Sheikah

When has it stopped them before?

Why? VC is money for old rope on their part, no game to develop.

That's pretty funny. Especially the foo who destroyed his PS4 in protest.

Wow, I can't imagine how much hard work that must have taken! Congratulations! A very noble profession too, if I might add.

Excellent news. I have been looking forward to this for a while, the game sounds amazing. Edit: doh, thought this was the Outer Wilds. That one I'm really looking forward to. This looks good too though.

So Moonlighter is now free on the Epic games store, a nice game to see added!

How is the tin foil hat fitting you?

It is shitty, and the problem was there from the get go rather than developing over time. I sent my joycons in for repair right after I got my Switch when it launched.

Why is it? You keep saying that but don't provide any proof. Maybe Sony and Microsoft ultimately make more money at the start by getting more early adopters while they are still selling at loss. Selling at a loss is fairly common with certain gadgets and means customers get a better deal. The manufacturers are obviously not losing out otherwise they wouldn't do this. So what I'm saying is.... perhaps it is better for the games industry to have companies doing this. If more customers get on board sooner due to cheaper price of entry, there'll be more poeole to sell to and develop games for. That to me seems like a healthier situation. I'm sorry, did you personally ask those 40 million people? That figure would only be higher if it was cheaper. Customer wins less it is they have to pay more. Anyone can sell anything at a loss. But that's not just what Sony/MS are doing. They are/were selling at a loss but having a sufficiently good game library/subscription service to ultimately make a good profit. In fact, Sony remarked that selling an annual Plus sub with the console was enough to turn a profit. It takes some smarts to price your console optimally. Also there's nothing illegal about what Microsoft or Sony are doing (nor should there be) so not sure why you are bringing legality into this... it's like you said that with the intention of making a smart point but there is literally no meaning or relevance to it.

Obviously when I referred to the profit I was talking about pre-tax. The main point to take away here is that they are still making a profit on the sale of their consoles. Here you go: https://www.technobuffalo.com/nintendo-switch-sold-at-profit Nintendo do not make a loss on any console sale. Ergo, their profit is enough to cover the cover the cost of everything. Marketing, development, the lot. I am confused by your assertion that "there is nothing good about that" with regards to the way Sony and Microsoft do it. By "that" you mean competing with one another...so there's nothing good about competition? Do you not think Nintendo would benefit from competition? Please can you explain to me why companies competing for customers with lucrative, cheaply-priced consoles is not a good thing? To me this is far preferable than the situation where Nintendo often make somewhat low-fi hardware but you have no choice about it if you want to play their games. Whether Nintendo would consider the loss approach when they have no direct portable competitor is another thing (maybe if they get a decent online service), but their approach is certainly not one that is attractive to me as a customer. If a game company plans to make money off me for years through online subs and games then I expect their console to be a great price. It's in their interest to have me as a customer. The PS4 was probably just as desirable as the Switch in terms of uptake so not sure what point you're making here. Based on what you just said, surely the best thing you can do is a mixture of both - design amazing, desirable tech but also sell it at a loss, with the goal to recoup profits later? That certainly works best for the customer, and no doubt more people would buy the system at a lower price. You might be proud of a console that can make money but I'm proud of a console I can get a great price because a company is willing to put faith in their userbase to stick around and spend.

It's not rocket science - because 257 USD is how much they cost to make; they're all made in China. They're then sold in the UK for 280 GBP. So that makes a difference of 75 GBP. Seeing as we are talking about the cost of the Lite being 200 GBP, that's why I am talking about UK costs. Right, but then that 75 GBP per unit should more than have covered those additional expenses. Please don't take me for a fool Ronnie, I know full well that there are other costs involved. The point is this profit per console will only have increased as costs have gone down. You keep talking about a "fair" price but this is utterly irrelevant. Sony and Microsoft stomached a risk by selling their consoles at a loss with the expectation of making the money back. Nintendo took on no risk and charged customers to make profit. Sony and Microsoft should be commended because they gave their customers a better deal and ultimately made their money back anyway. There is no way you will convince me that if they charged us another 100 quid they would be more deserving of my respect. No sir, no way.

You seem to be missing a trick here Ronnie, selling at a loss is a proven marketing tactic with an underlying motive. In Sony's case they shifted more consoles by selling at a loss and got more customers to sell renewing annual subscriptions to as well as games. In fact the lower price helped them crush X1. They make the money back by having a bigger install base so it's not like they're losing money in the end. It's no different to how sometimes supermarkets sell things at a loss to bring customers into their stores to buy other things. Nintendo have nothing to be proud of in this case - perhaps if they had an online sub worth a jot they could rely more on expected subscription revenue and lower their system prices too.

