Nintendo Switch 2 Main Thread - Launching 2025

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by Chris J

Probably $600. I remember Sony catching a lot of crap for charging that much for the 60GB PS3 to the point where, a year later, they put out a $400 40GB model that came with a free Blu-ray movie, Spider-Man 3.
Video games have the distinction of being permanent nonessential items, so there is a ceiling that people will just refuse to pay above.

Console makers in general have a habit of liking the smell of their own poop, after they have a string of success, thinking they are infallible. Happened to Nintendo with the N64 and Wii U, Microsoft with the XBox One, Sony with the PS3, Sega with the Saturn.

Could happen with the Switch 2, but I doubt it. My guess is they're Switch 2 is a slow burn console, somewhat like the PS3, which started off selling slow, but ultimately sold very well over time. I think it priced itself out of the mass mark appeal of the OG Switch, that sold 150 million plus, but I can see Switch 2 selling a very solid 100-120'ish million units.

[heyadol]

Originally Posted by Diesel

So what’s the price that keeps people from buying this? Assuming you already weren’t out by the $450 of course.

$550 for the Mario Kart bundle would really suck, but I’d probably still buy it. Higher than that and it becomes a not until there is a game I NEED to play probably.

If that GCN announcement allowed purchases like Virtual Console instead of NSO + Expansion subscription, I’d probably be all in. Now, if I can pay the Japanese price I’ll get it, if not I’ll wait until a game really gets me excited. I rarely pay full price for games and that includes Nintendo, even if it means waiting 2 years for a discount. MP4 is the game I want and it has a Switch version, plus it looks like it includes the Switch 2 upgrade so I’m covered. That included upgrade reminds me of how good it is with Smart Delivery (or buying on PC in general),

I’m in the “all bills paid” category so price isn’t a huge concern but I don’t think I’m buying day one, maybe if I get the invite from Nintendo I’ll get the MKW bundle but I can wait.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by chadfl

what good stuff was there that couldn't have been done just fine without the motion control bs? even mario galaxy i have enjoyed 100x more on the switch, not having to use the stupid wiimote.

fact!!

[renegadeviking]

i owned emulated gamecube games. The problem is emulation prices on actual nintendo switch. Off brand is 100x cheaper. You say you buy old nintendo games for switch, but I really doubt you do. The salaries were the same in the 1990s as in 2024. Maybe some one cheated with Gamesharks or Action replays or emulation off brand. Nintendo just charges a lot for Mario Kart World that is seen for free on Youtube. Another thing is people collect for old consoles in 2024 for a hobby and they cheat with the 1000 game images per cartridge, because the top 100 on amazon makes that completely true. It's 2025, and you act like the Homebrew Channel on Wii U and Wii never happened!

It took Nintendo 5 years after ps5 launched to do Unreal Engine 5 games. Why so long?

[Gamma_Winstead]

Man, what a day, right? It's really hard to budget and plan any financial decisions right now. I'm really excited for the Switch 2. I'd have 100% bought one on day one. I'd have willingly bought 70-dollar Donkey Kong. I would not have willingly bought 80-dollar Mario kart but would have been okay with the bundle. 80-dollar games do not make me happy. 70-dollar games also don't make me happy, but that genie is out of the bottle and gamers rather happily consumed stuff at that price point. I'm not surprised that Nintendo figured 80 bucks was fine though. The industry has basically been selling games at that price or higher for years now, what with all the "ultimate" and "gold" editions the big publishers shit out and people gobble up. Ooooh Call of Duty but it's thirty dollars more expensive and I get a cooler hat!

I will wait and see what happens with Switch 2, and hopefully we're all here in a few months playing reasonably priced games on reasonably priced hardware, but I'm not betting on it.

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by ChadFL

The problem with the tariffs is the instability of the person putting them into practice. When you have someone whose tariff policies change on a daily basis, without needing any debate or approval from Congress, it creates massive insecurity in all markets, far beyond just those countries and industries he's previously threatened. Whose to say he doesn't wake up tomorrow and realize he hates Vietnam, imposing large tariffs on that country as well?

