The new Nintendo Switch OLED is $50 more expensive, but only costs $10 extra to make

midian182

Posts: 7,766   +79
Staff member
Recap: Nintendo’s new Switch OLED model disappointed many fans when it arrived. While it does feature a slightly larger OLED screen, more storage, and a few other minor upgrades, many were hoping for 4K support, upgraded hardware, and DLSS. It’s also $50 more expensive than the original. But how much extra is it costing Nintendo to make the new model compared to its predecessor? Just $10, according to a new report.

The Nintendo Switch OLED model will cost $349.99 when it releases on October 8. The extra $50 gets buyers a seven-inch OLED screen, 64GB of storage, an adjustable stand, improved audio, and a new dock with a wired Ethernet jack. That might sound as if Nintendo is spending a lot of money on these upgrades. According to Bloomberg, however, the actual price is just $10.

According to analysts, the most expensive upgraded for Nintendo is reportedly the display from Samsung Display Co., which will cost an additional $3 to $5. That extra 32GB of storage adds $3.50 to the production costs, while other upgrades such as the new kickstand and ethernet port total a few dollars more.

Unlike many other consoles, the Switch has always been sold at a profit. While the $10 figure may not include every factor that goes into adding the changes, Nintendo will no doubt be pleased to make even more money from its incredibly successful hybrid.

Earlier this month, Nintendo of America Manager of product marketing JC Rodrigo made it clear that owners of the current Switch should avoid upgrading unless they really care about the OLED screen. As for the rumored 4K Switch Pro, many still believe Nintendo will unveil it next year.

Permalink to story.

 

Puiu

Posts: 5,463   +4,391
TechSpot Elite
It's the usual update Nintendo does to their handhelds. A few tweaks here and there, but the system as a whole remains the same. They get to justify keeping the price at the same level or higher than what it launched with, they replace the parts that are getting harder to find and it also generates hype and thus more sales. It's a genius marketing strategy.
 

Geralt

Posts: 1,062   +1,633
It's the usual update Nintendo does to their handhelds. A few tweaks here and there, but the system as a whole remains the same. They get to justify keeping the price at the same level or higher than what it launched with, they replace the parts that are getting harder to find and it also generates hype and thus more sales. It's a genius marketing strategy.
Genius of evil.
 

pmshah

Posts: 179   +43
\Iin 1968 either the GM chairman or CEO or whoever admitted on TV that cost difference between a Chevy Caprice and Cadillac De Ville was mere $400/-. The sticker price was however $ 6,000/- higher.
 

umbala

Posts: 603   +1,007
I haven't bought a Nintendo console in about 20 years and I probably never will again. Video game companies lose money on every console they sell and make it up on game sales, but not Nintendo. They decided about 20 years ago that they would sell hardware two or three generations behind everyone else in order to make money on that too. It worked, so now they're sticking with it forever. Even when they do a mid-cycle refresh like this, it's the tiniest of increments you can imagine yet they still increase the price of the console. All they're interested in now is squeezing every last dime of profit out of consumers. No thanks.
 

defaultluser

Posts: 368   +296
Anyone who bought into the system doesn't care that Nintendo has a history of running off with all your money for a mix of marginal games on ancient hardware.

The fact that you need to pay $85 to get the fully-unlocked Skyward Sword port is highway robbery (as is pointlessly attaching this upgrade to an Amibo, which may be hard to find)

**** Nintendo, they are even worse than Apple (at least they give you the fastest locked-in hardware out there). The switch is maybe 20% faster than the Wii-U.

The Wii also capped a decade of Nintendo riding on marginal performance increases of %40 (plus no new features.)
 
Last edited:

tellmewhy

Posts: 179   +86
I think they are worried about the probability apple lose the case and ios become "open" to developers. There is no other logic explanation why they have make their hands "dirty" with those fancy "new" things like oled. :)
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 2,104   +2,512
TechSpot Elite
What's with the fixation on performance increases? That doesn't make a game play any better-- it may look better but it doesn't play better. Nintendo is about the game play.

If games looking better was somehow actually more important, then PUBG would automatically be more popular than Fortnite.

But it's not.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,527   +7,366
Face it, if you haven't spent too much on gaming gear, you not serious about it, nor will you be taken seriously.

For example, I have two (count 'em), two, 3090s.

Consider that extra forty bucks a, "credibility tax".
 

Watzupken

Posts: 570   +474
I haven't bought a Nintendo console in about 20 years and I probably never will again. Video game companies lose money on every console they sell and make it up on game sales, but not Nintendo. They decided about 20 years ago that they would sell hardware two or three generations behind everyone else in order to make money on that too. It worked, so now they're sticking with it forever. Even when they do a mid-cycle refresh like this, it's the tiniest of increments you can imagine yet they still increase the price of the console. All they're interested in now is squeezing every last dime of profit out of consumers. No thanks.
If you are not buying the console because the games don't suit you, I can understand the argument. If you are not buying the game console because the console maker is making money while others losing money for each console sold, that is an odd logic. Nintendo's strategy is really not about chasing after cutting edge graphics as you can tell, so they don't have to pay the price for cutting edge hardware. The likes of Sony and Microsoft puts a lot of focus on beautiful graphics, so naturally the consoles cost more. Would you want to buy a console if say Sony and Microsoft charges you the full cost of the console? Looking at the current PC prices, I reckon instead of USD 499 for the Xbox Series X, you probably need to sell out at least a grand (easily double the MSRP). If I had to pay the full price of the Xbox Series X I own, I rather buy a PC. So the decision to sell below cost is to make consoles attractive.
 