It costs 205 GBP to manufacture (converted from that USD cost). They sell it for £280 here. And all discussion here has been about the £200 price, so that's why I am using UK values. Obviously there will be other costs already spent, but that's what the £75 they make covers, and then some. Your whole argument is redundant anyway because both Microsoft and Sony prove it can be done (selling at a loss).

That's something to be incredibly proud of. They are giving the customer a great deal with the hope of seeing a return by keeping happy customers who go on to buy a lot of games/subs. Would you be more proud if Sony charged you another £75? I wouldn't.

Exactly. And most USB-C chargers people have usually come from reputable places (they're included with well known phones and tablets). I expect Nintendo will have reduced their manufacturing/component costs massively by now. Even then, that means they were making 75 quid profit on every base Switch sold at launch, which is a lot. As a comparison Sony needed to sell a game or PSN sub with a PS4 to make profit. I've no doubt Nintendo could have dropped the price to 165 GBP for the Switch Lite but they know people will still buy at 199.

Hey hey, I'm not trying to make it personal here. I agree that we should keep this on topic and I do find the cost breakdown of these systems interesting in light of the new battery information. I'm pretty sure those reports were all with docks. It turns out that most chargers will work with the Switch, and a lot have been tested with it and have good compatibility. As I say, I've been using my Anker charger for years and have had no problems so far. Nintendo have even endorsed/licensed some third party power banks.

USB-C is a standard format and there is a lot of information on compatible chargers. I literally use my Anker USB-C cable to charge my Switch all the time. That's like saying you can't charge Dualshock controllers with any cable other than the one that came with the system. Lots of people have USB C cables already so for many there would be no extra cost - these cables come with phones, tablets, headphones, etc... Don't get me wrong, I don't expect for a second for Nintendo to endorse third party chargers because there's no financial reason for them to do that, and because it affects the sale of their own overpriced chargers. As for the other bit - Ronnie, you are decidedly obnoxious in almost every post you make on here. No arrogance was intended on my part here - I'm just saying that if you're going to try convince me that the Switch Lite is good value, you're going to have to try harder than "cables".

Almost valueless, it's just a USB-C cable/charger and an HDMI cable. Probably can be picked up from you local Poundland. And why is the HDMI cable needed if you sell the dock? Try harder Ronnie.

I feel like you're not getting my point... The Switch Lite will sell but it's not a good deal for the price, especially not now the base unit has nearly double the battery. That's really considerable. FYI there are plenty of docks that have sold at £50 or more recently on eBay: Long story short if you list at £50 it will likely sell, regardless of whether other people have listed lower.

I said for the price the Lite is being sold at there's no good reason to opt for it, not that there is no use/market for it. You can have nearly double the battery, a bigger screen and joycons for roughly the same price - assuming you sold the dock, which people are selling for around £50 on eBay. It makes the Lite a very hard sell at £200. Not saying the Lite won't sell, mind, because of course it will. On paper it's cheaper, and colours. But anyone able to look at what you're getting here can see where the deal is at.

Literally kills any reason to buy the Switch Lite at its current price. Buy this and sell the dock for a similar priced solution with nearly double battery, bigger screen and a pair of joycons!

Can confirm this game was terrible. First two games were absolutely amazing, what a wasted opportunity.

I'll be up for doing them with you.

If you meant pixel density that's fine - but it's not what you originally said. That said, improved pixel density isn't much of a boast in this case - the 3DS XL had the better screen despite having the same resolution as the 3DS. When you're dealing with games with menus and small icons the larger screen made a huge difference.

30 min longer battery, lighter weight, more compact size - a fair chunk of that you can put down to the smaller, cheaper screen and lack of joycon innards rather than a neat refinement of the system. Resolution is not better (720p on both). D-pad is literally the only thing that is not as a result of a compromise (except...arguably you could say it is...it's there because you don't have joycons). I'm not saying there is no purpose to this machine. There is. Some people will have no need for docked play, and prefer a lighter unit. But that does not justify the price IMO. I am not saying tally up every missing item/feature at full Nintendo RRP but at the same time...given the things they are not giving you I don't feel the price is justified. As I say you could buy a normal Switch and sell the dock for £50 and have a bigger screen handheld Switch with joycons for practically the same cost. I think £165 would have been a fair price given what is missing. And look at you laughing at the idea of it being £165 quote. That is £35 less than what it is being sold for...hardly unrealistic. You are aware Nintendo slashed the cost of the N64 almost right away by £100? You make this too easy for me, Ronnie.