StarTopic Future Nintendo Hardware & Technology Speculation & Discussion |ST| (New Staff Post, Please read)

[Skittzo]

Ars Technica reported on the leak and the demands of the leakers.

In depth reporting on the leak for Nintendo has been scant, though Kotaku was on strike when it occurred and DF touched on it, but as this thread is pointing out, the leak confirms many things about the hardware in development for the "Next Switch". However, power consumption affects much of how to interpret the leak for comparison to other hardware as well as its ability to drive 4K. Also its potential BOM cost is weirdly out of line with previous Nintendo hardware.

Personally I love seeing the work @Thraktor and others are doing on the topic, it will be interesting to see what comes from GDC.

In either event, I would expect supply chain leaks some point soon if a late 2022 launch was still on the table.

Did they report about the specifics in the leak or just that it happened? I know DF more or less did the latter too.

 

[Foltzie]

Did they report about the specifics in the leak or just that it happened? I know DF more or less did the latter too.

The Ars report was just on the attack and ransom demands.

DF didnt get into specifics about the Switch hardware, but said effectively the potential hardware was impressive, but the original Switch hardware had clocks reduced a lot compared to ShieldTV to meet power/thermal requirements so to temper expectations. They also pointed to their original DLSS Switch video because the computational overhead for DLSS is significant at least in DLSS 2.0.

 

[Mr Swine]

Does anyone know or if there is a site that calculates how fast the L2 cache is depending on size?

 

[My Tulpa]

Personally I'm not too perturbed by the prospect of a premium Drake Switch being priced at $450+ (and perhaps a dock/accessory-less SKU for $400). It's actually a good product strategy to target more market segments via price/product differentiations.

What baffles me, however, is that the current Lite and hybrid models may not have enough legs to last for more than a couple more years, and sooner than later they will need to be upgraded to the new platform standard (Drake SoC, wider memory, faster storage, etc.) while ideally maintaining their respective price points at $200 and $300-$350. Looking at the rather high-end specs being speculated in this thread, I'm not sure how that could be accomplished.

Not only will the current models be able to last a few more years, the majority of the Switch base will still be playing on them a few years from now.

The uptake of a $500 mid gen upgrade model isn’t going to be as fast as people are assuming here.

I suspect by ~2026 it will represent 25%-30% of its users just like the ps4 pro did by 2020.

I wouldn’t worry about Nintendo getting rid of the sub $300 options any time soon.

I’d love to know how many Mariko SoC’s Nintendo has mass produced already, and if production is still going on (there were rumors that they were shutting it down, but that doesn’t appear to be the case anymore)

The screen is more expensive though. Just thinking its more of a way for Nintendo to save money and use OLED screen on a revision as a way to justify the same price (or even make it more expensive with other features) for a revision as launch Drake.

There is no way Nintendo introduces a premium model that regresses from the OLED model they just released. By the time they start mass producing the new model upgrade, that initial elevated cost of production start up from a new contract/manufacturer will have abated to the point it will be negligible enough to not debate about it.

I’m sure Nintendo will let the old LCD bleed out and not reup the contracts and eventually replace all their models with the newer screen.

At this point (chip shortages, inflation, war and further inflation and cost going up) I am not that sure that price point will be $399

Even without those 3 things it wouldn’t be $399

The $350 minor revision model tells you why.

When people get knew that Switch is hybrid and much more than 3DS (so no just a handheld) almost no one said that, generally Switch price point was expected to be $249-299, there were plenty people saying that Switch needs to sell at $249 because at $299 would have similar sales like Wii U (lol).

No, just looking at the oft cited Neogaf thread by Resetera people shows that the consensus was disbelief.

This was well after it was revealed that it was a hybrid, most people still said for months it needs to be $199…and the acceptable MAX could be $249.

When it was revealed in Jan 2017 to be $299, it was a wall of “DOA” and “smh”

 

[Hermii]

Not only will the current models be able to last a few more years, the majority of the Switch base will still be playing on them a few years from now.

The uptake of a $500 mid gen upgrade model isn’t going to be as fast as people are assuming here.

I suspect by ~2026 it will represent 25%-30% of its users just like the ps4 pro did by 2020.

I wouldn’t worry about Nintendo getting rid of the sub $300 options any time soon.

I’d love to know how many Mariko SoC’s Nintendo has mass produced already, and if production is still going on (there were rumors that they were shutting it down, but that doesn’t appear to be the case anymore)



There is no way Nintendo introduces a premium model that regresses from the OLED model they just released. By the time they start mass producing the new model upgrade, that initial elevated cost of production start up from a new contract/manufacturer will have abated to the point it will be negligible enough to not debate about it.

