As a longtime Nintendo fan, gaming has always been my escape. So when the Switch 2 was unveiled during the April 2 Nintendo Direct, a quarterly video series in which the company announces upcoming games and hardware, I expected excitement, but something felt off. What should’ve been a fun reveal left me watching with a critical eye.
By evening, social media and news sites were filled with confusion, frustration, and immense backlash. So, where did things go wrong? The root of these issues can be traced directly to the choices Nintendo made in crafting its announcement. And the missteps offer a surprising lesson for other industries, particularly biotech and life sciences, on the power of clear, thoughtful communication.
Your audience will fill information gaps if you leave them open
When a new product is announced, consumers instinctively ask three questions:
- What’s the price?
- Why should I buy it?
- When is it available?
Nintendo’s Switch 2 reveal addressed the latter two, but notably skipped the most crucial: the price. By omitting this from its widely viewed Direct, Nintendo left millions of fans digging through press releases and regional websites for answers. The first major leak? A €90 price tag for games, which sparked a wave of backlash over what appeared to be a 50% price hike. Misinformation spread quickly and accusations of price gouging followed — all because the company failed to clearly communicate the one detail everyone wanted most.
The same risk applies to high-stakes announcements such as clinical trial results. There may be a temptation to minimize less favorable data, but reporters, investors and others notice what’s left unsaid and when things don’t add up. An extreme example of this was the Tamiflu controversy in 2014, in which it was revealed that a significant amount of negative trial data had been concealed. This damaged Roche’s reputation and cast a dark shadow over a drug that was otherwise doing well in the market. If we’re not transparent — sharing both the good and the bad — people will look elsewhere for answers, often landing on the worst assumptions.
Misreading the room has consequences
This isn’t Nintendo’s first pricing stumble. The 2011 launch of the Nintendo 3DS closely mirrors the current Switch 2 situation, with an exorbitant initial price that was misaligned with the perceived value. At $450, the Switch 2 seems to rely once again on brand loyalty and a strong game lineup to justify its premium cost. Unsurprisingly, fans have pushed back, viewing the price as tone-deaf amid ongoing global economic uncertainty. Analysts estimate the Switch 2’s production cost at around $400. Greater transparency about manufacturing costs could have rationalized the price and framed it around long-term value and future-proofing. The outcry over the 2011 3DS launch resulted in a swift and steep price cut, something that fans hope repeats for the Switch 2.
An interesting parallel to the 3DS case in biopharma, occurring around the same time, is the launch of Sanofi’s colorectal cancer drug, Zaltrap. The drug was priced at $11,000 per month, more than double the cost of its competitor, Avastin, despite offering no additional clinical benefit. This triggered backlash from healthcare providers and patients, including a public rebuke by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. While Sanofi ultimately cut the price by 50%, Zaltrap’s reputation had been harmed and invited accusations of profiteering.
In both cases, the companies priced their products at the upper threshold of what the market might bear, while overlooking real-world affordability concerns. Without clear, empathetic communication that connects scientific or technological value to the economic realities of end users, even the most innovative products risk being met with skepticism and resistance.
A strong plan is good, but knowing when to pivot is better
The Switch 2 announcement was a structured, multi-phase affair: a major Nintendo Direct, two days of livestreams, top-tier media interviews embargoed until the week after, and a steady stream of news on its app. This was a smart approach for maximum airtime. But when public demands for a price drop boiled over into the company’s livestreams, Nintendo stuck to its plan instead of responding in real-time.
No matter how carefully choreographed your plan is, agility is essential. Staying silent allows controversies to fester and makes managing the story harder. In retrospect, Nintendo could have preemptively addressed concerns around pricing, physical game formats, and the confusing "Switch 2 Edition" policy. Even simply lifting the embargo on already complete interviews to clarify key points might have helped. Ironically, gaming YouTubers have stepped in to address misinformation, filling a role that should have belonged to Nintendo.
A few weeks ago, Colossal Biosciences showed remarkable agility when the New Yorker allegedly broke the embargo on its dire wolf project. Rather than wait for the peer-reviewed paper as planned, the company lifted its remaining embargoes to launch their media plan early. When circumstances shift or the audience shows confusion or backlash, a quick, proactive response builds trust and protects your narrative.
Avoiding the tough questions only invites more
Nintendo’s reluctance to address key concerns — such as pricing, the absence of physical game media, and potential tariff impacts — was compounded by reports that media attendees at a Switch 2 test event in New York were advised not to ask about these topics. This strategy backfired. Rather than easing anxieties, this fueled more speculation and deepened mistrust.
It’s an invaluable reminder for any industry: Dodging sensitive topics invites more scrutiny, rather than eliminating it. Thoughtfully approaching these situations with transparency often fosters greater trust. At HDMZ, for example, we always build reactive messaging into PR plans for uncomfortable questions we would prefer not to answer, but must anyway. Even a limited, well-prepared answer can bolster credibility and control the narrative.
The author created this image of Link going solo on a saxophone as a nod to the 2023 Tears of the Kingdom trailer — a time when Nintendo’s communications hit all the right notes.
Concluding thoughts
What’s odd about the Switch 2 is that Nintendo has proven before that it knows how to get it right. When The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom was announced in 2023 as the company’s first $70 title in the modern era, fans were understandably wary. But instead of dodging the backlash, Nintendo addressed it head-on: developers and producers gave interviews, apologized to fans, and explained the reasoning behind the price — citing the game’s scale, ambition, and the resources required to complete it. That transparency paid off. Fans felt respected, expectations were managed, and the game went on to become a commercial success.
At its core, the Switch 2 announcement was a preventable communications misstep. With clearer messaging, earlier transparency, and more direct engagement, Nintendo could have strengthened its bond with fans, many of whom (including myself) have supported the brand for decades. Instead, its silence and rigidity created a vacuum, allowing critics to amplify legitimate concerns and define the conversation.
For companies in biotech and life sciences, this should feel familiar. In the absence of clear communication, others will shape the narrative for you. Particularly in complex, high-stakes environments — whether it’s a drug approval, data release, or fundraise announcement — silence can signal uncertainty or detachment. A thoughtful, proactive approach to messaging builds trust, protects your reputation, and ensures that your story is told on your terms.
