Nintendo are very much aware what their business model is on this one, and who they are targeting.
For a lot of consumers, especially those who are lower income, the single most important factor is how much money you need to spend at once.
This is especially true because a key market for the switch is children, who have no direct purchasing power themselves, and depend instead on adults to buy it for Christmas and birthdays. So initial cost of entry is critical.
Simply put, ‘parents’ who are buying a console for their kids and expect to buy new games only rarely, have quite different needs to ‘gamers’ who are buying for themselves, and want new games often.
For me, Nintendo is a pretty good deal. We have <20 games, and they’re all something my kids can play, loan to a friend, etc. Each game cost ~$40, which is high, but not crazy if I’m only buying a few per year. My kids will play the same game for hundreds of hours (Smash Brothers is incredibly good value).
Most of my gaming is on PC though. I spend way more on games per year, but I also get each game for much less. I rarely play past rolling credits, so I go through a lot of games.
Value per dollar spent is pretty comparable for us, if not cheaper for the Switch, if we look at play time. I have three kids that fight over the Switch, and they take turns playing the same game on their own profile, so we immediately get like 3x the value for any game we buy.
If I didn’t have kids, I wouldn’t have a Switch because it wouldn’t provide enough value.
Nintendo are very much aware what their business model is on this one, and who they are targeting.
For a lot of consumers, especially those who are lower income, the single most important factor is how much money you need to spend at once.
This is especially true because a key market for the switch is children, who have no direct purchasing power themselves, and depend instead on adults to buy it for Christmas and birthdays. So initial cost of entry is critical.
Simply put, ‘parents’ who are buying a console for their kids and expect to buy new games only rarely, have quite different needs to ‘gamers’ who are buying for themselves, and want new games often.
I’m not approaching it from a position of business analysis and how it is good for their stocks.
Just as a consumer where how much Nintendo makes is irrelevant to how it impacts my cost of gaming.
Right, and I’m not challenging you on that :)
As someone who games a lot it would be more cost-effective to do it on systems other than the switch (or switch 2) - I agree.
You said what the case is, I was hoping only to add some commentary on why.
Your why still doesnt make sense logically or from a business model
For me, Nintendo is a pretty good deal. We have <20 games, and they’re all something my kids can play, loan to a friend, etc. Each game cost ~$40, which is high, but not crazy if I’m only buying a few per year. My kids will play the same game for hundreds of hours (Smash Brothers is incredibly good value).
Most of my gaming is on PC though. I spend way more on games per year, but I also get each game for much less. I rarely play past rolling credits, so I go through a lot of games.
Value per dollar spent is pretty comparable for us, if not cheaper for the Switch, if we look at play time. I have three kids that fight over the Switch, and they take turns playing the same game on their own profile, so we immediately get like 3x the value for any game we buy.
If I didn’t have kids, I wouldn’t have a Switch because it wouldn’t provide enough value.