"There is no difference in functionality between current products and revised products containing user-replaceable batteries."
So there was nothing "limiting" them from making it already with user-replaceable batteries, they just didn't care enough until EU forced them (like all the smartphone brands). Love EU.
It's not that they didn't care, it's that they did care in the wrong way. A non-replacable battery means people will be more likely to buy a whole new device if (when) the battery fails.
To be clear, all the mentioned Nintendo products are already designed for battery replacement, with well-contained battery units and easy connectors, and the batteries are available and problem-free to replace unlike for a certain fruit company.
The redesign is because the ease of accessing the batteries did not comply with the new rules. The pro controller in particular requires almost complete disassembly to get to the module, and the Switch 2's battery uses double-sided adhesive which is finicky. Joycons can also be a bit finicky to navigate for the uninitiated.
Also, as the device is Japanese, it uses JIS screws rather than Philips (in addition to triwing), which could surprise some. These are superior for service - Philips screws are specifically designed to strip during assembly to prevent over-torquing - but they do require you to have the right, "exotic" screwdriver. As JIS screwdrivers are compatible with and superior in bite even for Philips screws, it's a good habit to just always use those instead for electronics. iFixit kits and such include them.
I think the more likely explanation is that there was not sufficient market motiviation to include the additional requirement of a user-swappable battery. ie. people care, but they don't care enough or in enough volume for Nintendo to decide it's required.
I celebrate user-swappable batteries and I think I like the battery regulations. I just don't think the Ghost of Iwata is under your bed twirling a Wario moustache while thinking about how to screw you over. The current Switch battery situation is simply a result of user-swappable not being a requirement, among the countless other requirements already in contention.
Disagree. The market will not decide on that, at least for the nintendo product. Your or your kid want the switch and the pokemon and mario and others game, you're buying the switch, you don't switch to something else because the something else allows battery switch.
That's Nintendo's entire business model and the reason why they've been thriving since for ever in gaming and even the bad times where actually positive cash flow wise. They're not losing a single sale because the battery cannot be replaced, unless that sale was far from guaranteed to begin win.
I don't think customers need to be protected from themselves. If they don't like the hardware but buy it anyways because they really like the game, that's a choice. And I feel that when we're dealing with luxury goods, we should give consumers very broad discretion to vote with their money.
I just don't need a government to declare that I'm a victim by treating me like I'm not capable of saying, "no, the Switch 2 isn't cutting it for the pricetag. I'll skip this gen's Pokemon." This isn't bread. It's a luxury good.
Yes but eliminating unnecessary e-waste is a good thing for everyone.
This isn't about the government being your nanny, it's about the government, long term, building a better more sustainable society for everyone, as it should be doing. And I don't think there's a reasonable objection to that.
As mentioned elsewhere, it's also important to remember that the batteries were fully serviceable - available for purchase, nicely compartmentized and with easy connectors. The products were definitely not designed to die with their batteries. They just weren't compliant with the new rules - this is quite different than a certain fruit company that have historically made battery replacements difficult for even service technicians to complete without consequences like constant user prompts.
I imagine the various products had their specific own conflicts with the rules, like requiring too much disassembly (the Pro controller in particular has to be disassembled from the front first), or the Switch 2 holding the battery with double-sided tape. Not to mention that you might not realize that the screw are JIS spec, stripping them with the Philips screwdriver you found in your drawer. Also triwing.
This doesn't really take into account the real history around user replaceable batteries. It's been happening for years and when there are no alternatives to choose from its not a "vote with your wallet" situation. For example at some point MacBooks just stopped shipping with replaceable batteries and its disingenuous to expect someone to then switch to Dell, Lenovo, or something else. Those platforms can't run MacOS so the choice was made for the users. If you depend on MacOS and the software that runs on it, then your choice was clear--buy a new MacBook with a glued battery.
I don't think that's it for console manufacturers. They make the majority of their money on game sales, so they want the console itself to be used for as long as possible.
