New Switch revision announced (NOT the Switch Lite!)

[drahkon]

30 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

Almost valueless, it's just a USB-C cable/charger

But Nintendo might sell it for 50 bucks soon, just because  

[Ronnie]

1 hour ago, Sheikah said:

Try harder Ronnie.

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

Edited July 18, 2019 by Ronnie

[Sheikah]

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  

 

 

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".

 

 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Sheikah

[Ike]

46 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

Well that's patently untrue - USB-C is a standard format. 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.

Nintendo didn't follow the USB-C spec correctly, so it is potentially dangorous to use third party cables. Third party docks where bricking consoles. If it affects charging I'm not sure, but I think some power banks don't work?

 

If you 2 want to bicker then take it to PMs please, I think it's time to stop the current discussion here if you're going to start getting personal.

[drahkon]

1 minute ago, Ike said:

Nintendo didn't follow the USB-C spec correctly

Why? That's such an idiotic thing to do...

[Sheikah]

Nintendo didn't follow the USB-C spec correctly, so it is potentially dangorous to use third party cables. Third party docks where bricking consoles. If it affects charging I'm not sure, but I think some power banks don't work?   If you 2 want to bicker then take it to PMs please, I think it's time to stop the current discussion here if you're going to start getting personal.

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.

 

[RedShell]

I would be really annoyed by this "stealth" Switch revision if I used the console primarily as a portable device, I mean that battery life increase is pretty substantial!

Wonder if this new version will have reduced fan noise too. That's something I've started to notice more often (especially during docked play) with certain games on the original hardware.

[Ike]

14 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

Im 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.

 

Ah, OK. As long as your using a reputable brand it should be fine. 

The original Switch evaluated to cost $257 to manufacture though according to a strip down by a Japanese company. Source: https://tech.nikkeibp.co.jp/dm/atcl/column/15/363874/032700069/?rt=nocnt (it's pay wall'd though). 

Component prices may have dropped since then, but if the new chip is custom then it'll keep the cost high.

[Grazza]

12 minutes ago, RedShell said:

I would be really annoyed by this "stealth" Switch revision if I used the console primarily as a portable device, I mean that battery life increase is pretty substantial!

Wonder if this new version will have reduced fan noise too. That's something I've started to notice more often (especially during docked play) with certain games on the original hardware.

 

That describes me, but I'm honestly pretty chilled about it.  The Switch's battery life is pretty terrible with 3D games, especially if the lighting is poorly designed and you have to turn the brightness up (which doesn't apply to Nintendo's own games, I must say).  It's just that I've had so much entertainment from the Switch, sometimes you have to go with the flow.

 

One thing's for sure: the best time to buy a console is when new hardware is released, whether that's on launch day or when a revised model is made available.  I wouldn't buy one 12 months after release, for example.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Grazza

[Sheikah]

1 minute ago, Ike said:

Ah, OK. As long as your using a reputable brand it should be fine. 

The original Switch evaluated to cost $257 to manufacture though according to a strip down by a Japanese company. Source: https://tech.nikkeibp.co.jp/dm/atcl/column/15/363874/032700069/?rt=nocnt (it's pay wall'd though). 

Component prices may have dropped since then, but if the new chip is custom then it'll keep the cost high.

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.

[Ronnie]

2 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

As a comparison Sony needed to sell a game or PSN sub with a PS4 to make profit.

That's not something to be proud of.

[Sheikah]

That's not something to be proud of.

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.

[Ronnie]

4 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

Even then, that means they were making 75 quid profit on every base Switch sold at launch, which is a lot.

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.

[Ronnie]

Just now, Sheikah said:

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.

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.

[Sheikah]

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.

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).

[Sheikah]

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.

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.

[drahkon]

So, does anyone know why exactly Nintendo didn't follow USB-C spec? I honestly do not understand.

[Ronnie]

8 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

Your whole argument is redundant anyway because both Microsoft and Sony prove it can be done (selling at a loss).

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".

 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Ronnie

[Ronnie]

9 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

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.

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.

Quote

if they had an online sub worth a jot

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.

 

9 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

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.

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.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Ronnie

[Ike]

8 minutes ago, drahkon said:

So, does anyone know why exactly Nintendo didn't follow USB-C spec? I honestly do not understand.

I don't think Nintendo ever commented on it, but it could have been to deter making third party docks. Or they just screwed up, I think the final USB-C spec was still fairly newish around that time. I'm probably wrong about that.

Quick Google showed that it's using a different charger on the dock that can cause issues.

[Sheikah]

 

1 minute ago, Ronnie said:

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.

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.

 

1 minute ago, Ronnie said:

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".

 

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.

 

6 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

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.

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.

 

 

[Ronnie]

1 hour ago, Sheikah said:

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.

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.

1 hour ago, Sheikah said:

Right, but then that 75 GBP per unit should more than have covered those additional expenses.

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"?

1 hour ago, Sheikah said:

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.

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.

1 hour ago, Sheikah said:

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.

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.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Ronnie

[killthenet]

11 hours ago, Helmsly said:

Is it the exact same cpu as this new model?

Nintendo haven't explicitly stated that it is but with the data mining and patents that have come to light in recent months it's pretty clear that they're both using the new die shrunk 'Mariko' iteration of the Tegra X1. I'm sure Digital Foundry will confirm it 100% when they get their hands on the new models. 

[Sheikah]

3 hours ago, Ronnie said:

Obviously it is rocket science for you. £280 includes VAT, just as $300 doesn't include taxes in the US.

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.

Quote

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"?

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.

Quote

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.

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.

 

Quote

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.

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.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Sheikah

[Ronnie]

5 hours ago, Sheikah said:

Obviously when I referred to the profit I was talking about pre-tax.

Obviously.

5 hours ago, Sheikah said:

The main point to take away here is that they are still making a profit on the sale of their consoles.

That's good news, to Nintendo and the games industry as a whole.

5 hours ago, Sheikah said:

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.

You can't be serious? Come on.

5 hours ago, Sheikah said:

then I expect their console to be a great price. It's in their interest to have me as a customer.

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.

5 hours ago, Sheikah 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?

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.

5 hours ago, Sheikah said:

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.

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.