There was a time when a new Nintendo console was the highlight of my life. We’re talking decades ago, when the Super Nintendo, Nintendo 64 and GameCube came out. Those were the good old days. Then 2006 came along. The Wii looked like an overclocked GameCube (which it kinda was) and I remember working at a record store (that also sold games) and the console was, on launch day, criminally under-stocked. They screwed up the launch to what I then thought was artificial demand, but apparently it was just incompetence. My store got only 3 (!) Wii units on the day of release.
Abusing my privilege as an employee, I used it to get one. I also used my employee discount, so the price went 20% off, from 250 to 200 euro. A new Nintendo console was usually around that price point up until then. I remember going home, checking out Wii Sports and being completely underwhelmed. I didn’t like the waggle gimmick, even though that was its selling point. I wanted ‘real’ games, too. I bought the console with the latest Zelda game at the time: Twilight Princess. It was priced at 60 euro. It also released on the GameCube, but I had the new Nintendo console, so I decided to buy it for that. Then I discovered quickly I had to swing the Wii-mote for every sword attack. There was no way to turn this off and that was enough for me to stop playing the game after about 20 minutes. In fact, I remember getting very bored and just falling asleep.
My mother noticed me playing Wii Sports tennis at some point. And for a long time, the entire Wii was simply used for just that: my mother playing Wii Sports tennis. She loved swinging that little white remote around. She didn’t care about the graphics. It was a lot of fun for the complete non-gaming casual. I thought the graphics looked horrendous. A step back from the Cube in fact. There was aliasing everywhere and the colors looked all washed out. I was too busy playing online on my Xbox 360 anyway, my much more preferred console.
The point being here is that it was only 250 euro (200 with employee abuse.) The disappointment was contained to that price point. The GameCube (2001) was priced 200 euro before the Wii came out and I absolutely loved that thing. It had a lot of great titles. The Wii (2006), as said before, was 250. In the end it had a few good titles. The Wii U (2012), the disaster follow-up, which I actually quite enjoyed, was priced at 300. The Switch (2017) was also 300 euro on release.
Now in 2025 we can finally enjoy the Switch 2, an overclocked, upgraded Switch, for the price of 35-
No wait, I mean for 40-
No wait, I mean 45-
No wait.. I mean 470 euro.
Sorry?
And this does not include any pack-in title. The Welcome to Nintendo Switch 2 “game” – an interactive manual basically – will cost you 10 euro extra. Couldn’t they have at least just included that one? 470 euro for a console and we can’t even get a 10 euro pack-in manual? Even the Wii came bundled with Wii Sports. What happened? This simply reeks to me like the classic Nintendo cycle of greed when over-performing on their previous console cycle.
Here’s what Nintendo had to say about the Switch 2: “The new console promises a number of upgrades over its predecessor. These upgrades include better graphics. It also features faster processing and a larger, sharper display.” And so goes their (only) statement regarding the console. Nintendo didn’t give out a lot of technical information beforehand. Well, HDR+ on the Switch 2 is known to be washed-out, after 1 week of hands-on experience from players. “It will sell anyway” – right? And I wouldn’t consider it lying by omission, but at the last second (2 weeks before release) a statement was made regarding VRR (variable refresh rate). Nintendo officially announced that the “Switch 2 will only support VRR in handheld mode and not docked mode.” Why? This means VRR, which helps to reduce screen tearing and stuttering, will not be available when the Switch 2 is connected to a (4K) TV. The pre-orders were months ago!
But for what reason must the Switch 2 cost 470 euro then exactly? Higher resolutions? Playing games in 60 fps (what we’ve been doing since the 1990’s)? Better performance? Gee, thanks. Yeah, it’s a new console, that goes without saying. But it is still outdated hardware. This works well when you sell your console at a 300 euro price point, not almost 500. Did you know that higher resolutions rely on CPU power, instead of a graphics card? If you play a 1080p game, it might actually run worse. This is because the GPU will finish up the easy work and then hand the rest over to the CPU. Well, the Switch 2 CPU isn’t impressive at all. So as a result, we’ll likely get severely under-performing games again in the near future.
