If I had a guarantee that they fixed the fundamental issues with the analog sticks? I might actually get the handheld only.

Until then? Only the hybrid because the vast majority of my switch usage is on an airplane or in a hotel room... which is also why I probably won't buy a refresh for a while.

Why would the home model cost more than the Lite? That doesn't really make sense and it's not how the economics of these things generally go. Look at the price of PSTV vs PS Vita. Getting rid of the screen and the built in controls more than offsets the savings of including a controller.

In reality the home model would almost certainly be cheaper. It could also be a bit larger than the handheld (which is cheaper to make) because it doesn't have ergonomic concerns.

@bigsocrates: it’s for ppl that like playing on a tv and the controller would be one that’s $70 msrp like the switch pro controller. If you price it under the lite, it makes lite and hybrid much less attractive.

@liquiddragon: It is much cheaper to make a non-portable version of a device like that and generally they HAVE been priced cheaper (PSTV is an example but also look at desktop vs. laptop prices, which is more or less the same thing. Or android consoles that have similar capabilities to phones.)

Once you're just a home console you're competing with PS5 and Xbox Series S/X and charging more for the Switch Pro than the Series S costs when the Series S will likely be much, much, more powerful is just not a good value proposition.

Nintendo doesn't seem that likely to make a home version only for that reason but even if they do they won't price it over the Switch Lite.

Portable tech always costs more than non-portable tech of the same power level.

@bigsocrates: products are not always priced purely on cost. When you have 3 different SKUs, you have to price them in relationship to one another. If you make It the cheapest model, you’d be threatening the whole product line. The Vita TV isn’t an indication of anything. The Series S doesn’t have Nintendo games and it’s already clear it’s a bad next gen option. I’m way more likely to get Nintendo’s next gen console for $50 more than the Series S than the Series S. It’d technically be competing w PS/XB but Nintendo w their ips will always make for a good secondary system. If you had one of the current next gen systems, you’d think about Nintendo before getting the other next gen system you don’t have. They’ve already given up on being the home console leader but it wouldn’t be a bad 2nd console option.

How powerful are they?

The Switch Home being only 50 bucks cheaper than a hybrid would never happen if theyre the same power. If Nintendo did a console only version of the current switch it would be less than the Switch Lite.

I think i'd go for a console only if its a pro version thats the most powerful. Otherwise Hybrid.

I think the idea of the console only version potentially having a bit more under the hood would be interesting. Nothing too crazy, but maybe similar to the Series S and X, where the home console version has a beefier GPU more suited to a 4K screen, while the Hybrid and Handheld are basically 1080p machines (with a 1080p screen built in). Similar to the S and X, the CPU would be on par so the developers can make the same games for both with just resolution differing between SKUs.

Would Nintendo do this? Probably not, but as someone with no interest in handheld gaming whatsoever, I think having the option to forgo the hybrid aspect in favor of better image quality on a TV would be appealing.

My ideal switch 2 would be a beefier home console that can also stream to my current switch model a la remote play.

But I don't feel like their current Nintendo Online setup is even close to handling that.

@liquiddragon: Nintendo is not really in the business of selling consoles. It's in the business of selling games (and licenses to other people to sell games on their hardware.) While they like to make a small profit on hardware if they can, they would make a ton more money with a $200 home console SKU that would sell a bunch of units than they would with a drastically overpriced $350 SKU. If you look at the Wii U, there was a $50 difference between the black and white models, and the cheaper model only had a few gigabytes less storage as the only functional difference.

If they could sell a Switch home console for $200 or $250 it wouldn't threaten the whole product line it would be a massive spike in units sold. The Switch is not the business. Switch software is the business. They would much rather have a lot of units in homes than make a little more on the consoles.

@ll_exile_ll: Selling a 4K enhanced home console only version would be enticing but I don't think it's a very Nintendo move. Who knows though. Nintendo does weird things. I would be interested in a beefier home only version because I rarely play my Switch in portable mode. I've tried and I just can't get into games on a tiny screen. I bought both a Vita and a 3DS and I tried to play stuff on them and did get into a few things, but ultimately I am just not a handheld type gamer. I would happily sacrifice portability for more power.

well- i'd most DESIRE a beefed-up hybrid model- but not at $400.

i'd prefer they go the phone model- offer what's essentially the same device, but with internals that match the current state of SoCs and silicon. i'd rather pay for something at the same price but incrementally better than get a super powerhouse mobile device at a premium price.

plus- it just isn't nintendo's style to have bleeding edge tech at a ramped up price.

@bigsocrates: It is not overpriced. To have the same experience on the TV w the hybrid would cost $470 in this scenario. Who wouldn’t want it at $200-250? But that’s not how things work. They never charge what they should, they charge what they can get away w. Nintendo doesn’t like to give ppl exactly what they want. They like to give ppl almost exactly what they want to make the choice harder and to make each product attractive in their own way. Like the lite is a good price but not being able to dock is a huge compromise. The home ver. in this case you’d be getting the big boy controller for a slight discount. I’m not saying it’s some great deal and it shouldn’t be. Why would it be? I’m saying there is a way to justify the pricing, especially if you know you mostly play on the tv and definitely would want the regular controller.

They love to make money off of hardware so idk what you’re talking about there and the home version in this what-if would have tremendous margins.

Also, they wouldn’t want the home version to actually be the dominate sku because the concept of the switch is part of its big success. If the home version becomes the main one then they are competing more directly w the other systems which is less favorable.

i use my Switch almost exclusively docked, so my vote is for the tv model.

@liquiddragon: Your whole argument could also apply to "Why Nintendo will never make a cheap 2DS" which they absolutely did. You have a lot of weird assumptions and assertions in your argument (like that Nintendo wouldn't want to sell a lot of one of its SKUs because it would violate the 'concept' even though the 2DS totally abandoned the 3DS' big gimmick and they sold it longer than they sold the 3DS.)

We're never going to agree here, but I think that the pricing you argue for doesn't make sense, isn't consistent with how the console business works, and is also in opposition to Nintendo's own prior behavior and incentives. I think there is currently no home console only version because Nintendo sees the Switch as a portable first and foremost, but if they did make one it would be the cheapest SKU (and the pro controller isn't actually cheaper than the Joy Cons anyway so there's no savings at all in what you're arguing for, it's just a different controller).

Your argument that they wouldn't want the home console version to sell well because then they would be competing with Xbox and PS5 is backwards. If they priced it high it would be competing with Xbox and PS5. Pricing it as low as possible would differentiate it more and make it attractive, and that's how they'd do it. The same way Sony tried to make the PSTV attractive and the same way every underpowered console tries to sell.

@bigsocrates: you asked why and I’m only trying to tell you where I’m coming from. I understand if you don’t agree w any of it.

@liquiddragon: Well you're never going to get banned from this forum with that kind of reasonable live and let live attitude!

I would get the TV only model, though I feel like that would most likely be the cheapest.

I mostly play my Switch, or used to play my Switch, on the TV. It's nice to take it with me sometimes as well. I'd get a hybrid model if possible, unless the TV-only model would provide some sort of enhanced graphical performance.

Why would the home version be more expensive than the lite?
There's a lot of stuff they wouldn't need to put into it, its the version i wish i could get for the current Switch, i don't need all that portable stuff.