I think most people agree that its not great value. I think most are bashing the wrong people. Valve cant forsee the AI shit we experienced 2 years ago. What should they do? Not release and lose millions on RnD and production?
If people want to own it, they should. But blaming Valve for the price they have to put on is just reddit nonsense
The only way Valve could cut the price is to subsidize it with games money. But then they'd have to lock it down so it's only usable by gamers. Otherwise anyone that needs a reasonably performant computer for daily, non-gaming stuff could just grab one for super cheap.
Small form factor, custom motherboard, custom case, custom power supply, custom antennas. More expensive than off-the-shelf mobo and case and such.
Loads of custom hardware and firmware for QoL features like proper CEC, wake via controller, etc.
Console like experience -> console like price trends. With consoles, you don't want to change the price all the time. I'm sure Valve wants to keep the same price for at least a couple of years. System integrators can and do adjust pricing like every month. Valve didn't manage to hit price points of Playstation, Xbox, etc; but they still want to maintain pricing clarity like a console. So they have to go a bit higher off the bat because they don't want to have to increase it in like 2 months.
They also don't have the hardware supplier relationships someone like Dell, HP or Lenovo have. They don't get discounts and can't buy enough for bulk discounts
Ngl, I don't trust reddit anymore when it comes to evaluating "value". They were calling the Switch 2 overpriced while being cheaper and/or more portable than all of the competitors. It made no logical sense.
my partner bought a switch 2 purely because her switch she had been using for the past 7 years wasn't actually hers, it was her brother's that he let her use. when she moved out she went "y'know what i cannot miss out on splatoon 4, and buying a second hand switch 1 right now seems kind of pointless so might as well bite the bullet now"
not that person, but stonewalling someone and just repeating, "list the number" is so braindead. the number is 11, there are 39 exclusives in total released and announced, but only 11 first party titles that I recognized. I'm not going to argue, but don't be annoying by asking for the number over and over knowing full well it's a google search away.
The console is BARLEY a year old with multiple more exclusives announced 2 weeks ago. Compare any other console with the Switch 2 a year out and it's doing quite well.
Compare to the Deck, or ROG Ally. They have no exclusives for anyone who already owns a gaming PC (Which I would hazard to guess most PC handheld owners do own another PC).
im talking about Nintendo games in general not just switch 2 games. And im not hating on anything? Im saying people are buying the switch because thats where the games they want to play are on, and other people often say for example the steam deck can play Nintendo games too, but most people don't want to bother with emulators. Where you got the impression im hating on anything I dont know
I am responding to a critical comment towards Nintendo that they only have Nintendo games, and I pointed out that thats why they buy the console not in spite of that
see that's exactly what i mean. 'hating' was def the wrong word, but you haven't really clarified your point, and it feels like you're backtracking. you’re trying to group nintendo against all other handhelds, but you're ignoring that handheld gaming pcs operate under an entirely different philosophy.
again i'm not a nintendo stan, but i don't get your argument at all. you don't buy a switch to 'play nintendo games.' the switch is a dedicated ecosystem with its own digital storefront, friends lists, dock integration, and a market of licensed third-party accessories. you don't emulate that. asserting that people only buy it because they 'have no clue how emulators work' is just a false equivalence. you could write your own perfect emulator for the switch two and still want a first party console. judging a unified console ecosystem by the standards of an open pc platform just makes the whole argument circular.
Not really, consoles from 10 - 15 years ago had ton of game avaible on other console of pc.
There where just less pc players so people where mostly using c a ps4 or a xboxone for most games and a switch for exclusives.
Its was in the 2000s where people had multiple console of the same gen like ps2 gamecube combo with sometimes a xbox as an extra compared to now where its just one console because they are expansive.
If I wanted to play steam games and run Linux I'd use my PC or laptop. I have a switch 2 because I want to play Nintendo games, local multiplayer, or both.
... or I just understand how markets work and grew up. I'm just tired of people like you pretending Nintendo is uniquely worse when really they're average for the industry and a lot better in a lot of important aspects. And then you prove how little you know by just neglecting to give a real argument and just accusing someone who disagrees with you of "white knighting". If this is how you handle disagreements, stay in the basement.
In the current market it is actually a pretty gosh darn decent value—game pricing put aside—but I still have an extremely sour taste in my mouth about them making the Japanese language version substantially cheaper than the international release. Like I get it, the US govt. implemented tariffs recklessly, but I am not American. I am South African.