I’m sure Nintendo will let the old LCD bleed out and not reup the contracts and eventually replace all their models with the newer screen.



Even without those 3 things it wouldn’t be $399

The $350 minor revision model tells you why.



No, just looking at the oft cited Neogaf thread by Resetera people shows that the consensus was disbelief.

This was well after it was revealed that it was a hybrid, most people still said for months it needs to be $199…and the acceptable MAX could be $249.

When it was revealed in Jan 2017 to be $299, it was a wall of “DOA” and “smh”

Those rumours about them shutting down Mariko production were never true.

 

[My Tulpa]

Now I'm still not entirely sold that it will release next FY.

But they dont really need to highlight it in any fashion when covering their upcoming FY, just like they didnt do with Lite, OLED or even the original Switch the FY the year it launched.

We’ll be able to discern a lot from their hardware guidance and talk of “growth” for Switch’s 6th year.

If they are forecasting far less than 25 million in hardware sales this FY, then you can assume no new model is releasing.

 

[Skittzo]

We’ll be able to discern a lot from their hardware guidance and talk of “growth” for Switch’s 6th year.

If they are forecasting far less than 25 million in hardware sales this FY, then you can assume no new model is releasing.

Unless they aren't going to consider this under the same hardware umbrella.

 

[chocolate_supra]

Unless they aren't going to consider this under the same hardware umbrella.

Pretty sure Furukawa's continued insistence that we're only halfway through the Switch lifespan points to Drake being considered under the same hardware umbrella, regardless of how large a jump in power it may have.

 

[Skittzo]

Pretty sure Furukawa's continued insistence that we're only halfway through the Switch lifespan points to Drake being considered under the same hardware umbrella, regardless of how large a jump in power it may have.

Yeah I agree that it's probably the case, but we really can't be sure definitively either way.

Plus there's always the chance they say something like "this is the forecast for currently available hardware."

 

[chocolate_supra]

Plus there's always the chance they say something like this is the forecast for currently available hardware

Ooooooh that'd get people talking

 

[Skittzo]

Ooooooh that'd get people talking

Yeah I really doubt they use that language. Maybe something like: "forecast for units of hardware including Switch, Switch Lite and Switch (OLED model)"

 

[Tentacle-tropes]

The Ars report was just on the attack and ransom demands.

DF didnt get into specifics about the Switch hardware, but said effectively the potential hardware was impressive, but the original Switch hardware had clocks reduced a lot compared to ShieldTV to meet power/thermal requirements so to temper expectations. They also pointed to their original DLSS Switch video because the computational overhead for DLSS is significant at least in DLSS 2.0.

If I remember correctly the original Switch hardware clocks are just the Shield clocks before they throttle. After Shield throttles the clocks are pretty similar.

 

[Thugstas]

Calm down guys, it just sounds like he wants to be very sure on his information and/or get enough data from enough sources to obscure his sources properly

Those rumours about them shutting down Mariko production were never true.

My fault… misunderstandings… end of life … end of support.

 

[Terrarios]

Nintendo posted this video in 1440p does it mean something ?

 

[Toad King]

Nintendo posted this video in 1440p does it mean something ?

Probably not, that trailer is all or mostly pre-rendered.

 

[Hermii]

Nintendo posted this video in 1440p does it mean something ?

Means nothing.

 

[Dark Cloud]

Nintendo posted this video in 1440p does it mean something ?

No

 

[Pokemaniac]

Nintendo posted this video in 1440p does it mean something ?

It means the publisher of Rocket League (which I guess would be Epic at this point?) rendered the trailer in 1440p. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Dark Cloud]

Stop looking at YouTube trailers for some hint. If it’s coming you’ll get your answers soon

 

[Ojoloco]

the GDC after Drake's launch could be interesting if Nintendo or affiliates talk about optimizing for new hardware. I think Nvidia will host some talks about leveraging hardware with a developer, like they did for Switch (Witcher 3 and Sinking City)

I remember the talk about TW3 port, but its new to me that exist a talk about The Sinking City

 

[ILikeFeet]

I remember the talk about TW3 port, but its new to me that exist a talk about The Sinking City

 

[Dakhil]

GTC 2022 for March 2022 is next week. And hopefully more information about Atlan is coming, especially with the sampling of Atlan planned for 2023.

