this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
423 points (90.9% liked)

Steam Deck

6012 readers
1 users here now

Universal community link
!steamdeck@lemmy.ml

Rules

Order

Models

64GB eMMC LCD
256GB NVMe LCD
512GB NVMe LCD
512GB NVMe OLED
1TB NVMe OLED

Allowed languages

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GreenWater@hexbear.net 9 points 10 months ago (6 children)

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.

[–] BobGnarley@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

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

[–] GreenWater@hexbear.net 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)