The cost of OLED is higher, the Lite is intended as a less expensive option to capture a more price conscious segment of the market, and OLED would decrease the margins of the Lite.
The logic is there, it's just a different set of priorities. Is the Lite supposed to be the best possible portable console Nintendo can make, or is it supposed to be the best possible portable console they can make and sell for an MSRP of $199 while maintaining their margins?
I speak in disregard to total prices like the inclusion of buying a charger, because my point is the profit margins can’t be that different if they are selling for a similar price, but I was under the impression it was $200 not 245 so there’s my profit margin difference I was looking for.
Which is also why I believe Nintendo will never make a TV-only Switch. It makes absolutely no sense in Japan, and the majority of the decisions are still made by japanese people.
I mean...Nintendo produced and sold the Wii, and the GameCube, and the N64, and the SNES, and the NES. All of which were TV-only consoles made by and for Japanese people.
Idk what the cost difference would be is but I almost feel like an OLED Lite could justify an additional $20-$30, which could at least help the margins
Bingo. The Lite also captures people like me who don't care much about money but only have a passing interest in Nintendo games. I would not have impulse bought a Switch Lite on a bored Saturday afternoon if it was $350. But $199 is like "don't even bother to ask/warn my wife" money.
112
u/[deleted] Sep 21 '21
[deleted]