Also, if you bought the Mario Kart World bundle, you get a discount of 40 euro on the digital game. However, it still costs you 40 euro. The bundle will set you back for 510 euro. Some deal. Otherwise the game retails for 80 or 90 euro. Yeah, Switch 2 games retail at a price of 80 to 90 euro. That is, 80 for digital, 90 for physical. And it seems that most physical Switch 2 (not 1) releases just contain a digital code. Nintendo confirmed that some publishers might release Nintendo Switch 2 Edition games as download codes. These will be in physical packaging with no game card. So technically, you’re spending 10 euro on a case. It is basically a useless, small, plastic, red case added to your physical collection. Very generously speaking, you buy a code on a cart with a box for a 10 euro premium. You can sell it later at some point if you want because you can transfer code ownership. Why not just put the game on a cart if you’re gonna charge 80 or 90 euro? And I can see these type of transactions going wrong, easily.
I’ve already had arguments with people defending these software prices online, comparing them to ‘the cartridges of yore’. And i’ll just regurgitate my response here since we’re on the same topic just a few weeks later (and I’m lazy): “Cartridges and the components inside them used to be very expensive. A ROM cost a developer $50 by itself. When manufacturing and shipping were involved, the developer earned about $10 to $20 profit per game. This is well documented. There is no reason a digital game should cost $80.”
This was followed by: “True, I would think it’s about the costs. But they also had much smaller budgets back then. The teams working on the games were much smaller too. Adjusting for inflation, gaming is cheaper than it’s ever been.” Now, this is where my overclocked nerd rage goes into full gear. It’s not about inflation. Even with smaller dev teams, devs were working on a game for months with 10-20 people. That costs money. Hardware costs money, especially then. What do you think a workstation cost in the ’90’s? Also Nintendo didn’t hand out dev-kits for free. If developers only got 10 euro for their sold cartridge game, it would have been barely enough. Don’t forget, gaming was not as big as now by a long shot. Every game was a risk. In fact, plenty of interviews with N64 era developers complained about this fact. That is why they left Nintendo during the N64 era. And that is why cartridges were so expensive.
In fact, I am old enough to remember when N64 games had the same leap in price. This is similar to what the Switch 2 does now. And guess what? People didn’t buy them. As a result, the price dropped. The PS1 games were 10-40 euro cheaper because they were on disc. But this is why devs barely made a profit. The cartridges blew up the price, and this simply had to do with hardware component prices in the 90’s. A digital game, bits and bytes, costs them nothing – but they sell it for 80 euro. And they sell you a license for a product, not an actual product. Your amazing digital library is basically full of rentals. And looking from a physical perspective here – they shouldn’t be 90 euro either. Yeah, devs teams are now dozens and dozens of people, but Nintendo is quite efficient in their proprietary engines. Also, their games sell in the TENS OF MILLIONS. Increasing the price by 20 or 30 euro is greed, plain and simple. And nothing anyone can say will convince me otherwise.
And this is just concerning software sales. In my opinion, the console price is also borderline unacceptable, considering ‘inflation’. Look at these numbers, they are the Nintendo console prices starting from the GameCube launch:
| Console | Year | Price (€) |
|---|---|---|
| GameCube | 2001 | €200 |
| Wii | 2006 | €250 |
| Wii U | 2012 | €300 |
| Switch | 2017 | €300 |
| Switch 2 | 2025 | €470 |
With this information in hand, we can calculate the price increase between generations:
- GameCube → Wii (2001 → 2006): +€50 over 5 years → €10/year
- Wii → Wii U (2006 → 2012): +€50 over 6 years → €8.33/year
- Wii U → Switch (2012 → 2017): €0 over 5 years → €0/year
- Switch → Switch 2 (2017 → 2025): +€170 over 8 years → €21.25/year
So the average price increase per generation (from 2001 to 2025) is:
€470 – €200 = €270 over 24 years → €11.25 / year on average.
