Nintendo has always had competition with superior hardware in the handheld department. The Sega Nomad, WonderSwan, and Playstation Vita were all good examples of that. Nintendo products being much cheaper are always what keeps them ahead with handheld consoles.
Lol much cheaper? A nintendo game from 25 years ago will be resold for $70 today. You can buy Doom on the switch for about $60 and it might catch 30fps you can buy the same game for playstation or xbox for like $15. Have you ever priced their used games for switch? They are laughably expensive. Just checked Doom on nintendos official website is $40 playstation has a sale on it right now for $4 regularly full price for $20. HALF of what Nintendo charges and the game runs probably twice as fast on any system that isnt the switch. Even a USED switch version of doom on gamestop is $33 lmao a USED VERSION. Nintendo sucks
Yes and at $300 to $400 for a Deck and roughly the exact same price for a new switch Im saying that the cost is greater long term for Nintendo when you buy their overpriced games that dont even run at full fps. You essentially are paying the same price (maybe what like $100 less if you get the cheaper switch) for a tablet. If you were going to just buy both and set them on the shelf and never buy a game to play on them then maybe I would understand where you are coming from but you have to buy games to play on these or else why would uou buy one? Therefore the cost of the games should also be taken into account when considering the overall price of the system.
They were cheaper options at the time of their release. Nintendo games from the past have only increased in price because of the popularity of the brand that attracts collectors. You are correct about the long-term expenses being cheaper overall but the average person only looks at the price for the console itself and that is about as far as their long-term thinking goes. Fps does not matter as much to the more casual gamer that Nintendo attracts.
The perceived cheapness is what gives Nintendo the advantage.
It doesn’t hurt that they also have a plethora of decent fist party franchises to put on their system. Other companies just get generic third party games that you can also play on PC
The biggest difference between then and now is that the switch was the first handheld that could reasonably play (some) full scale open world console games. Any handheld trying to compete before that effectively needed games specifically developed for it with limited scope. There wasn’t really the vibrant PC indie scene for easy ports to low spec hardware either, and the Switch was also the first to really court those.
These handheld PCs are pretty much the first time there’s competition with a big library to be a real alternative. Before now, it would have also taken partnering with studios to convince them to port games to your device.
This is a valid point I hadnt considered with the timeframe (although vita was a pretty badass system but your point about having to be specially ported to that device stands) but still with the current state of gaming as it exists right now Nintendo should not be selling a copy of a game that came out 8 years ago that runs at exactly half the fps of other systems for exactly double what everyone else has it listed for. They are like the Apple of video gaming.
Nintendo has always had competition with superior hardware in the handheld department. The Sega Nomad, WonderSwan, and Playstation Vita were all good examples of that. Nintendo products being much cheaper are always what keeps them ahead with handheld consoles.
Lol much cheaper? A nintendo game from 25 years ago will be resold for $70 today. You can buy Doom on the switch for about $60 and it might catch 30fps you can buy the same game for playstation or xbox for like $15. Have you ever priced their used games for switch? They are laughably expensive. Just checked Doom on nintendos official website is $40 playstation has a sale on it right now for $4 regularly full price for $20. HALF of what Nintendo charges and the game runs probably twice as fast on any system that isnt the switch. Even a USED switch version of doom on gamestop is $33 lmao a USED VERSION. Nintendo sucks
I think she’s talking about the consoles themselves.
Yes and at $300 to $400 for a Deck and roughly the exact same price for a new switch Im saying that the cost is greater long term for Nintendo when you buy their overpriced games that dont even run at full fps. You essentially are paying the same price (maybe what like $100 less if you get the cheaper switch) for a tablet. If you were going to just buy both and set them on the shelf and never buy a game to play on them then maybe I would understand where you are coming from but you have to buy games to play on these or else why would uou buy one? Therefore the cost of the games should also be taken into account when considering the overall price of the system.
They were cheaper options at the time of their release. Nintendo games from the past have only increased in price because of the popularity of the brand that attracts collectors. You are correct about the long-term expenses being cheaper overall but the average person only looks at the price for the console itself and that is about as far as their long-term thinking goes. Fps does not matter as much to the more casual gamer that Nintendo attracts.
The perceived cheapness is what gives Nintendo the advantage.
It doesn’t hurt that they also have a plethora of decent fist party franchises to put on their system. Other companies just get generic third party games that you can also play on PC
The biggest difference between then and now is that the switch was the first handheld that could reasonably play (some) full scale open world console games. Any handheld trying to compete before that effectively needed games specifically developed for it with limited scope. There wasn’t really the vibrant PC indie scene for easy ports to low spec hardware either, and the Switch was also the first to really court those.
These handheld PCs are pretty much the first time there’s competition with a big library to be a real alternative. Before now, it would have also taken partnering with studios to convince them to port games to your device.
This is a valid point I hadnt considered with the timeframe (although vita was a pretty badass system but your point about having to be specially ported to that device stands) but still with the current state of gaming as it exists right now Nintendo should not be selling a copy of a game that came out 8 years ago that runs at exactly half the fps of other systems for exactly double what everyone else has it listed for. They are like the Apple of video gaming.
Ehhhh define “much”