they will sell it that much and drop it $50 in a worst case scenario then $399.99, if the Switch V2 and OLED aren't dropped by $50.
Nah, the target demographic for this product isn't that same as that for the Lite or original hybrid. This is a premium version geared heavily towards docked players, they'll charge a premium price for it. $399 is absolutely the minimum, I think $450 is a lot likelier and $499 is not off the table.
original owners like myself would have had the Switch for 5+ years by the time this thing launches. I agree it's not the target demo for the Lite, but it should be the target demo for OG Switch owners looking to upgrade.
That was at launch, Joycons have come down in retail price and are more in line with the PS5 controller when it comes to cost. The dock is basically a USB hub but considering the PS5 has a PSU while Switch doesn't, these costs are still covered mostly.
Looking to upgrade, sure. Early adopters like us are definitely a target demo (for the OLED model too) but typically we tend not to be as price conscious as other demographics.
I think a MSRP of $499.99 is definitely a possibility. Not a very high possibility, but still a possibility. $499.99's probably the absolute max as far as the MSRP's concerned.
I'm afraid that this is what's likely. I don't think a high price for Drake will hurt Nintendo's sales much since they already have the OG and OLED flying off shelves. It's not like Nintendo would be blocking a large amount of the market from their ecosystem by overpricing only one of their four consoles. Cheaper Switch options will be out there, so families who don't want to pay a premium for hella gud grafficks can just buy an OLED or a base (assuming the OLED doesn't outright replace the base at Drake's launch), Nintendo will continue moving hardware and software, and we'll continue getting reports showing the Switch brand topping charts.
It's quite interesting that Totoki did not confirm PS5 being break-even, but only that it was "proceeding".
That's very different from the Japanese reporting. So which is the truth?
OLED sold well, but It's unclear who are buying, could just be people getting 2nd Switches, replacing their older Switches and fence sitters. I misspoke, when I said upgrade I meant people looking for next-gen, just as PS4 owners had been talking about the PS5 2+ years before it actually launched. Those people are ready. I certainly am.
I feel that it is inevitable that pricing for a new successor console might be outside Nintendo's own comfort zone simply due to the inflation happening, not to mention the global chip shortage and other world changing events.
Seeing how a lot of the arguments are now centered around marketing and pricing (such as debates about whether or not this will be called "Pro" or "2", despite...you know, Nintendo not being Sony), I guess it would be best to wait until more info spills out.
From what I understand, Playstations are sold at a loss, and are recouped by install base. Nintendo makes profit from their consoles Day 1. Perhaps the only exception was the WiiU, where they were more breaking even than profiting.
When production numbers might not be as high as they wish, that can be an acceptable trade. Unless they absolutely feel they have to do "no price drops for 5 years" again or be seen as a failure.
MS stopped making One Xes.
Justified or not, the price point and profitability of PS5 have been part of the discourse here in more than one occasion. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to debunk(?) the widely-held view. If one agrees with my presumption that the $499 PS5 is never profitable, it may put a damper on some rosier predictions of the Drake Switch specifications and pricing.
Slight correction. 8GB model WiiU & 3DS lost them money. The former was recouped with a game or two if I remember correctly. The latter did lose them money after slashing the price 80$. It was one of the reasons why they went into the red for the first time.
The PS5's $499 price point being profitable has been referenced more than a few times in this thread. If anyone here can provide any evidence proving that PS5 is profitable, please kindly point me to it. For the life of me I couldn't find any. It seems to be an urban legend originated from a shoddy translation/reporting by Bloomberg without any hard proof. Allow me to recap:
On May 26, 2021 (Sony IR Day 2021), Jim Ryan gave a presentation in which he claimed that "PS5 Standard Edition is expected to break even [in June 2021]" (image below). The keyword here is "expected". Also note that the cost of goods (COGS) does not include sales and marketing expenses (SG&A). Considering how much Sony spent on ads, that was a huge omission.
On August 4, 2021 (FY21 Q1 earnings, which ended in June), Bloomberg Japan reported (machine translation):
It's quite interesting that Totoki did not confirm PS5 being break-even, but only that it was "proceeding".
The saga only grew stranger from here. On that same day Bloomberg News published a different version of the same article:
That's very different from the Japanese reporting. So which is the truth?
Surprisingly, neither version was backed up by Sony's official presentation transcript or Q&A summary—there was no statement regarding PS5's profitability. Thus either Bloomberg completely misquoted Totoki, or it was deliberately scrapped from the official documents.
On the contrary according to Sony's official releases for FY21 Q1 and Q2, they continued suffering losses from PS5's "strategic price points":
Even the most recent FY21 Q3 release only disclosed a "decrease in loss", a far cry from breaking even:
One'd think that if PS5 indeed has achieved profitability, Sony would've been hooting from the rooftop, banging pots and pans. The best PS fanboys can do even today is quoting the same Bloomberg News story and the countless regurgitated articles citing the same source. That said, it's quite possible I'm missing something, and I welcome to be corrected.
Edit: clarification
By the by, this same thing was said about Nintendo with a 300 dollar product.
My post to which you were responding is to question that Bloomberg report. There is no official Sony financial documents stating that it ever broke even; at least none that I could find.