Bump... no particular reason at all...

[Talal86]

The system price is reasonable imo, sure it’s on the premium side (relative to its specs) but reasonable nevertheless for a system that will be supported for 6+ years.

The main issue is the games prices. I knew Nintendo was going the $70 route, which I still refuse to support, but that meant that when we get their “”big”” sales, games will be $55-50, but now they’re going $80.. so their sale price will be what? $60? lol. For Zelda maybe I’m willing to pay $60, but what about the smaller titles (Wariowares, Sport games) that I don’t want to spend $60 (on a freaking sale) for?

Hopefully Nintendo starts having real sales now like the other publishers. since like with $70, some seems to happily willing to pay $80 for games, maybe ‘milk’ this segment for 6 months or so, and then start having actual sales that increase with time and are not fixed like they are with the switch. that should be a win:win buut this is Nintendo we’re talking about, their greed is unmatched

[jimidini]

Originally Posted by ChadFL

My guess is they're Switch 2 is a slow burn console, somewhat like the PS3, which started off selling slow, but ultimately sold very well over time.

The PS3 ate up all profits of PS1+PS2, and almost bankrupted Sony lol That didn't happen because Sony has other avenues, Nintendo doesn't.
And Sony actually sold it at a major loss of $300-$400. It was a massive flop, and also a stupid idea.

It was also sold as a 1080p machine and it's high price was defended with that argument, while in reality most games didn't even render at sub-HD (720p), so it wasn't really a HD console. And the frame rates were also piss poor. You were lucky when you got a game running at stable 30 fps. And then the silly game installations. MGS4 was the worst offender with 5 minute installations PER CHAPTER.

It's similar to current machines including PCs, that are simply unable to actually render games at 4k. It's all upscaled nonsense with "AI" created frames. In reality games are running at 10 fps and at lower resolutions.

The Wii U was actually a proper 720p console and delivered on that. 720p at 60 fps, as it should be.

I mean really what's the point in getting pseudo 4k, when you get tons of input lag thanks to the fake frames.
Especially here, really what is the point. The Switch is supposed to be a portable console, it's a waste of resources to go there, especially when it's fake frames anyway.
I prefer a game actually running at 720p or 1080p actually running at real 60 frames per second with no input lag. I would even go down to 480p. PS2 games ran properly.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by jimidini

The PS3 ate up all profits of PS1+PS2, and almost bankrupted Sony lol That didn't happen because Sony has other avenues, Nintendo doesn't.
And Sony actually sold it at a major loss of $300-$400. It was a massive flop, and also a stupid idea.

It was also sold as a 1080p machine and it's high price was defended with that argument, while in reality most games didn't even render at sub-HD (720p), so it wasn't really a HD console. And the frame rates were also piss poor. You were lucky when you got a game running at stable 30 fps. And then the silly game installations. MGS4 was the worst offender with 5 minute installations PER CHAPTER.

It's similar to current machines including PCs, that are simply unable to actually render games at 4k. It's all upscaled nonsense with "AI" created frames. In reality games are running at 10 fps and at lower resolutions.

The Wii U was actually a proper 720p console and delivered on that. 720p at 60 fps, as it should be.

I mean really what's the point in getting pseudo 4k, when you get tons of input lag thanks to the fake frames.
Especially here, really what is the point. The Switch is supposed to be a portable console, it's a waste of resources to go there, especially when it's fake frames anyway.
I prefer a game actually running at 720p or 1080p actually running at real 60 frames per second with no input lag. I would even go down to 480p. PS2 games ran properly.

