Yes, it is a price increase, but the inflation has been wild. For context, the Switch in 2017 for $299 is equivalent to $389 in 2025 dollars. It’s really been insane. The Nintendo 64 from 1996 was $199, or $404 in 2025 dollars.
Gointhefridge@lemm.ee 1 day ago
That pricing is really putting Nintendo out of its core market. The reason the Switch was an absolute smash is because it was and remained accessibly priced. The fact they’re charging $450 is really putting them out of the “hey that’s not too bad” audience. This is a wildly bad move on their part.
carbonari_sandwich@lemm.ee 1 day ago
samus12345@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Consumers also had more buying power back then, so converting the currency doesn’t tell the whole story.
Gointhefridge@lemm.ee 1 day ago
While you’re not literally wrong adjusting for inflation, their “value proposition” is a bit out the window. It’s so close in price to comparable tech, it seems like a much more serious purchase. Nintendo hit it right with the Wii and the Switch by pricing competitively low. The Switch 2 should follow the same value quotient to be a runaway success. This is effectively what killed the Wii U. The Switch 2 could be destined to follow the same fate.
Even the mental trickery of “$399” would be more effective than “$449” for Nintendo in the long run. They have to question whether that $50 is worth losing marketshare. I think if they are keeping the game prices and (potentially) the cost of services like online higher than the entry point of buying the system should be lower.
llii@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
2017 for $299 is equivalent to $389
Yes, but it doesn’t cost $389 but $450. For $389 I would’ve considered it, bot not $450. Also the bigger issue for me are the game and accessory prices.
samus12345@lemm.ee 1 day ago
The nickel and diming about every single thing they mentioned make Sony and Microsoft seem generous by comparison.
Switch 2 announcement in one image:
Image