I don't understand why battery failure is a "when". The only batteries I've ever had fail in rechargeable electronic devices were replaceable packs where water got into the compartment. Perhaps I've just gotten lucky?
Batteries are chemical devices and have a finite lifespan. There's enough confounding variables involved that some people get real superstitious about it.
Through a combination of internal and external factors, lithium batteries go through irreversible chemical changes on every charge cycle. Total charge capacity always trends down. Depending on a large number of variables, this might happen quickly or it might happen so slow you might never notice at all. It's all down to how and where the battery is used because temperature is mostly what drives the chemical reactions.
The other thing is that lithium batteries which have been deeply discharged below safe levels are permanently damaged. Just like charge cycle wear, this can be immediately apparent, or something that goes unnoticed forever, but the cell is damaged and will never be the same. Recharging such a battery can cause physical damage inside the cell.
Point is, batteries are chemical cells. They don't last forever because most chemical reactions are not perfectly reversible. Their specific application and environment strongly affects how long they last. But we do know conclusively that when lithium batteries are kept hot and charged and discharged at high current (such as in a handheld gaming device), they degrade faster. Cells which are kept at a stable temperature and low currents (such as headphones) degrade very slowly and can last a long time.
If you look past superstition, there's an entire industry that's been rigorously studying this problem for decades. There's a lot of literature and evidence.
Lithium cells do degrade. How fast they degrade depends on cell quality and environmental factors. It is, unequivocally, a question of when a battery will fail. It might well be a decade or two, but it will fail eventually.
Battery failure is a "when" because batteries have a limited number of charge-discharge cycles. Modern lithium-ion batteries have a life expectancy in the range of 300-600 cycles. So if you've never had such a failure, it probably just means you're not a heavy user of your devices.
I try to keep my cell phones as long as I feasibly can. Every single one I've used for more than 3 years has had its battery fail (as expected for a device that sees such heavy cycling). My current phone is on its 3rd replacement battery.
The Switch 1 is almost 10 years old. Batteries don't have that much longevity.
And it was unnecessarily hard (actually dangerous due to fire risk) to replace it with a 3rd-party battery replacement due to excessive amounts of strong adhesive holding the battery in place.
My PSP, maybe five years ago, had a swollen battery. A friend a couple days ago was complaining that his PS4 controller's battery held no charge at all.
I finally fixed my PS3 and came to discover that the controller batteries are just fine. Good batteries with proper BMS seem to be fine to live a very long life.
It's not really a small percentage of users. All users will have trouble with the battery - eventually. My DS4s ran out of battery life in about three years of usage; I still have one of them that I use wired with my PC, but I absolutely cannot use it wireless. Likewise with my DS5s - one of them barely held a charge 2-3 years in. I'm sure with good battery management you can extend the lifespan to be closer to 5-6 years, like my M1 MBP from 2021 that still has a 9+h battery life (though down from 12 as I remember), but that only keeps them going for a little longer. It's just a fact of how Li-ion batteries work that they will lose their capacity eventually.
E: DS4 = DualShock 4, DS5 = DualSense; these are the standard PlayStation controllers for the PS4 and the PS5 respectively.
Quoting just one of the smallest one feels a bit... charged. There's small tradeoffs among all of them when you account for weight.
For everyone else here's the full list:
Switch 2
Battery capacity: 5172mAh, approximately 1% smaller than current version (5220mAh)
Weight: Approximately 411g, around 10g heavier than current version
With Joy-Con 2 controllers attached: Approximately 548g, around 14g heavier than current version (approximately 534g).
JoyCon 2:
Battery capacity: No change.
Weight: each 2g heavier
Switch 2 Pro Controller:
Battery capacity: 897mAh, approximately 16% smaller than current version (1070mAh).
Weight: Approximately 228g, around 7g lighter than current version (approximately 235g).
N64 Controller:
Battery capacity: No change.
Weight: Approximately 234g, around 1g heavier than current version (approximately 233g)
GameCube controller:
Battery capacity: 525mAh, approximately 5% larger than current version (500mAh).
Weight: 215g, around 5g heavier than current version (210g).