---

Anyway, this seems like the beginning of an end of an era when Arm's concerned.

British tech champion Arm to slash hundreds of jobs

Chip giant plans to cut up to 15pc of its global workforce in wake of failed Nvidia takeover

www.telegraph.co.uk

(Here's an archive to the Telegraph article.)

---

Nvidia: How to connect GPUs direct to SSDs for a speed boost

Go away, CPU, you're not needed here ... mostly

www.theregister.com

 

[Simba1]

Even without those 3 things it wouldn’t be $399

The $350 minor revision model tells you why.

Disagree, currently everything from $399 to $499 is possible, especially because nothing is still sure regardless hardware configuration, time of release and exact positioning of this new hardware, and $399 and $499 are realistically minimal and maximal prices we could have.

No, $349 model doesnt tell my why, like I wrote before, point that OLED selling at $349 doesn't mean that Nintendo couldn't sell it at $299 and to make regular model price cut to less than $299, if they wanted, point is simple that wouldn't make sense with huge Switch demand, supply problems and raised costs, so it made sense to sell OLED at higher price point than regular Switch without any price cut.
Also, previous price point revision is not good pointer of how much stronger new hardware could cost because reasons for making specific price point are different between models. For instance how good previous models are selling and how big supply issues are, how big profit margin is for previous model, whats a point of previous and new model and how exactly it will be positioned (or in this case for how long Nintendo will product and support current Switch models), how supplies will be for new model and what profit margin they will aim...so its not that simple like looking at last revision and its price point and saying this new stronger hardware needs to be $150 more expansive.

 

[Intoxicate]

The pricing will show whether Nintendo see‘s this as a „Pro Gamer“ device or the next version that should appeal to all families. If their strategy is still to expand the user base as much as possible I don’t see them asking for more than 349. otherwise sell it for 499 to those who want and let the family buy the used old version the new buyer will put on the market.

 

[Simba1]

The pricing will show whether Nintendo see‘s this as a „Pro Gamer“ device or the next version that should appeal to all families. If their strategy is still to expand the user base as much as possible I don’t see them asking for more than 349. otherwise sell it for 499 to those who want and let the family buy the used old version the new buyer will put on the market.

Generally used market and pricing on that market is totally irrelevant and its not part of planning for companies like Nintendo when comes to pricing of new or current models in stores.

 

[Thraktor]

Ars Technica reported on the leak and the demands of the leakers.

In depth reporting on the leak for Nintendo has been scant, though Kotaku was on strike when it occurred and DF touched on it, but as this thread is pointing out, the leak confirms many things about the hardware in development for the "Next Switch". However, power consumption affects much of how to interpret the leak for comparison to other hardware as well as its ability to drive 4K. Also its potential BOM cost is weirdly out of line with previous Nintendo hardware.

I wouldn't necessarily say the potential BOM is "weirdly out of line" with previous Nintendo hardware, as we just don't know enough to really estimate the BOM, either in terms of the device itself (CPU, RAM, storage, any new features) or the market, as it's in a much more uncertain state right now. Additionally, companies like Techinsights no longer publicly share any of their smartphone BOM estimations, which would previously have been a good reference for many components in a device like this.

I'd say there are two unusual factors which make it difficult to estimate a price right now:

1. The chip shortage. This is certainly having an effect and will have slowed down, or reversed, the usual cost reductions over time of many components, but it's hard to say exactly how big an effect it is, particularly on the more expensive components like SoC and RAM.
2. Nintendo is still selling the base Switch at $300, five years after launch. Continued high demand has allowed them to do this, but it means we have little to no idea on what cost savings they've managed since launch. Are they selling it at a huge profit, or have cost reductions been impacted heavily by the chip shortage?

The other factor of point 2 is that we don't know what Nintendo's attitude towards hardware profits will be. Switch was originally sold at around breakeven pricing, as far as we can tell, but if Nintendo are making a healthy profit on base Switch models now while still having high demand, they may be inclined to also want to sell the new model at a healthy profit. This doesn't affect the BOM, but obviously would have a big impact on the selling price.

 

[Mr Swine]

Nintendo posted this video in 1440p does it mean something ?

No but it looks damn good running at 1440p. Guess it would look like that if it was running on the new hardware

 

[RennanNT]

The pricing will show whether Nintendo see‘s this as a „Pro Gamer“ device or the next version that should appeal to all families. If their strategy is still to expand the user base as much as possible I don’t see them asking for more than 349. otherwise sell it for 499 to those who want and let the family buy the used old version the new buyer will put on the market.