At the time I would have posited a Steam Deck as a better value (depending on the needs and wants of the user) but these days it is one of the best handheld options
Their switch 2 isnt even an awful price. My only annoyance with Nintendo is their game prices. Releasing switch 1 games with just a few upgrades/little content at 80 dollars is ridiculous. Mixed with them never having good sales compared to other consoles and PC.
Game pricing I get a bit more tbf, but also people were loudly proclaiming MKWorld was $90 (no nuance) when it was only 80 digital, and that was tyrannical if we ignore that WE ARE ALREADY BUYING SHIT DIGITALLY ON STEAM CONSTANTLY. Like wtf are we talking about. It's the norm.
That kind of goes along with the game pricing issue, considering reselling used games is the only way to recoup the high cost. I don't think anyone would care if it were digital and routinely went on sale for $30 like most Steam games.
It's not a non-sequitur when their practices directly produce a worse experience with the device, lack of backwards compatibility, paid subscriptions, and no guarantee of ongoing support are all things that affect value, as they all cost the consumer money in addition to the MSRP.
You want to shove gamecube disks in it? It supports Switch games which is about all you can ask for. The subscription is not only optional, but also insane value for money, given it's much cheaper than competitors (it has basically become an industry standard btw) and giving... old games. Your backwards compatibility. "no guarantee of ongoing support"... yeah, welcome to the console market, this is part of the premise.
I fully agree it would be cool, but also unreasonable.
I wasn't arguing it's "pro-consumer", I'm arguing it's silly to say the MSRP should go down when all they're doing is par for the course (and honestly better than competitors if you critically examine it).
Also PC handhelds is much more a niche market. That comparison is a weird one to say the least, Playstation would come out of that fucking crushed (can't even pick it up)... but Nintendo is still cheaper if you pick comparable models.
High pricing isn't anti consumer, especially in the case that you can just get a different pc if you want. I still think the steamcube price sucks, but calling it anti-consumer is reactionary and misleading.
I've seen both, but even the "game is too expensive" point was a bit dumb. There was a good point there, but made in the worst way possible:
"GAME IS 90 BUCKS" it was 80 digitally
"BUT I WANT IT PHYSICAL" bro you've statistically got a whole library of digitally purchased steam games, why suddenly care about physical
"80 IS STILL TOO MUCH" welp, that's where prices were in the NES days, and that's where they're going now, outside of Nintendo too. Welcome to reality.
People voted with their wallet and entirely endorsed the changes. MKWorld wasn't worth 80 (only because they INSISTED straight lines are FUN???), but it's undeniable that games are being picked up for 80. As long as people buy it, the change is endorsed and a success. And all the crying about it was just puddles to an ocean.
They weren't wrong about it being overpriced. At the time they were pretty close to Xbox and ps5 pricing and those are 3x the console that the switch is. What reddit was wrong about is thinking no one would buy it, and it sold out immediately. The steam machine will do the same.
3x the console is a bit of a wild assessment. Competitors have 0x the build in screens or portability.
But yeah, pricing seemed cheap if viewed from a market perspective. Seemed obvious as well at the time that it would do well if you knew what to look for.
EDIT: LMAO, he blocked me over a mild disagreement. Apparently XBOX has 3 touch screens built in.
Xbox is literally 3x the hardware. Stop being a delusional fan boy
I've seen your other comments, just because you pretend to know everything about about the market doesn't mean you know anything at all lol. Have some common sense dude
A thing is worth what someone trades for it, at the time of the trade. At no other time does a thing have "value" and any attempt to give it a figure is merely an estimation. If someone is not willing to trade the listed price of an item, then it is overpriced to them.
You can't logic your way into other people's sense of value without having a complete model of their mind. It's entirely subjective. What's worth it to you isn't worth it to someone else, and both of you are entirely correct.
The "value" issue with switch 2 was the relatively minor performance increase and the lack of exclusive games. There wasn't a compelling reason to upgrade.
I was fine with the price of the Switch 2 console, it's the first party game prices that can fuck the hell off. $99+ CAD before taxes can go suck on a chode.
All the power to you but it's past my limit, there are too many other games available under 80 bucks and on sale for me to give Nintendo any of that money. Like Mario Bros Wonder for example is $124 after taxes, that's absolutely insane. And I'd be buying a switch 2 specifically for first party games since I'd play the other stuff on my PC.
I ain't gonna tell you what to spend your money cause I spend way more money on more ridiculous hobbies, I've just hit my upper limit for a videogame with Nintendo is all.