But there is at least some argument that smartphones nowadays have some pretty crazy waterproofness that I'm not sure is physically possible with a replaceable battery?
In more concrete terms, there are modern (2025) smartphones like the Samsung Galaxy XCover7 Pro w/ replaceable batteries which have IP67 (1 meter of water for 30 minutes) or higher certification. The back panel popping off too easily (and dumping the battery with it) is one of the common cons with the device though, so while you can get everything it is an extra layer of difficulty to try to design around correctly.
I expect smartphones to look more like the Pro Controller tradeoffs than the joy cons. The issue with replaceable batteries is you need the extra space for the battery structure so unless phones grow they'll have lower capacities. There's also IP ratings, phones have pretty good IP ratings these days often surviving drops in puddles etc where none of these products have any official IP rating to preserve when adding doors etc for replacement batteries.
I'm baffled that we still are thinking that we want thin phones. We have a gigantic camera bump that would be removed if the phone was thicker. Who wants a razor in their pocket, like really?
> So there was nothing "limiting" them from making it already with user-replaceable batteries, they just didn't care enough until EU forced them (like all the smartphone brands). Love EU.
At the very least, the design will be more complicated to accommodate replaceable batteries. That costs money. There's a lot more to "limiting" than functionality.
I'm not too worried. Removable batteries were standard fare for decades before Apple came around and set negative precedent. I don't recall it ever causing issues.
The current hack is to buy devices made for disposable batteries and then use rechargeables. Electric toothbrushes almost all come with built-in non-removable batteries... except the cheapest ones, which also work fine.
You mean an up-to-5% increase in capacity, and slightly decreased weight, depending on the product?
The truth is that the product with the 16% reduced capacity (Switch 2 Pro controller) is 7g lighter and the one with the 5% increased capacity (Gamecube controller) is 5g heavier.
Besides those two, the general idea is that the capacity is the same with 2-3% extra weight.
Some of these are no change because the existing versions already have pretty user replacement friendly batteries. The JoyCons for example already use the hard sided cells with plugs so I'm not sure what the change will actually amount to. If I had to guess it's maybe to change the glue or method of holding the battery in place to satisfy the ease of replacement requirements.
I wonder if it will feel significant.
I can't remember being limited by the controller battery.
The runtime on a single charge is probably still going to be measured in weeks, and at that scale I feel like it doesn't really matter.
It's because they're basically already using user replaceable batteries, to the point I'm not sure what the SKU revision will actually do. My best guess is they won't be gluing the battery down any more? Otherwise there's not anything I can see they would need to change.
seeing as the product itself already advertises that it's best to not charge it to 100% feel like nothing's being lost here no matter how one tries to spin it
Important to understand non-functional requirements (NFR). They’re saying the core features are the same. They are not saying they’re identical in weight, repair cost, water/dust resistance, battery lifetime, or cost.
Amazes me they don't just sell it like that everywhere because it sounds a lot like a product improvement...
> The revised products will be available on a rolling basis in territories where Nintendo of Europe conducts business, either directly or through a distributor, namely: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom.
According to their latest fiscal report [0], Europe sales-volume of Switch2 is ~24% of the total global sales volume.
The change surely eats into their margin per device, so they prefer to keep the higher margin for the rest of the world and recalculate their margin for europe.
However interesting: "The Americas" sells 34% of all Switch2 in the world [0].
I wouldn't expect the US to mandate the same changes, but if e.g. Canada or Brazil also demand replaceable batteries, it could push the needle to making it a default HW-feature of Switch2...
The higher margin is mostly coming from assembly costs, right? I can't imagine it comes from the actual cost of the battery being so much higher. I hope that once they start pushing these out and retool factories for them they can sell them more broadly.
From my experience, it comes from costs generated by:
1. Additional R&D-work and QA for the modification
2. New supply-chain deals for lower-volume components
Current sales-volume of Europe is only a quarter of the global volume, so price-negotiation is based on a much lower total volume-forecast.