It was also billed as the world's cheapest Bluray player, and it was at the time, even at 600.00. Back then stand alone Bluray players were about 1K or higher. So from that perspective, PS3 was a bargain. It also had actual fully hardware-driven backwards compatibility with PS1 and PS2 games, containing the chipsets of both machines, in addition to the PS3 Cell processor, which added to the cost as well. Then there were the built in 4 USB ports, 3 different memory chip readers, and a 500gb hard drive (which was considered huge for that time).

So while yes, the PS3 was too expensive for the market to bear at the time, the tech inside more than justified that price. The problem is it was overengineered and despite Sony selling it at a massive loss, Ken Kutaragi overestimated what people were willing to pay. Plus the Bluray playback feature didnt carry the same allure for consumers as DVD did in the PS2.

[dyne]

MVG-

Disclaimer : I'm not an expert on microarchitecture design - I am making some assumptions on the approach taken - a OS/SVC level CPU translation layer wrapper with a heaver GPU emulation layer to handle back compat on the Switch 2 is how I believe it works. There may be additional context i am missing but you should get the idea.

I think for the premium price they should have/could have included the chips necessary for hardware BC.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Talal86

The system price is reasonable imo, sure it’s on the premium side (relative to its specs) but reasonable nevertheless for a system that will be supported for 6+ years.

The main issue is the games prices. I knew Nintendo was going the $70 route, which I still refuse to support, but that meant that when we get their “”big”” sales, games will be $55-50, but now they’re going $80.. so their sale price will be what? $60? lol. For Zelda maybe I’m willing to pay $60, but what about the smaller titles (Wariowares, Sport games) that I don’t want to spend $60 (on a freaking sale) for?

Hopefully Nintendo starts having real sales now like the other publishers. since like with $70, some seems to happily willing to pay $80 for games, maybe ‘milk’ this segment for 6 months or so, and then start having actual sales that increase with time and are not fixed like they are with the switch. that should be a win:win buut this is Nintendo we’re talking about, their greed is unmatched

They will bring back Nintendo Selects for the low low price of $60

[Steelmaker]

I hate admiting it but realistically, if we are being honest with ourselves, 80.00 for a premium quality game like Mario Kart World is still a bargain. First of all, this will be the ONLY Mario Kart game we are going to get for the entire Switch 2 generation. There's not going to be a Mario Kart World 2 in 3 years. So 80.00 to enjoy 8+ years of a high-quality game is very fair. I spend more than that at the movie theater with my family and thats only about 2+ hours of entertainment. I still ****ing hate this. But in terms of the cost/value ratio, it's still very much in our favor.

[jimidini]

Originally Posted by dyne

MVG-
I think for the premium price they should have/could have included the chips necessary for hardware BC.

They shouldn't have bought an off-the-shelf Nvidia tablet and slapped a Nintendo logo on it.
The previous actual Nintendo devices were all designed in house and it shows and they were all designed with backward compatibility in mind, that's why it all worked, and why this one doesn't.

But yes, fully agreed.
As MVG also showed in his video, only a low percentage was "tested", whatever that even means. Let's remind ourselves what Nintendo called acceptable and "not an issue" regarding their N64 emulation and they had the nerve to charge for that too.



And as MVG also stated, the Xbox emulation in 360 was shit too. Some games "worked" fine at first, and then you played a bit more and they broke down. That's what one can expect here. That's the problem with these approaches. On Wii U every single game works, even obscure ones like Captain Rainbow (Japan only) from start to finish.

Even Nintendo having the nerve listing 80% of games under the state "this starts lol" is saying everything. That's Valve level of QA.
What's only missing is a switch2db.com website, where so called customers can enter issues with games.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

I hate admiting it but realistically, if we are being honest with ourselves, 80.00 for a premium quality game like Mario Kart World is still a bargain. First of all, this will be the ONLY Mario Kart game we are going to get for the entire Switch 2 generation. There's not going to be a Mario Kart World 2 in 3 years. So 80.00 to enjoy 8+ years of a high-quality game is very fair. I spend more than that at the movie theater with my family and thats only about 2+ hours of entertainment. I still ****ing hate this. But in terms of the cost/value ratio, it's still very much in our favor.