Going cheaper doesn't necessarily means it will reach more people. In a world where you can get enough free entertainment for a lifetime, you can't compete with price.

That's why they followed the 3DS, which failed at $250 and went as low as $80 with a game (2DS), with a $300 system instead of another $130 system and that system outsold the 3DS family by a big margin.

Instead of cutting corners now to reach that 350 ceiling, they can make a more expensive but more desired system and make it more affordable later (price drop, bundles and cut down revision).

Not mention that if they really want the super-price-councious audience, they can keep a sub-200 Switch model around as the entry point and keep releasing all their non-demanding games on it.

 

[Simba1]

That's why they followed the 3DS, which failed at $250 and went as low as $80 with a game (2DS), with a $300 system instead of another $130 system and that system outsold the 3DS family by a big margin.

To be fair, Switch is much more than 3DS, its home console and handheld in one, and its successor to 3DS and Wii U in same time.
I actually find very interesting that Switch that's much more than 3DS and has much more higher value than 3DS,
had only $50 higher price point than 3DS had on launch.


Talking about pricing, we also have opposite example like Xbox One X thats was selling $499 on launch and now Xbox Series S selling for $299 at launch.

 

[Maxrunner]

What is BOM?

 

[IamPeacock]

What is BOM?

Bill of Material.

Total price of materials to produce/make something.

Switch can have a BOM of 100 dollars, and it is sold at 250.

 

[RennanNT]

To be fair, Switch is much more than 3DS, its home console and handheld in one, and its successor to 3DS and Wii U in same time,

I actually find very interesting that Switch that's much more than 3DS and has much more higher value than 3DS,
had only $50 higher price point than 3DS had on launch.

That is my point. $250/$350 wasn't too expensive for the public, they could afford the Wii U, they could afford launch 3DS and they could afford the $80 2DS even more. They (those who didn't buy them) simply didn't want them. Make a highly desired product and people will be there even if it's a little pricy, but if you fail to get their interest, going cheaper won't really fix it.

Talking about pricing, you also have opposite example like Xbox One X thats was selling $499 on launch and now Xbox Series S selling for $299 at launch.

The XB1X successor is the Series X. And the Series fit on what I'm saying, they made the most attractive product they could and then made a cut down and more affordable to reach price sensitive customers. Although I said "make it more affordable later", I don't think it's a problem to release a Lite version on day one too.

What is BOM?

Bill of materials, basically how much each part of the device costs added together, but ignoring other costs like R&D, packaging, shipping, etc.

 

[ILikeFeet]

No but it looks damn good running at 1440p. Guess it would look like that if it was running on the new hardware

Rocket League is due for a massive overhaul. the game is still running on UE3. maybe we'll get a UE5 version next year

 

[Blomqvist]

That is my point. $250/$350 wasn't too expensive for the public, they could afford the Wii U, they could afford launch 3DS and they could afford the $80 2DS even more. They (those who didn't buy them) simply didn't want them. Make a highly desired product and people will be there even if it's a little pricy, but if you fail to get their interest, going cheaper won't really fix it.


The XB1X successor is the Series X. And the Series fit on what I'm saying, they made the most attractive product they could and then made a cut down and more affordable to reach price sensitive customers. Although I said "make it more affordable later", I don't think it's a problem to release a Lite version on day one too.


Bill of materials, basically how much each part of the device costs added together, but ignoring other costs like R&D, packaging, shipping, etc.

Just because gamers can shell 500 for a new tech device doesn't mean they will target only them. It is not in Nintendo's DNA to sell devices their consumers cannot afford. Furukawa speaks about being every year in do or die situation, it would not be reasonable to sell expensive devices. They want to have a 100 million base to funnel their games to. Nintendo Switch was 299 after Wii U which was 349 in its not barebones version.

 

[Hermii]

Rocket League is due for a massive overhaul. the game is still running on UE3. maybe we'll get a UE5 version next year

I read they dont want to change the engine, because even the tinyest alterations to the physics will screw up peoples mussle memories (or something to that effect).

 

[Ozeiyo]

Can’t wait for the amount of snark they’ll throw in this one.

“At least 20 developers now working on titles for a 4K Switch that does not exist. Many aim to release these new titles on the non-existent platform by late 2022.”

More realistically they’ll probably start talking more concrete about production and release timing. Seems like that’s gotta be around the corner

EDIT: Nothing here, really.