Even if not, Battery prices today are ~15% higher than in 2024 (I expect Nintendo signed the supply-deal in late 2024), it'll be hard for Nintendo to cancel their existing supply-contract before fulfilling it (!), move to a different component AND get the same/lower price.
--> Better to sell other regions as-is, fulfill the contract and hope for a better climate in a year.
3. Tooling/Assembly (Ramp-Up costs, different processes, QA,...)
4. Re-certification of HW for relevant bodies in that region (Europe is quite lean on this, CE-certification is simple compared to US FTC/FCC)
I can almost hear the conversation with Nintendo of America CEO about covering 1/3 of the cost to get the same SKU and him simply responding "No, we just raised the prices because of component-cost increase, we wait for the HW-refresh in 2H/2027"
I wouldn't be surprised if they plan to unify the SKU again with a premium "Switch 2 OLED", offsetting the additional costs, preserving the margin and having an additional selling-point...
I would prefer the current versions without anything replaceable. I have the Switch bought on day 1 and a Pro Controller which is 9 years old. Yes, the Switch was mostly used docked, but the battery is last thing failing there, it rather has issues with the fan, the screen scratches etc. The controller works perfectly and I charge it once a month. The replaceable battery would only make it less solid.
The biggest Switch issue by far is joystick drift on joycons. I've replaced 3 on my Switch 2 already and we have the same issue on the new Switch 2 in the office.
My day 1 Switch battery was definitely significantly degraded when I did a DIY battery swap a couple of years back.
Battery longevity varies based on usage patterns and likely other factors (temperature?), but it's normal to notice a significant reduction in capacity within 4-5 years.
And the amount of adhesive holding the old battery in made replacing it an unnecessarily hard and actually dangerous (risk of battery fire due to physical damage) process.
Quite a few of these aren't EU members, some aren't even in Europe; do we know why they were added? e.g.: Switzerland or United Kingdom; but also Oman or United Arab Emirates.
It's easier for Nintendo of Europe to switch over everyone than to stock and supply 2 versions of every product. Also I'd bet most of their sales come from the EU countries where the replaceable battery requirement is forcing this new SKU deployment anyways.
That's probably because Iceland is not an official Sales-territory of Nintendo, it's handled by Bergsala AB, a swedish distributor which serves the market there.
It’s infuriating that it’s not just the default, especially for a game console where the majority of profit is coming from software sales.
Every Switch that becomes unplayable where fixing it costs more than a $20 battery replacement is a console that is not buying games from the Nintendo eShop.
> Amazes me they don't just sell it like that everywhere because it sounds a lot like a product improvement...
I'm not so sure. The first laptop I bought, a Titanium Powerbook, had replaceable batteries. And even better than that: you could hot-swap them while the laptop was running on battery power, and the laptop wouldn't even shut off. It felt leagues ahead of even modern replaceable battery functionality, and honestly? After owning that laptop for years, I felt like I just wasted my money with that additional battery.
Part of it, I'm sure, was that I didn't have an external charger to charge the battery not currently in the laptop. But on the whole, it just didn't feel like it was actually worthwhile, and when Apple stopped shipping replaceable batteries, I've never missed it.
(Hot swapping the batteries really was awesome, though)
I had an Apple laptop that had two bays, one on the left and one on the right. Usually, you'd have the battery on the left and the CD drive on the right. But for lots of people, battery life was more important than a CD drive on a laptop, so you could double your battery life by putting in a battery on both sides.
Non-replaceable batteries are worse for consumers and worse for the environment. The fact that you "do not miss" a better world, does not mean it is not better.
I have an old ThinkPad as my only laptop. It came to me used, with an aftermarket battery.
That battery was great for a couple of years before it started to get wonky, so I replaced it with a different aftermarket battery.
This process took zero tools. It took less time to swap in a new battery than it did for me to write this comment. Anyone can do it; it is not an arduous procedure.
What was the added environmental cost here? Some "single-use" plastics that lasted for years?
Easily swappable batteries do have significant downsides, you either need to compromise on capacity or form factor.
