Ronnie

Of course it's an issue, you buy a product and expect it to work. I was just saying they don't have the "audacity" to sell something faulty, because they weren't aware it was faulty. Unlike many publishers that release a game clearly broken, only to be fixed later. That is knowingly delivering a faulty product, and that's inexcusable. This joy con thing (I haven't noticed it on mine) is a bad look but if they're repairing them then you'd think it'd been eradicated from recent models.

That statement would make sense if Nintendo were aware of the fault to begin with, but they obviously weren't. It's something that happens over time. You can send your joy con in for repair and they do it for free.

Obviously. That's good news, to Nintendo and the games industry as a whole. You can't be serious? Come on. 40 million people in two years seem to thnk it's a great price. So great in fact that people are looking for excuses to buy a second one, just two years in. No lol, that isn't the best thing you can do. The best thing to do: desirable product, good price, sold at profit. Everyone wins. Anyone can sell something at a loss. In fact selling products too cheap so as to wipe out competition is in fact illegal. Obviously that doesn't apply here, but it shows you it's not some beacon of pride you seem to think it is.

Obviously it is rocket science for you. £280 includes VAT, just as $300 doesn't include taxes in the US. It's £233 minus the VAT, so their "profit" in the UK market isn't 75 GBP, it's more like 27 GBP. Similar to their "profit" in the US which is 300-257 = $43 which is about £34. Of course none of this is actually profit, like you're mistakenly suggesting, as there are additional costs that are added on top of each unit. Except as I've just shown you, it's not 75. And since when are you an expert on the research, development, manufacturing, marketing, distributing and retailing of consumer products to know what is and isn't "more than enough to cover expenses"? Nintendo aren't trying to compete on the same technical level as Microsoft and Sony, and so don't need to fill their consoles with so much tech they need to sell their consoels at a loss to compete with each other. There's nothing good about that. I don't even know what "Nintendo took on no risk and charged customers to make profit" means. What a weird, absurd, pointless thing to say. Don't put words into my mouth. I never said that. All I was saying was selling products at a loss is not some shining example of what to do in the gaming space. It's nothing to be proud of. It's very easy to put so much amazing tech into a box and sell it at a loss, and recoup costs later, anyone can do that. It's far more difficult to make something incredibly desirable, like the Switch, sell it at a good price AND make it profitable with each unit.

Except you know, a WILDLY successful console that everyone loves, loves so much that a big number are genuinely looking for reasons to buy a new one, and each unit being sold at a fair price and a profit. Over 10 million people think it's worth it. Personally I think 1 quid 50 pence a month to play the entire NES catalogue is more than worth it to me, regardless of all the other stuff thrown in, SNES games to come, PLUS their discounts, family plan and gold point scheme making it even less than that peanuts price. Selling more than the Xbox One, sure they should be proud of that. Selling each unit at a loss, nope. A necessary tactic, maybe, but not something to be proud of.

Says the man who conveniently converts only part of the equation, the $257 to GBP but not the $300 RRP. Why would you when that results in a much lower profit value eh. R&D, testing, packaging, distribution aren't things they've "already spent" as you put it, they're ongoing costs. The maintanence on the website and stock distribution are costs that need to be factored in. Advertising is ongoing, marketing... it all fits together. So if any argument is "redundant" (so condecending yet again), it's your glib oversimplication that Nintendo "make 75 quid on each Switch sold".

Disagree 100%. They're not doing the customer a favour. The ridicule of the whole $599 fiasco from the PS3 days again must have still been ringing in their ears and they needed a cheaper RRP to compete, so they decided to sell it at a loss and recoup costs later. A company like Nintendo should be far prouder to sell a product like the Switch at a competitive, fair price, AND still make a profit on each unit sold.

What an incredibly ignorant thing to say, it's just completely wrong. First of all, $300 Switch - $257 manufacturing cost = 43 DOLLARS, not 75 quid. You're also ignoring the R&D costs, manufacturing set-up, testing, marketing, packaging, distribution, retail logistics. I get it, you think gaming is expensive and want everything cheaper, but it's not as overly simplistic as you make out.

That's not something to be proud of.

I wish they'd just release the Monkey Target minigame from Gamecube for a few quid on the eShop.

Wow a trailer for this game that doesn't have a backing track of 100 mosh pits mixed together, I'm impressed.

Stop being so obnoxious and condescending Sheikah. You seem to really enjoy proclaiming the deluded impression that you're "winning" an argument. You can say it all you want for every argument, but it doesn't make it true. You really don't want to use a third party USB-C charger on the Switch, it's asking for trouble and there's all sorts of horror stories out there. The AC adapter by itself is £25 from the Nintendo store. So no, ebay isn't full of docks selling by themselves for £50. Docks and chargers and hdmi cables for £50? Sure. Maybe the occasional dock on its own for closer to £50, but the majority are £30-40

And if you throw in the AC charger, an HDMI cable etc...

If the Lite is going to sell a lot, then it can't be that hard a sell. I saw the vast majority of docks selling for £30 or £40 on eBay. Not everyone wants a bigger screen, posters in the Lite thread were on about wanting even smaller than the Lite, or joycons.

No of course it doesn't kill the Lite. No one was buying a Lite for the 30 mins of extra battery life.

New joy con colours too

Wow that's a massive battery increase!

The Wii U was Nintendo’s second biggest flop after the Virtual Boy. They supported it the minimum length of time (4 years) then ditched it. The 3DS lasted eight years because the instalbase is huge. From the looks of things the Switch could be even bigger.

When rumours started to spread about a new Monkey Ball on Switch/PS4 I got excited. Now it seems it's yet another remake of an old game and from that screenshot it looks like the minimum amount of work is being put in.

£120 with a good game? Err, maybe in a decade or so! I'd expect a full blown Switch 2 in 2023 or more likely 2024 maybe. They've said they want it to last more than 6 years and look how long the 3DS stuck around for... 8 years! I just think you might be waiting a very long time which is a shame as there's tons of great games to play now.

Just finished this. What an amazing game, I absolutely loved it. I fell in love with the main character and the humour pretty early on and even 20/30 hours later I just didn't want the campaign to end. Such a great time, even if the mission variety wasn't up to much I guess. Traversal was just incredible, the most fun I've had running around in any openworld game. I think it's a real shame that Insomniac are surely working on a Spider Man sequel and not this (I'm so f-ing bored of Marvel after 20 films in a decade). I'd love to see more original IP stuff like Sunset. Oh well, maybe some day. Off to look into the DLC...

They aim for people putting a one off fiver in if they're enjoying it? What's wrong with that, if I have hours of fun with it then the game deserves some money. I don't watch his videos.

Tetris Maximus Get! Finally!

If I put hours into a free to play game then it's obviously fun and so I've no problem with paying the guys who make the game, but it'll just be a one off thing like a fiver or something.

It's getting extremely positive reactions from all the previews I've seen, definitely sounds like a good one. I'd be keen if it was a 20 hour campaign (with 3 different paths providing variety), I haven't got enough motivation for a 60 hour turn based game.