Every console before the Switch 2 was around or below its inflation-adjusted cost. The new Switch 2 at 470 euro is 110 to 130 euro more expensive than inflation alone would justify (and I’m sorry for mobile users):
| Console | Year | Launch Price (€) | Years →2025 | Inflation Factor | 2025 €≈ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GameCube | 2001 | 200 | 24 | ~1.70 | ~340 |
| Wii | 2006 | 250 | 19 | ~1.52 | ~380 |
| Wii U | 2012 | 300 | 13 | ~1.33 | ~400 |
| Switch | 2017 | 300 | 8 | ~1.20 | ~360 |
| Switch 2 | 2025 | 470 | – | – | 470 (nominal) |
If a console cost 200 euro in 2001, people would need to spend 40% more in 2025 for the same burden. This amount is 280 euro. At 470 euro, the Switch 2 is therefore approx. 1.7 times more of the average (income adjusted) value compared to the GameCube. The earlier consoles conformed well to inflation. The Switch 2 is notably 110 to 130 euro above what inflation alone would predict. The Switch 2 costs about 12 to 68% more than what early 2000’s launches would translate to today, considering income growth. And that is just the console we’re talking about. Let’s talk peripherals.
If you want a “Pro” controller, that is, an actual controller and not one of those reumatic-inducing ant controllers, it will cost you 90 euro. Nintendo Switch Online (NSO) is 40 euro a year. That deal is not too bad. Game Pass Ultimate or Playstation Online costs between 150 to 200 annually. Granted, their libraries are massively bigger. NSO also brings Switch 2 game upgrades for Breath of the Wild. It includes various DLC, for example, Animal Crossing New Horizons DLC, etc. You get a good enough selection for NES, SNES, N64, and Mega Drive channels. Now even GameCube games are included, though just three are available on release.
But to simply have the option to even buy any of the wireless controllers for these channels, you need an active NSO subscription. You need a subscription to buy physical controllers off their store. I tried to cheat by getting a NSO trial and buying a set, but you need an active subscription. So Nintendo carefully considers their financial strategy. They deliberately monitor an active subscription for store purchases. Keep that in mind.
Nintendo also highlighted a new selling point: the Switch 2 introduces a new “C”-button. This button lets you voice-chat wirelessly via the tablet. This button is rendered useless because you need an active NSO subscription to activate this function. This is the first time I’ve ever seen a hardware button locked behind a subscription paywall. All in all, if you want a Switch 2 + some separate game that isn’t Mario Kart World + a Pro controller + NSO, it will cost you around 650 to 700 euro. That is: A console with a normal controller and a game with full functionality. Oh, and if you want that interactive manual that explores your new console again? 10 euro extra. It’s not about the 10 euro, it’s about Nintendo’s intent towards their customers.
And for the record, I bought a Switch 2, since I’m a ‘consooming’ retard that needs to own every piece of new hardware there is. This is about the only thing I collect in life. But that’s not the only reason. Another reason is that the backwards compatibility layer is actually good. I can play second-hand Switch 1 titles in higher performance and resolution. The games load faster, and I can play them on a 4K TV. I can finally enjoy the Switch 1 library how I wanted to. And with games now being more affordable at second-hand prices, why not? And speaking of backwards compatibility (and backwards-assed pricing), consider the Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom Switch 2 upgrades, that cost 10 euro each:
If I buy BOTW or TOTK (for Switch 1) second-hand for 30 euro, and pay 10 euro for the Switch 2 upgrade, then I have the Switch 2 version. Or if I have an NSO subscription, nothing. Why is the Switch 2 version separately 80 euro then? I can literally get it for half the price, for little to no effort. Is Nintendo just insulting our intelligence? Surely they are not oblivious to second-hand sales. In fact, that is why they invented this whole re-sale cart experience (for a 10 euro premium). Is it just arrogance to price generational old remasters this way? The games only added a boost that the console was already capable of providing. Besides that, there is some bullshit app you can download on your phone and use as a in-game map. Well, if that’s your phone doing all the work, why does that cost me 10 euro extra?
Did anyone at Nintendo even for a brief moment consider a reasonable pricing tactic? Was someone on the Board of Directors just doodling pricing decisions on a napkin during the financial boardroom meeting? Or did Furukawa just go: “Remasters? Let’s see.. that’ll be: full price + Nintendo Tax + no discount. Mmmyes, good.. We’ll re-release a decade-old game that was launched on 2 previous generations with no updates (the console will handle those, but we’ll act like we did something). Let’s make it available on the Switch 2 for –sorry, don’t interrup– what? “sharper” price? lol, no. Just charge 80 euro. They’ll pay it – it’s us.”