Of course that doesn’t mean they should be hard to replace with some tools and effort.
To be fair back in those days laptops only lasted on battery power for a few hours at most (also old batteries had a very short lifetime compared to modern ones) so being able to swap it was an actually useful feature.
Replacing a Switch 1 battery really annoyed me. No problem with tiny screws and fiddly disassembly.
Big problem with the truly excessive amount and strength of adhesive holding the old one in place, and having a real struggle to remove it (even after trying with IPA and dental floss)
The thing about the TI powerbook was, it didn't have to be plugged in to hot swap the battery. You could do it when running on battery power. (It had a tiny internal battery, that could run it for like 20-30 seconds, so long as the screen was closed).
It did also run when plugged in with the battery removed, which is good 'cause the battery eventually failed. So this way I can still run it.
>Nintendo Switch, Nintendo Switch Lite, and Nintendo Switch – OLED Model will all continue to be manufactured in 2026, and should be widely available in Europe all year.
>From mid-February 2027, almost ten years after Nintendo Switch launched in March 2017, Nintendo will no longer sell to retailers hardware in the Nintendo Switch family of systems – specifically Nintendo Switch, Nintendo Switch Lite and Nintendo Switch – OLED Model. Sales of Nintendo Switch hardware on Nintendo Store will also end in mid-February 2027.
Understandable, but maybe that shouldn't be buried in the FAQ...
Interesting, in the fineprint they actually confirm that they set the "Switch 1" End-Of-Life by Feb.2027 and stop selling it.
This means they will lose the revenue of that product-line (currently ~15% of their total hardware unit sales according to their fiscal report [0]), which may help accelerate the need for a "lite" version of the Switch2 to recover this market-segment...
...or not, because console sales is generally dropping and there's actually no competition to Nintendo in the handheld console segment...
Bleak times ahead for the gaming industry, and for the gamers...
Not sure what they'll do (Maybe they'll release Switch2 Lite or Switch 2 OLED in Q2/Q3 2027). but I guess like Apple stopped with Lightning until they finished their transition to USB-C they'll just let the transition work.
Also, third party batteries vary wildly in quality -- I've replaced the battery in my Nintendo switch twice, both times using brands I've heard of, and neither battery is as good as the original OEM battery was when i first got it.
It's kinda crazy that they're releasing an improved version only in places where it's mandatory by law. You'd think it's cheaper (and definitely better PR) to just release the new version everywhere.
It’s equal parts funny and frustrating to see how deep into the ”a few hypothetical percent of profits for corporations matters more than customer rights and less e-waste” some are.
I'm preparing to release my first app to the App Store and they're currently requiring me to dox myself if I want to sell in the EU. Which facts am I missing that makes this not very inconvenient for me?
"There is no difference in functionality between current products and revised products containing user-replaceable batteries."
So there was nothing "limiting" them from making it already with user-replaceable batteries, they just didn't care enough until EU forced them (like all the smartphone brands). Love EU.
It's not that they didn't care, it's that they did care in the wrong way. A non-replacable battery means people will be more likely to buy a whole new device if (when) the battery fails.
To be clear, all the mentioned Nintendo products are already designed for battery replacement, with well-contained battery units and easy connectors, and the batteries are available and problem-free to replace unlike for a certain fruit company.
The redesign is because the ease of accessing the batteries did not comply with the new rules. The pro controller in particular requires almost complete disassembly to get to the module, and the Switch 2's battery uses double-sided adhesive which is finicky. Joycons can also be a bit finicky to navigate for the uninitiated.
Also, as the device is Japanese, it uses JIS screws rather than Philips (in addition to triwing), which could surprise some. These are superior for service - Philips screws are specifically designed to strip during assembly to prevent over-torquing - but they do require you to have the right, "exotic" screwdriver. As JIS screwdrivers are compatible with and superior in bite even for Philips screws, it's a good habit to just always use those instead for electronics. iFixit kits and such include them.
Torx is also common and also way way better than philips. Really we as a society need to phase out philips screws yesterday.