And the bundle shaves off $30. This will be their holiday bundle game every single year just like Switch 1. I love my physical media…but not enough to pay $30 extra for a game I’ll never trade in.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by Diesel

And the bundle shaves off $30. This will be their holiday bundle game every single year just like Switch 1. I love my physical media…but not enough to pay $30 extra for a game I’ll never trade in.

I've already decided that I'm full digital with Switch 2 anyway. It's a headache keeping up with those little cards on road trips.

Also, has it been mentioned yet whether MKW maintains 60fps in 3 or 4 player split screen? That was my only real gripe about 8. Playing it with my boys in split screen really killed the framerate.

[jimidini]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

It was also billed as the world's cheapest Bluray player

Exactly that made it an overpriced piece of crap game console with long load times and mandatory installations.

And Blu-rays suck for the most part. Also long loading times and most of the time no extras and shit menus.

It also had actual fully hardware-driven backwards compatibility with PS1 and PS2 games, containing the chipsets of both machines

Actually the most expensive PS3s released in Europe didn't.
They only had some chips inside of them, and others were replaced with software emulation similar to the shit show here with the Switch 2 and all sorts of games had issues or didn't work at all. And again: the MOST EXPENSIVE PS3 was this bad.

That also wasn't the actual problem regarding the price. The actual problem of the PS3 was the insanely overpriced USELESS Blu-ray drive, which made games worse, added installations, added almost 50% to the price and had no real value. Sure, you can store tons of HD movies on the discs, but that's not games.

I remember having played MGS3 with so many optional codec conversations, to then play MGS4 (if you can call it playing, most of that "game" is watching cutscenes) with almost no optional codec conversations, despite being on Blu-ray. And them even having the NERVE to shill the shitty PS3 Blu-ray drive regarding "lol no disc swaps". Yeah Otacon, only 5-10 minute INSTALLATIONS over and over and over again. That's way better than a SINGLE disc swap that took 5 seconds. And that was on PS1, not on PS2. On PS2 there were no installations and no disc swaps.

Holy shit was the PS3 bad.

The 360 did fine with a DVD drive, and that DVD drive was faster and cheap.
Also Blu-ray lost vs. DVDs + Streaming. Most people simply don't care and rightfully so. If Blu-ray were exactly like DVD except higher resolution, but that isn't the case. Blu-rays in various aspects are downgrades.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

I've already decided that I'm full digital with Switch 2 anyway. It's a headache keeping up with those little cards on road trips.

Also, has it been mentioned yet whether MKW maintains 60fps in 3 or 4 player split screen? That was my only real gripe about 8. Playing it with my boys in split screen really killed the framerate.

It was still 60FPS on the treehouse stream in splitscreen.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by Diesel

It was still 60FPS on the treehouse stream in splitscreen.

Nice! Yeah I didn't get to watch the Treehouse Live event but I will go back and look at it.

[jimidini]

https://www.nintendolife.com/news/20...revealed-japan

Prices will also seemingly vary from game to game, with the upgrades for Switch titles like Kirby and the Forgotten Land and Super Mario Party Jamboree listed for 1,000 yen more than Zelda: Breath of the Wild (potentially converting to around "$20").

Upgrade Packs from SMP Jamboree and Kirby FL will probably cost approx. $20
I think Nintendo will clarify in a matter of days, but those pricing make sense given the difference between retail versions.— Pierre485 (@pierre485_) April 2, 2025

I think it's funny. People complained about the optional Wii U Virtual Console update fees of literally ONE buck, and now they are fine with $20 for a resolution and frame rate bump.

In case of the Zelda Link's Awakening that patch is literally fixing a terrible frame rate, which shouldn't have happened in the first place, at least that one is free.

[Diesel]

I’m considering finally subscribing to the Expansion Pass and maybe loading up a couple of years because the price is absolutely going up after Gamecube is added, probably in the Fall.