Analyst Predicts 'Switch 2' to Launch This Year for $400 - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 03 March 2024 / 7,847 Views
Kantan Games CEO Dr. Serkan Toto speaking with GamesIndustry has released his predictions for 2024, which includes Nintendo releasing the successor to the Nintendo Switch for $400 with a chance the price of games will increase to $70.
"The time is finally here for a Switch successor, even though I can say a 'Pro' model actually did exist and certain developers were already working with the dev kit," said Toto. "I believe the next hardware will drop [in 2024] for $400. There is a high chance that games will cost more, too: $70."
He says the Switch 2 is likely going to be more of an iteration of the Switch rather than a revolution. He says that while Nintendo might add "bells and whistles" to the next-generation console, it will keep the portable functionality.
"The next system is also likely to be an iteration rather than a revolution. Nintendo might add some bells and whistles to the device, but it will be similar to the current Switch. And because there is Pokémon, and Pokémon is associated with handheld gaming, there is no way on earth Nintendo will drop the portability feature for their next big thing."
Newzoo's Tom Wijman in the same post on GamesIndustry is also predicting Nintendo to launch the successor to the Switch in 2024.
"Nintendo Switch 2 will launch in 2024 with a highly anticipated 3D Mario game," said Wijman. "Having embraced a digital storefront, Nintendo will allow users to transfer between Nintendo accounts to Switch 2; no more building your games library from scratch."
The Nintendo Switch has sold 132.91 million units worldwide as of November 2023, according to VGChartz estimates. The Switch sold an estimated 1.67 million units in November 2023, which is down 41 percent year-on-year.
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can contact the author on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
Can I be paid an analyst salary by predicting things like this?
Makes sense, with inflation the Switch launching at 300$ in 2017 would be equivalent to around 380$ in 2024.
Inflation really doesn't apply a lot of times when it comes to technology, the cost of better parts goes down every year. A good computer in the 90's was easily $2,000+ and you couldn't run a watch today with the technology you were paying $2,000 in 1995 money for.
This console generation has reversed that though.
The cost to produce hardware has increased in recent years
Except it does. $400 was considered obscenely expensive back in the 90s. That price tag made the Neo Geo a boutique item for rich people, and it was a huge contributor to the Saturn being dead on arrival. But by 2013 it was considered downright reasonable, and in 2024 it's very affordable. The $300 Series S is considered a bargain basement price.
Even with the software, a new game cost $50-70 back in the 16-bit days ($100 to $150 in today's money). That was a painful price point at the time, which is reflected in generally improved software sales over time as games have technically gotten less expensive, first with the switch to discs and then with steady inflation and relatively static sticker prices.
just to add to this, remember when the PS3 came out with a price tag of $600 and was considered outrageously expensive? Next gen will probably have that price at release for the base consoles, as possibly the upcoming PS5 Pro will do.
Microchips alone have become much more expensive as they get bigger and shrinks themselves have gone up in price quite a bit
Yep. Even the base 20GB model PS3 was $500 at launch ($762 in current dollars), and that price was a contributing factor to Sony losing so much market share. The 360 had already been out a year and demonstrated itself to be a capable system, one that could be purchased for only $400 for the 20GB model and only $300 for the HDD-less model. $400 was still a bit on the expensive end in 2007 ($620 in current dollars, adjusting from Nov. 2005), but still a lot more affordable than the PS3.
By time the systems reached price parity with each other, it was too late for Sony to regain any substantial portion of their lost market share. Sony learned their lesson, releasing the PS4 for a reasonable $400, while MS bungled the XBO's launch by force-bundling Kinect, thereby creating a $500 SKU as their only launch SKU.
The cost of the components is only one little piece of the pricing equation.
Consumer price is usually determined with what marketing thinks they can get away with. Cost has a say in this for sure, but it's not the determining factor. Marketing will make predictions on price and volume, then they chose what they think will in the end make the most money.
Nintendo does not price consoles below manufacturing cost anymore. Just look at the introduction price of the 3DS. Nintendo thought thy could get away with it, then needed to back paddle. Does not mean the 3DS was sold at a loss from that moment on.
Wages do not keep up with inflation, always was a shit argument. Well, here at least anyway and probably most of Europe too. Inflation does not even come close to solely explain how back in the day was miles cheaper and we had more to spend. I know, I am not young anymore and money no longer goes very far.
Why pay more? The Series S is about to be 4 years old when Nintendo releases a new system, why not update the hardware by 4 years and make that a new $250 or $300 Nintendo console. I don't see how my games are benefitting by me paying twice as much money for the hardware. The same people that say graphics are not important are now cheering on ultra high prices.
RTX 4060 in a box is all we need. $250.
Everyone ha been predicting this for 4 years now. People get paid to be this obvious?
Must have been reading VGC.
Basically just sounds like everything as expected. Though if $400 is right I wouldn't be surprised if there is a slightly cheaper version as well, cuz launching at $400 is a lot for the affordable system market Nintendo has always gone for. Maybe a digital-only edition for $360 or something.
This article is about the cost of the Switch. $807 CAD, in Canada. I know most of the people on this website are kind of Nintendo nuts, but come on. A lot of people want to pretend they are spending less money than they actually are.
Yes or no, do you want to spend $807 to play your first Switch 2 game? I don't, that's why I think $400 USD is too high.
I doubt it. That feels too high for what will likely be a low power Nintendo device. If Nintendo can get the power of the Steam Deck for about $300, then they will be good. That's enough power to run any 8th and 9th gen game currently available with good or acceptable settings. If Valve can sell Steam Deck for $400, then Nintendo should be able to hit $300 with specs in a similar range. Those specs are also dated at this point.
especially the T239 chip would be basically 4 years old, and is basically the old Switch Pro chip, it would be very cheap
if they want to upgrade to an RTX 4050 type chip, I'd pay $400 or more for that, but not for the old 2020 Ampere chip
I know everyone wants it to remain a hybrid, and yes, that's probably the smarter move. But selfishly, I wish this would end up being a dedicated home console. I never game on the go and enjoy the functionality of those more.
How much are paid these people to produce such analysis?
I did the calculations for you guys. $807.36 CAD for the Switch 2 + game + controller after tax in Canada. Do we really want to pay $800+ Canadian bucks to play one game? That's a lot of money.
The Nintendo Switch uses half the GTX 750. That launched in February 2014 for $120 USD. Half of it could reasonably be sold for $60 without a loss. We also have proof that is the case, because the NVidia Shield could be sold at break even with the same chip for $60. Historically consoles tend to cost the same as the GPU price itself. The $400 PS4 had a $400 GPU in it.
There's a 2014 $60 GPU in the Switch 1. We can easily beat that without increasing costs. RTX 4060 costs $280. Half that price is $140. Frankly Nintendo could have made a small box without a screen as low as $150 and still given us a 10x performance improvement over the Switch.
They could have really shocked the industry with a $150 console. I don't get their strategy which seems to be to corner the expensive portable market. Why not sell more $150 boxes and sell more games.
The whole gaming industry INCLUDING all the players, are shockingly NOT demanding Nintendo improve the horrible Switch controls, for the Switch 2. It's truly unbelievable.
Nobody is even demanding analog triggers ! No wonder gaming companies get away with so much garbage.
We already know the reason. Nintendo is avoiding paying royalties by not including analog striggers. The royalty effect took place after Wii launched. So they can keep releasing Gamecube controllers and not pay but Sony and MS do. It's not ideal yeah but always 3rd party options for Switch. Unless talking about the 8bitdo controller for Switch which is the best controller period for the system.
