Doing a quick calculation from where I live in the third world for a price comparison: A Big Mac in the US/Europe is about $6 according to Google, which is about 13 of them for a $80 game.
Where I live that ratio turns into 36 for one of their games, its an astronomical price to ask.
I could feed myself (poorly) for a month on Big Macs for the same price.
They actually didn't explain it. Just said there's more hardware.
Ars Technica, being savvy as usual, did figure out the inflation-adjusted initial price for the Switch: $391, which is not for from the new Switch 2 price of $450, especially if you take into account tariffs.
> "we felt that was going to be the right price point for our consumers and the right value proposition, if you will, for the device that we're creating."
> "trying to find a way to maintain... margins on the hardware even though they may be more slim than they are on software,"
TLDR Why Switch 2 hardware and software cost so much? - Because they can.
They could have made a much better Switch 2 with better SoC had they just add $10 BOM cost to their SoC. I think Switch 2 has by far the worst hardware comparatively speaking in all of Nintendo's consoles history. Nintendo are known for using older hardware and doesn't compete with the State of art. But Switch 1 was using 3 years old tech, most other Nintendo console are similar as well.
Switch 2 is using 5 years old technology. It is not the hardware cost so much. It is not even about loss leader on console. Nintendo just decide to charge it.
There is no reason outside of foolish brand loyalty to get a switch 2 over a cheaper (hardware and software) and more powerful steam deck that is also an actual PC instead of a locked down walled garden. As a bonus you don't fund there next legal bulling of fan projects.
Even switch 1/2 emulation will most likely have better performance on the deck.
With 8109 employees and US$13 billion in revenue, it's hard to believe that high prices are simply because costs have gone up and it's hard to stay afloat.
right but that one cherry picked number doesn't tell the whole story at all. if wages had also risen with inflation and economic pressure hadn't changed then i'd agree with you, but the fact is that an $80-90 hit today is harder than a $50 hit in 1992 because people generally have less disposable income now.
Doing a quick calculation from where I live in the third world for a price comparison: A Big Mac in the US/Europe is about $6 according to Google, which is about 13 of them for a $80 game.
Where I live that ratio turns into 36 for one of their games, its an astronomical price to ask.
I could feed myself (poorly) for a month on Big Macs for the same price.
They actually didn't explain it. Just said there's more hardware.
Ars Technica, being savvy as usual, did figure out the inflation-adjusted initial price for the Switch: $391, which is not for from the new Switch 2 price of $450, especially if you take into account tariffs.
Its there ...
> "we felt that was going to be the right price point for our consumers and the right value proposition, if you will, for the device that we're creating."
> "trying to find a way to maintain... margins on the hardware even though they may be more slim than they are on software,"
TLDR Why Switch 2 hardware and software cost so much? - Because they can.
They could have made a much better Switch 2 with better SoC had they just add $10 BOM cost to their SoC. I think Switch 2 has by far the worst hardware comparatively speaking in all of Nintendo's consoles history. Nintendo are known for using older hardware and doesn't compete with the State of art. But Switch 1 was using 3 years old tech, most other Nintendo console are similar as well.
Switch 2 is using 5 years old technology. It is not the hardware cost so much. It is not even about loss leader on console. Nintendo just decide to charge it.
Had it launch in 2023 it would have been fine.
There is no reason outside of foolish brand loyalty to get a switch 2 over a cheaper (hardware and software) and more powerful steam deck that is also an actual PC instead of a locked down walled garden. As a bonus you don't fund there next legal bulling of fan projects.
Even switch 1/2 emulation will most likely have better performance on the deck.
With 8109 employees and US$13 billion in revenue, it's hard to believe that high prices are simply because costs have gone up and it's hard to stay afloat.
Revenue is meaningless without considering profit margin.
don't really care about their reasoning, video games simply are not worth that much money.
Thank God that you’re here to tell us all what is and is not valuable.
enjoy buying just mario kart for the price of a used switch i guess
Christmas 1992 I paid $49.99 for Super Mario Kart. That is $112.43 in 2025 money.
In my state minimum wage is $15 so that is 7.5 hours of sitting in a lifeguard chair.
In 1992 I had to sit in a lifeguard chair for 11.8 hours to afford Super Mario Kart.
right but that one cherry picked number doesn't tell the whole story at all. if wages had also risen with inflation and economic pressure hadn't changed then i'd agree with you, but the fact is that an $80-90 hit today is harder than a $50 hit in 1992 because people generally have less disposable income now.
I know nothing will change your mind, but we are living in a golden age of prosperity right now compared to 1992.