 

[Brofield]

I read they dont want to change the engine, because even the tinyest alterations to the physics will screw up peoples mussle memories (or something to that effect).

Whenever that original comment was made, seems a few minds have changed



I guess it would make sense though; at some point I'd imagine UE3 can't even get all the benefits out of the current gen consoles

 

[RennanNT]

Just because gamers can shell 500 for a new tech device doesn't mean they will target only them. It is not in Nintendo's DNA to sell devices their consumers cannot afford. Furukawa speaks about being every year in do or die situation, it would not be reasonable to sell expensive devices.

I'm not saying that it needs to be 500 or even above 350, I'm combating the notion that 350 (or 400 or whatever) is a ceiling they need to hit. If they have a 500 product which is significantly more desirable than a 350 version of the same product, they shouldn't go with the 350 because "we can't charge more than X no matter how good and desired the product is". If they have a very desirable $350 product and the bells and whistles they can add on top doesn't add much appeal to the product, then they can go with 350 and maybe release a OLED-like premium revision later.

They want to have a 100 million base to funnel their games to.

Are you saying that the PS5 is doomed to sell under 100 mi units because it launched at 500? Not even if they price drop or introduce cheaper revisions?

Nintendo Switch was 299 after Wii U which was 349 in its not barebones version.

The "not barebones version" Wii U dropped to 299, same price as the Switch, within 1 year and that made no difference at all. Dropping/Releasing the Wii U for the same $250 as the Wii wouldn't have made a big difference either. At the end of the day, the difference between Switch success and Wii U failure wasn't that $350 was too much while $300 is some sweet spot for any console, but related to people wanting the former but not the later.

 

[MP!]

Yeah the problem with the Wii U was a value proposition not the actual price
Wii U didn’t feel like it was worth $350 stacked next to ps4 at $400

It wasn’t the price, the value just wasn’t there. Had the perception of the Wii U been valued higher by the public they’d have had no problem buying it at $350
(Example: if the OS was sleek and modern, if there were comparable features and games made for it that were also offered on competing products)

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

The iPhone sells at the 700-1500 range because it’s a desirable product, not because of anything else.

The OLED switch is a more desirable product in value compared to the base switch and especially compared to the switch lite it’s “predecessor” as its features primarily aids those who play in portable mode.

XBox One dropped the Kinect and went from 499 to like 349 I think, brand declined massively and lost a good portion of its audience from the 360 to the “true” 360 “successor” for the audience, the PS4. PS4 contained the kind of games that the 360 had and then the extras, that’s why it’s the “successor” in a way. The PS4 was also just more desirable even with the lower price of the system vs the XB1. It’s focus was on the core audience that attracted the casuals, not the casuals who don’t attract the core audience.


The only time I’d guess it worked in dropping the price was with the PS1-3, with the PS1 it was to undermine their main competitor the Sega Saturn, N64 wasn’t really relevant then(?). With the PS2 it was to permeate into developing game markets and persisted for years. With the PS3, thing was dead in the water at launch, so dropping the price helped to get the ball rolling along with the games it had and fend off its main competitor the 360, but then there are other examples where it didn’t work like with the GameCube which was apparently like 99 dollars after a year? Why did that not work? The games were fine for it at the start, but I guess this is just something that was more than and had to do with another factor at play.


And touching back to the PS3, it became a more desirable product at a lower price, because it didn’t offer enough of a justification to be priced at 599. The same thing that happened to the 3DS.


Nintendo set their new ceiling to 349.99, and it’s working out for them simply due to offering a better version of the switch regardless of being a nonexistent performance upgrade. There’s no reason to believe they won’t try again to raise the bar, as RennanT said, if they make a desirable product the public will go out of their way to support said desirable product.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

The 3ds “debacle” was overpricing a new next gen console ecosystem beyond the value of what most people thought it was worth.

At least in US prices, launch 3DS at 250 was a 47% increase over what DSi launched at. As long as they launch Drake Switch below $515, they're improving on that.

Not in portable mode it sure isn’t (which is what every Switch game has to be designed around)

And now we have gone from ~ps4 pro gaming quality docked to spitting distance from ps5??

In a world of diminishing returns, cross-gen games, and possibly still stuck on a damn 720p screen, the difference isn't giant.

 

[Hermii]

Assuming those leaked GPU specs are right we're essentially talking about a portable that can possibly run games within spitting distance of the PS5. Them charging a PS5 level price for this certainly is a real possibility.

It won’t be within splitting difference of a ps5, that’s crazy talk.