And it’s ironic I’m producing an article to criticize Nintendo’s pricing decisions. Yet, I still buy one myself and become part of the problem. I can’t help myself whenever a new piece of hardware arrives. But to defend myself here: that’s what I always do, and have always done. I buy the latest consoles on release, all the time, every time. It’s what I do. And then I tinker around with them. I could’ve voted with my wallet, which I have no problem with when it comes to software. However, resisting a new piece of hardware? It’s a big weakness of mine.
In fact, I’m sure Nintendo also priced this for retards like myself getting it at any price point. But the main reason, obviously, is that the original Switch was wildly popular. And the Switch 2 now sold 3.5 million units in its first week (as opposed to the Wii U selling just around 13 million during its entire lifetime). It seems I’m not the only glutton for financial punishment. And I guess backwards compatibility might have a lot to do with it for most people. People have amassed huge Switch libraries. Over 160 million Switch 1 units were sold. This was pretty much inevitable. But Nintendo knew this, of course, and hiked up the price to the N-th degree. No, that’s not a pun. That’s just business.
In fact, since having the Switch 2, I have touched it for a grand total of 2 hours. I played Mario Kart World for about 20 minutes and I browsed the store a little. I played one hour of Metroid Prime – a remastered version for the Switch 1 of the same game I loved back in 2002, originally released on the GameCube. We’re talking 4 generations back here, 23 years ago, and that was my Switch 2 highlight.
But for now, it seems the Switch 2 will be a roaring success. And I’m curious how software sales will fare down the line. Because I’m really (no, really) not spending 90 euro on physical first party titles. And first party titles are the sole reason I buy Nintendo consoles in the first place. So what do I do now then? Stare at my console? No. I’ll go the way of Switch 1 physical releases (where actual games are on the cartridge) and getting the Switch 2 upgrades for “free” via my NSO subscription. This was my plan for Metroid Prime 4. If it gets a Switch 1 release, but that seemingly won’t happen anymore by the looks of it. But that would save me 30 euro per game for dual releases. What total retardation.
What led up to this? It’s well known that the entire industry looks up to Nintendo and usually follows what they do – and they have legions of fans. Also promoting it as a family console seems to work wonders. It’s the ‘everyone is laughing around the TV’ console. Is this some grand pay-off for years of innovation and marketing and going their own “Nintendo” way? Surely they are outside the established “console war”. Is this what you can do once you reach the pinnacle of an entire industry?
Consider the following with Sony and Microsoft and what Nintendo has done in the past (or for the industry at large) as lead innovators:
1. Motion Controls
- Nintendo Innovation: Wii Remote (2006)
Nintendo introduced motion-sensing controls with the Wii Remote, revolutionizing how games were played and attracting a broad, casual audience; like my mother. - Sony Response: PlayStation Move (2010)
Sony released PlayStation Move, a motion controller with a glowing orb tracked by a camera. Clearly inspired by the success of the Wii Remote. - Microsoft followed with Kinect. An embarrassing product, with an even more embarrassing press conference, that failed to attract the dudebro Xbox audience.
2. Portable Gaming with Dual Screens
- Nintendo Innovation: Nintendo DS (2004)
The DS introduced dual screens (one touch-sensitive), which was a novel idea for portable gaming. - Sony Response: PlayStation Vita (2011)
While not dual-screened, the Vita included a rear touchpad and front touchscreen, which mirrored the DS’s touch-interactive gameplay in spirit. The influence is more in interface innovation than direct screen layout.
3. Analog Stick on a Gamepad
- Nintendo Innovation: Nintendo 64 Controller (1996)
The N64 was the first major console to feature an analog stick, which allowed for more precise 3D movement. - Sony Response: Dual Analog Controller (1997) and then DualShock (1997). In fact, Sony quickly followed up with a controller that had two analog sticks, making it the standard for future controllers.
- Basically, everyone followed
4. Rumble/Vibration Feedback
- Nintendo Innovation: N64 Rumble Pak (1997)
The Rumble Pak was an accessory that provided force feedback for N64 games. - Sony Response: DualShock Controller (1997)
Sony incorporated built-in vibration motors into the controller, releasing it the same year, but making the feature permanent and integral. - Basically, everyone followed
5. Miniature Consoles
- Nintendo Innovation: NES Classic Edition (2016) – A plug-and-play console with pre-installed classic games, which was a massive commercial hit.