Watzupken

Posts: 570   +474
What's with the fixation on performance increases? That doesn't make a game play any better-- it may look better but it doesn't play better. Nintendo is about the game play.

If games looking better was somehow actually more important, then PUBG would automatically be more popular than Fortnite.

But it's not.
I don't know about others, but I had good fun on the Wii and now the Nintendo Switch with my wife and kids. Coming from DOS based games, I certainly agree that graphics is not in my consideration when deciding on the fun factor. It is nice to have, but not a priority for me.
 

Watzupken

Posts: 570   +474
Anyone who bought into the system doesn't care that Nintendo has a history of running off with all your money for a mix of marginal games on ancient hardware.

The fact that you need to pay $85 to get the fully-unlocked Skyward Sword port is highway robbery (as is pointlessly attaching this upgrade to an Amibo, which may be hard to find)

**** Nintendo, they are even worse than Apple (at least they give you the fastest locked-in hardware out there). The switch is maybe 20% faster than the Wii-U.

The Wii also capped a decade of Nintendo riding on marginal performance increases of %40 (plus no new features.)
I certainly don't disagree that first party titles from Nintendo tend to be very overpriced. Considering some of these games are basically "renewed" with better graphics and not really a new title, the pricing is quite unjustifiable. But fortunately, games like Zelda, you can buy it, complete it, then sell it away. Because the prices don't change much, so your lost from resale is minimize too. For first party games, I generally go for those party/ group games, which I think don't age, I.e. you can always pick it up again and have fun with different friends or family.
 

Puiu

Posts: 5,463   +4,391
TechSpot Elite
What's with the fixation on performance increases? That doesn't make a game play any better-- it may look better but it doesn't play better. Nintendo is about the game play.

If games looking better was somehow actually more important, then PUBG would automatically be more popular than Fortnite.

But it's not.
Except that it does make the games better, much better. It's not just about looks. When Zelda goes down to 20FPS it feels awful to play (all fast paced action games do).

Nintendo's own first party titles can't keep a locked 30 FPS and have major FPS drops even when the resolution goes down the drain (540p or lower).

You seem to misunderstand why people were begging Nintendo to increase the specs (something which should have been easy for them to do)

FYI: it's weird to say that "graphics not being important" when talking about the Switch which already has mobile like graphics, many games run under 540p and with low FPS.
 
Last edited:

defaultluser

Posts: 368   +296
Except that it does make the games better, much better. It's not just about looks. When Zelda goes down to 20FPS it feels awful to play (all fast paced action games do).

Nintendo's own first party titles can't keep a locked 30 FPS and have major FPS drops even when the resolution goes down the drain (540p or lower).

You seem to misunderstand why people were begging Nintendo to increase the specs (something which should have been easy for them to do)

FYI: it's weird to say that "graphics not being important" when talking about the Switch which already has mobile like graphics, many games run under 540p and with low FPS.

If peope didn't care about minute differences, why did so many pisses-off Wii-U owners upgrade to the New Slightly Faster Hotness?

It certainly wasn't because there were any notable new releases before Animal Crossing (three years of mostly ports)., it was because BOTW ran at 900p on newer hardware:

You folks have been taught to never question the wisdom of Nintendo...even when it's obvious they have no clue ehat they are doing hardware-wise.


I'm sorry man, if PC gamers justified 20% performance bumps as a justification for an entire system upgrade, we would just finally have reached Oblivion-level graphics.

Nintendo's retarded hardware history:

GameCube Controller doesn't add the second Analog Stick...realy painfully playing a game like Metroid Prime without it!

Wii motion controls are forced upon all but three Nintendo first-party, makes games so clunky, they need a mid-life upgrade...which then requires you to frequently recalibrate, because ten seconds of being completely distracted from the game , multiple times during play = "more immersive"

The 3ds adds a 3d gimmick that even Nintendo officially ditches, with a 2DSXL the last-produced platform.

The Wii-U has that stupid "so expensive and bandwidth-intensive that its one-of-a-kind for every console owner" tablet gimmick used immersively by perhaps two games , and introduces unbalanced multiplayer gameplay for the first time on Nintendo platform

The Switch was rushed into production with an inefficient SoC, so you barely get 20% higher performance - the convertible joycons commit the Ultimate Sin of both making the retarded TINY PlayStation Cross standard, while introducing never-before-seen levels of drift.
 
Last edited:

Michiel

Posts: 103   +61
What's with the fixation on performance increases? That doesn't make a game play any better-- it may look better but it doesn't play better. Nintendo is about the game play.

If games looking better was somehow actually more important, then PUBG would automatically be more popular than Fortnite.

But it's not.

Up to a point. I think 60fps vs 30 does make an impact in how the gameplay feels. I think we can say that 60fps plays better than 30.