 

[Alovon11]

It won’t be within splitting difference of a ps5, that’s crazy talk.

Yeah, on average no.
While some Nintendo First party stuff and likely Saber Interactive Handled stuff could get right near there, most of the stuff will be just between the Series S and PS5 after DLSS when docked.

 

[SiG]

It won’t be within splitting difference of a ps5, that’s crazy talk.

Depends if it utilizes DLSS.

I'd say it would be spitting distance with XBSS but it really is all about them addressing bandwidth issues.

Also I wouldn't expect them to adhere to typical pricing simply due to the current global situations + chip shortage. All companies are already showing signs of a price hike, and the successor being a relatively new device will mean that the MSRP will relatively be increased compared to current gen consoles who's prices have been announced prior to these events.

It's useless to try and guess pricing right now. Too much going on around the world.

 

[My Tulpa]

Yeah I really doubt they use that language. Maybe something like: "forecast for units of hardware including Switch, Switch Lite and Switch (OLED model)"

If they use any language like that, that’s enough to tell us a new piece of hardware is coming (cause they don’t usually parse like that when it comes to hardware/software forecasts)

But they aren’t going to do that cause they won’t consider any hardware they release in the next couple of years NOT part of the Switch family. Everything they have been saying the last year or so tells us that won’t happen.

Disagree, currently everything from $399 to $499 is possible, especially because nothing is still sure regardless hardware configuration, time of release and exact positioning of this new hardware, and $399 and $499 are realistically minimal and maximal prices we could have.

I’m going by the assumption the new model is releasing the next 12 months.

It won’t be priced at $399 if that is the case.

No, $349 model doesnt tell my why, like I wrote before, point that OLED selling at $349 doesn't mean that Nintendo couldn't sell it at $299 and to make regular model price cut to less than $299, if they wanted, point is simple that wouldn't make sense with huge Switch demand, supply problems and raised costs, so it made sense to sell OLED at higher price point than regular Switch without any price cut.

Sorry, my point was the $350 OLED should tell you why a $399 Drake machine isn’t going to happen because:

1. They priced the OLED specifically because of the cost of production. If they priced it at $299 and price cut the older hybrid to $249, they would be losing money on hardware sold. So they didn’t do that. There was probably a slim profit off of OLED at $350, and they kept the other prices as a buoy in case the OLED sold very poorly out of the gate.

The Drake model is going to cost much more to start up and produce than just adding a new screen to a Mariko unit. Much more than just another $50. So releasing it at $399 is a non starter because there is no reason for Nintendo to release this as a money loss hardware (this is no where near the situation as the ps5/Ps5DE which Sony needed to release as a money loss)

2. The hugely successful adoption of the $350 OLED proved to Nintendo that they have yet to reach the ceiling in terms of price point what gamers find in value for upgraded Switch hardware. There is nothing to suggest that going above $400 is DOA for a major Switch upgrade model.

And there is no downside in pushing the limits of that since a mid gen upgrade model is designed to lengthen engagement for the latter half of a system lifecycle, it doesn’t have to sell like gangbusters out of the gate. It’s ok if it appeals to just the enthusiast market.

The pricing will show whether Nintendo see‘s this as a „Pro Gamer“ device or the next version that should appeal to all families. If their strategy is still to expand the user base as much as possible I don’t see them asking for more than 349. otherwise sell it for 499 to those who want and let the family buy the used old version the new buyer will put on the market.

Furukawa just spoke to this last month at the investors brief. The success of the OLED uptake proves that the growth of the Switch userbase is through creating a wide variety of models to attack different needs/appeals. The OLED also showed them sales trends that many people who bought a Switch 5 years ago, are now very interested in upgrading it.

They said when Switch first started, it was common to have one per household. Now with all the diversification of models and price points, the trend is multiple per household.

Their now stated goal is to expand their userbase to one Switch per person.

Furukawa said their method of further growth of the Switch install base is by releasing more diversified models like the OLED.

So pricing a power upgrade well above the asking price of the OLED is certainly not out the question considering where they feel they are at now. A $499 gamer pro switch doesn’t have to appeal to everyone. Not at all.

Just because gamers can shell 500 for a new tech device doesn't mean they will target only them. It is not in Nintendo's DNA to sell devices their consumers cannot afford. Furukawa speaks about being every year in do or die situation, it would not be reasonable to sell expensive devices.

The “do or die” quote in context speaks to exactly why a higher priced premium Switch is probable.