- Sony Response: PlayStation Classic (2018)
Sony released its own mini console loaded with 20 PS1 games, clearly reacting to Nintendo’s success. This was a shitty emulated version (of stolen source code) however, and did poorly.
6. Hybrid Console Concept
- Nintendo Innovation: Nintendo Switch (2017)
A hybrid console that can switch between handheld and docked TV mode. - Sony Response: PlayStation Portal (2023)
While not a true Switch competitor, the Portal is a dedicated remote-play handheld – a step toward portable-console hybrid play, influenced by the Switch’s success. - Also Microsoft will release a ROG handheld.
7. Miis and Avatars
- Nintendo Innovation: Miis on the Wii (2006)
Personalized avatars for players. - Sony Response: PlayStation Home (2008)
A virtual world where players had 3D avatars, echoing the Mii concept but in a more expansive social space. - Also Microsoft created Xbox avatars.
So it’s an understatement to say that Nintendo is the leading video game industry innovator.
Sony seems to be doing great for the more ‘hardcore’ gamer market. Although, I’m personally not a real fan of their output. And Microsoft, in the current year, is another story. They are trying to create a hybrid PC / Console marketplace with the Xbox PC app and Xcloud. Consider what Nintendo is “innovating” right now, which companies immediately follow: 80 – 90 euro games. The latest Nintendo innovation that was set, and it was followed almost right away. As if every publisher was waiting for this. Nintendo says go? Let’s go! And already waves are being made: titles releasing now left and right – immediately at a 80 euro digital price point – to much resistance from the player community. In fact, these games don’t sell well at all seemingly.
So what now? Will publishers capitulate back to 60 euro games again? Only time will tell. But at some point a line has to be drawn, and I’m mainly targeting software prices here. A console is a one-time transaction for new hardware. Hardware that usually will satisfy you for (approx.) 6 to 8 years. And even after all that, these things get hacked into oblivion and you can enjoy extra functionality, if you’re into that sort of thing. I have fewer problems spending money on actual hardware. Certainly when said hardware costs the price of only 5-6 modern games apparently. I find it more reasonable than paying 90 euro for renting a software license. Here’s my prediction: software sales on the Switch 2 will be shit. The full priced re-re-release sales (as game keys) will be disastrous. I’m positive that within a few weeks we’ll already see articles like: “Hurr Durr, why don’t our games sell?”
Even so, Nintendo itself is overreaching not just with the price of their hardware, but more unforgivingly, the pricing of their software. For me, there is no reason for a company with its own proprietary engines to make such decisions. They have lately just been producing asset flips. They are throwing out their decades-long established voice actors like Charles Martinet to hire cheaper ones. The company is making millions in revenue per employee. They are producing re-releases and sequels on the same map as the previous one (Looking at you TOTK.) This is even worse than asset flips if you ask me. Almost never has the previous console decreased first party software prices. They seldom have a sale. And now, the game prices inflate up +30 euro over the course of one single generation.
All things considered (and I’m wrapping up here), I’m sure the Switch 2 will do just perfectly fine. Nintendo is the market leader and it will do as it pleases. This is an industry they completely dominate. And in all fairness, they’ve gotten up to this point thanks to their constant innovation, which all other companies always seem inclined to follow. I have questioned the quality of Nintendo’s output for years, though. For me, 60 – 70 euro was already stretching the limit. Now we’ve reached 80 – 90. Will it be 100 euro video games in a few years? And the following is topical for standard developers (whose sales will be disastrous) but I’m aiming it specifically at Nintendo, whose games drive these tablets:
Prices should reflect the quality or considerable investment. I would only agree to 90 euro games once Nintendo starts blowing me away again. They did this frequently in the past with titles such as Ocarina of Time, which were completely ahead of the curve. Industry leading games as you will. If you want to impose industry leading prices, make sure the games are industry leading too. They should at least be worthy of those prices. Do not re-release Wii U titles two generations later for 80 euro on your latest overpriced console, void of any goodwill.
THE END