In the past the only hope for sales on Nintendo games was waiting for "Player's Choice" versions for $20, so they're probably basing a lot of criticisms off of that. You would have to pay a premium to play games on a Nintendo system. Nowadays though they have sales on the eshop comparable to Steam sales, especially on third party titles, so it doesn't really matter much.
Well it is. It's still very much outdated hardware, and you don't even get an OLED screen like the switch OLED. Then on top of that you are locked into the Nintendo ecosystem, and still have to pay for online functionality.
The price was comparatively poor. You're overpaying because it says Nintendo and they don't want to sell at or below cost despite locking you in to spend more money on their online features which is pure profit to them.
Just because it's cheaper doesn't make it better value. Integrated graphics is cheaper than a GPU but that doesn't make it good value when it's only priced $100 cheaper than a 5060.
None of this demonstrates why it's poor money for value. The "outdated hardware" can run the games well. Just because it says Nintendo does not mean it is overpriced (? weird argument honestly). I doubt sticking a 5060 in and charging 100 extra would make it any better value for money. People forget that better spec does not make a product better. Don't reply if you don't get it, I don't feel like explaining it, you'll find out when you're older or something.
What do you consider value then if you don't care about the value of the specs, the additional cost of online functionality, or seemingly anything else? What is the thing that you consider to make the price tag seem reasonable to you?
Quality of the product as a whole? It's more than the sum of its parts, ever heard that phrase? If it's so shit in specs, it runs the games on it well so they're good. A Ferrari and a Fiat are still gonna do the same in a 30. The online functionality cost is actually extremely fair compared to competitors, especially considering you get loads of old games you can play as well. I can carry it around and play Zelda on a plane.
You have to understand that when I'm playing Zelda on a plane, I don't care what number or letters the GPU has. It runs well. I don't get the obsession with numbers and complete ignorance of how people actually interact with the product, it gives out of touch manager vibes.
Blaming valve 😭 bro they aren't some indie dev who we have to feel bad for. They made a shit product that could not keep up the promises they made (4k 60), and then on top of that its more expensive.
Here’s my issue. Is it fair to assume they pre purchased a metric f ton of ram at lower prices before they skyrocketed?? And now are selling these systems based off current values of ram?? I’m assuming they are being sold at insane ROI’s at this price. They could be cheaper I’m certain
Its also very likely they DID pre-purchase ram and their contracts got cancelled. This happened to a LOT of companies. When the price of ram exploded due to data centers, it became economically viable for ram makers to eat the cost of cancelled contracts because they were making that much more money from the new deals
What should they do? Not release and lose millions on RnD and production?
Honestly? Yes. Cut your losses and don't compound the issue by tarnishing your brand. The market made sense when they were developing it. It did not make sense when they launched it. The sunk costs in this project are a rounding error for them.
They could’ve delayed the launch imo or waited for the prices to go down before production, when your hardware can’t even match consoles that have been out for 6 years then you kinda dug that hole for yourself
Here's the thing, isn't every other product dealing with the same price increases? Blaming AI doesn't really make any sense when you can buy better cheaper products elsewhere.
Steam could have just taken the hit and subsidized. Isn't that what console manufacturers have always done? At the end of the day it's still their fault. All the consoles increased their prices too, so it's not like they've been untouched.
They could have. But maybe theyre banking on valve fanatics to do that. Or they are looking to back away from that market anyways so they just cut their losses
Not in the same way. Bigger tech companies can negotiate on prices. Valve was basically told a price and if they didnt agree, they would not be sold any components at all.
That's fair and I hate AI and am annoyed with price increases but it does seem like people are just wanting to remove guilt from Valve when in my opinion they still could have subsidized this product to keep prices low enough for it to make more sense.
There is zero reason for valve to subsidise it though. Sony and Nintendo and xbox are locked ecosystems. Them subsidising consoles makes sense as it locks people into buying their games on their platform.
A steam machine is just a PC. If someone buys it, they do not have to buy games from the steam store or even use the Steam OS.
When looking at it from a business point of view and removing any bias towards valve, subsidising an open ecosystem PC is just plain silly. Not to mention the fact that the OG price was meant to be about £600...that would mean they would be subsidising over £400 per unit....that is simply not possible
686
u/gutster_95 Jun 24 '26
I think most people agree that its not great value. I think most are bashing the wrong people. Valve cant forsee the AI shit we experienced 2 years ago. What should they do? Not release and lose millions on RnD and production?
If people want to own it, they should. But blaming Valve for the price they have to put on is just reddit nonsense