He was talking about not settling on success and being complacent. Had nothing to do with making sure Nintendo systems are “cheap enough”. That’s not where Switch growth is coming from. It was about pushing boundaries within the bubble of success because…as he said…Nintendo has “repeatedly had the experience of taking a nosedive” amid success. (Ahem, again also referring to their Wii lifecycle lament)

This, with his commitment to not being afraid to go for cutting edge tech, signals they will fight against their usual status quos and keep pushing boundaries.

They won’t be afraid about releasing a higher priced premium power upgrade model designed to keep Switch engagement high for a few more years. NOT doing this would be them being complacent and repeating past mistakes.

They want to have a 100 million base to funnel their games to. Nintendo Switch was 299 after Wii U which was 349 in its not barebones version.

Engagement in Switch software from 2022-2026 will be significantly increased by releasing a $500 power upgrade model than if they didn’t do this and waited a few more years to release a successor system.

This new model is designed to achieve the growth you talk about, regardless of its price point.

 

[Hermii]

Yeah, on average no.
While some Nintendo First party stuff and likely Saber Interactive Handled stuff could get right near there, most of the stuff will be just between the Series S and PS5 after DLSS when docked.

It depends if the game leverages the full extent of the ssd speed for asset streaming, the cpu is likely quite a bit weaker, bandwidth is a big one. Dlss is great for resolution, but a lot of things still requires raw razterizatilon grunt.

It will be interesting to see how it compares to series s in real world comparisons.

 

[Simba1]

I’m going by the assumption the new model is releasing the next 12 months.

It won’t be priced at $399 if that is the case.



Sorry, my point was the $350 OLED should tell you why a $399 Drake machine isn’t going to happen because:

1. They priced the OLED specifically because of the cost of production. If they priced it at $299 and price cut the older hybrid to $249, they would be losing money on hardware sold. So they didn’t do that. There was probably a slim profit off of OLED at $350, and they kept the other prices as a buoy in case the OLED sold very poorly out of the gate.

The Drake model is going to cost much more to start up and produce than just adding a new screen to a Mariko unit. Much more than just another $50. So releasing it at $399 is a non starter because there is no reason for Nintendo to release this as a money loss hardware (this is no where near the situation as the ps5/Ps5DE which Sony needed to release as a money loss)

2. The hugely successful adoption of the $350 OLED proved to Nintendo that they have yet to reach the ceiling in terms of price point what gamers find in value for upgraded Switch hardware. There is nothing to suggest that going above $400 is DOA for a major Switch upgrade model.

And there is no downside in pushing the limits of that since a mid gen upgrade model is designed to lengthen engagement for the latter half of a system lifecycle, it doesn’t have to sell like gangbusters out of the gate. It’s ok if it appeals to just the enthusiast market.

Agree, next 12 months sounds like good bet, even if I personally expecting launch from March 2023. to end of 2023.
I strongly disagree that there is no chance for $399 price point.



1.
You cant know that they priced OLED specifically based on production costs, especially when Switch was selling great in any case and they had supply issues,
so it made business sense that improved model has higher price point than regular model and no any kind of price cut.
In other words, if regular Switch was not selling good and there were no supply issues with regular or OLED model, we could easily have different price points with OLED launch, its business sense.

Also, you cant know that they would sell them at loss if they were selling them at less than $299 for regular model and at $299 (OLED) version, only thing we know that is sure that Nintendo has very healthy profit margin even with raised costs.
Offcourse that Drake model will cost more than OLED model, but you dont know how much more will cost, what profit margin Nintendo would aim with Drake or how fast adoption they would want, you dont know even how much OLED model cost to produce or what is Nintendo profit margin on it.

Talking about costs, OLED has just a 32GB more memory and OLED screen compared to regular Switch, now you have smartphones that have OLED screen, 4GB RAM and 128GB memory that are selling for around $150.


2.
I didnt said that above $399 means DOA for next gen Switch, I said that everything from $399 to $499 is realistically possible, but its hard to say exact price point (for instance $399 or $499) when basically still nothing is certain.

Pricing depends from point how exactly Nintendo will want to positioning this new version and how fast they want people to upgrade, Switch is already 5 years old hardware and its struggling with performance and IQ for some time now, especially from next gen PS/Xbox launch, so there is no too much sense to expect they will want to produce and support (especially with that big power/feature difference) current models for around 5 years after this next gen Swtich launch (and that could easily next year when Switch hardware is around 6 years old).

Like I wrote before, based on rumors, thing is that this is not simply mid gen upgrade like New 3DS, PS4 Pro or even like Xbox One X, this sounds like full next gen in every way, so having that on mind and full R&D costs for next gen console, having on mind that current Switch models are struggling with performance and IQ, means that Nintendo would probably want faster adoption of this new model instead selling it alongside current models (and support older models) for onother 5 years after this next gen Switch launch.

So, you dont know exact hardware configuration/s (maybe there will be more versions), you don't know exact costs, you dont know what profit margin would Nintendo aim, you dont know exact positioning, you don't know time of release, and yet you saying there is no chanche for $399 price point.
That pretty bold.

 

[Skittzo]

It won’t be within splitting difference of a ps5, that’s crazy talk.

Yeah maybe I've been letting the Alovon hype get to me a bit much. What I mean is it'll likely have some games that smartly utilize DLSS very well such that they might look not too far off graphically from how that game looks on PS5.

 

[Tentacle-tropes]

Agree, next 12 months sounds like good bet, even if I personally expecting launch from March 2023. to end of 2023.
I strongly disagree that there is no chance for $399 price point.



1.
You cant know that they priced OLED specifically based on production costs, especially when Switch was selling great in any case and they had supply issues,
so it made business sense that improved model has higher price point than regular model and no any kind of price cut.
In other words, if regular Switch was not selling good and there were no supply issues with regular or OLED model, we could easily have different price points with OLED launch, its business sense.

Also, you cant know that they would sell them at loss if they were selling them at less than $299 for regular model and at $299 (OLED) version, only thing we know that is sure that Nintendo has very healthy profit margin even with raised costs.
Offcourse that Drake model will cost more than OLED model, but you dont know how much more will cost, what profit margin Nintendo would aim with Drake or how fast adoption they would want, you dont know even how much OLED model cost to produce or what is Nintendo profit margin on it.

Talking about costs, OLED has just a 32GB more memory and OLED screen compared to regular Switch, now you have smartphones that have OLED screen, 4GB RAM and 128GB memory that are selling for around $150.


2.
I didnt said that above $399 means DOA for next gen Switch, I said that everything from $399 to $499 is realistically possible, but its hard to say exact price point (for instance $399 or $499) when basically still nothing is certain.

Pricing depends from point how exactly Nintendo will want to positioning this new version and how fast they want people to upgrade, Switch is already 5 years old hardware and its struggling with performance and IQ for some time now, especially from next gen PS/Xbox launch, so there is no too much sense to expect they will want to produce and support (especially with that big power/feature difference) current models for around 5 years after this next gen Swtich launch (and that could easily next year when Switch hardware is around 6 years old).

Like I wrote before, based on rumors, thing is that this is not simply mid gen upgrade like New 3DS, PS4 Pro or even like Xbox One X, this sounds like full next gen in every way, so having that on mind and full R&D costs for next gen console, having on mind that current Switch models are struggling with performance and IQ, means that Nintendo would probably want faster adoption of this new model instead selling it alongside current models (and support older models) for onother 5 years after this next gen Switch launch.

So, you dont know exact hardware configuration/s (maybe there will be more versions), you don't know exact costs, you dont know what profit margin would Nintendo aim, you dont know exact positioning, you don't know time of release, and yet you saying there is no chanche for $399 price point.
That pretty bold.

I think real world factors may decide the price over what Nintendo may want in this instance, especially if the keep lasting long into late next year.

 

[Terrell]

All this arguing against price drops as “unnecessary” and whatnot is kinda gross, NGL.
It’s like we forget that people exist under the middle class who can’t justify a $300 game console in their budgets and would welcome a price break that puts (as many admit) a highly-desirable product into their price range or, if they’re saving for it, makes it possible to obtain it much sooner. It’s at least a part of why price drops and player’s choice pricing for games exist.
I understand fully why Switch hasn’t seen a price drop yet, but that doesn’t mean I agree with Nintendo’s position not to do one in 5-6 years from launch.
Likewise, arguing that a lack of price drop for Switch wholly justifies a $400+ price tag on new hardware gives vibes of suggesting you don’t care if a subset of gamers can possess one (either in a timely fashion or perhaps ever) because they don’t exist in your socio-economic bracket where such a price tag is NBD.
And while I’m sure some of you making such arguments likely don’t intend to give that impression, it does demonstrate how consumers who exist outside the means you enjoy can easily escape your thought processes. We’ve all been guilty of that at one time or another.

I suggest being more mindful of that when discussing consumer product pricing as a general rule.