> Really we as a society need to phase out philips screws yesterday.
Pozidriv to the rescue! (just kidding)
I think the more likely explanation is that there was not sufficient market motiviation to include the additional requirement of a user-swappable battery. ie. people care, but they don't care enough or in enough volume for Nintendo to decide it's required.
I celebrate user-swappable batteries and I think I like the battery regulations. I just don't think the Ghost of Iwata is under your bed twirling a Wario moustache while thinking about how to screw you over. The current Switch battery situation is simply a result of user-swappable not being a requirement, among the countless other requirements already in contention.
Disagree. The market will not decide on that, at least for the nintendo product. Your or your kid want the switch and the pokemon and mario and others game, you're buying the switch, you don't switch to something else because the something else allows battery switch.
That's Nintendo's entire business model and the reason why they've been thriving since for ever in gaming and even the bad times where actually positive cash flow wise. They're not losing a single sale because the battery cannot be replaced, unless that sale was far from guaranteed to begin win.
I don't think customers need to be protected from themselves. If they don't like the hardware but buy it anyways because they really like the game, that's a choice. And I feel that when we're dealing with luxury goods, we should give consumers very broad discretion to vote with their money.
This is victim blaming. The customer is not the one deciding make the batteries non-removable. This is protection from Nintendo.
I just don't need a government to declare that I'm a victim by treating me like I'm not capable of saying, "no, the Switch 2 isn't cutting it for the pricetag. I'll skip this gen's Pokemon." This isn't bread. It's a luxury good.
Yes but eliminating unnecessary e-waste is a good thing for everyone.
This isn't about the government being your nanny, it's about the government, long term, building a better more sustainable society for everyone, as it should be doing. And I don't think there's a reasonable objection to that.
As mentioned elsewhere, it's also important to remember that the batteries were fully serviceable - available for purchase, nicely compartmentized and with easy connectors. The products were definitely not designed to die with their batteries. They just weren't compliant with the new rules - this is quite different than a certain fruit company that have historically made battery replacements difficult for even service technicians to complete without consequences like constant user prompts.
I imagine the various products had their specific own conflicts with the rules, like requiring too much disassembly (the Pro controller in particular has to be disassembled from the front first), or the Switch 2 holding the battery with double-sided tape. Not to mention that you might not realize that the screw are JIS spec, stripping them with the Philips screwdriver you found in your drawer. Also triwing.
[delayed]
Consumers do not decide anything, they will buy whatever is in the store.
That's not true, they decide which one of the bad options they want to buy…
This doesn't really take into account the real history around user replaceable batteries. It's been happening for years and when there are no alternatives to choose from its not a "vote with your wallet" situation. For example at some point MacBooks just stopped shipping with replaceable batteries and its disingenuous to expect someone to then switch to Dell, Lenovo, or something else. Those platforms can't run MacOS so the choice was made for the users. If you depend on MacOS and the software that runs on it, then your choice was clear--buy a new MacBook with a glued battery.
I don't think that's it for console manufacturers. They make the majority of their money on game sales, so they want the console itself to be used for as long as possible.
That's true for Sony, but Nintendo doesn't sell the Switch at a loss.
I don't understand why battery failure is a "when". The only batteries I've ever had fail in rechargeable electronic devices were replaceable packs where water got into the compartment. Perhaps I've just gotten lucky?
Batteries are chemical devices and have a finite lifespan. There's enough confounding variables involved that some people get real superstitious about it.
Through a combination of internal and external factors, lithium batteries go through irreversible chemical changes on every charge cycle. Total charge capacity always trends down. Depending on a large number of variables, this might happen quickly or it might happen so slow you might never notice at all. It's all down to how and where the battery is used because temperature is mostly what drives the chemical reactions.
The other thing is that lithium batteries which have been deeply discharged below safe levels are permanently damaged. Just like charge cycle wear, this can be immediately apparent, or something that goes unnoticed forever, but the cell is damaged and will never be the same. Recharging such a battery can cause physical damage inside the cell.
Point is, batteries are chemical cells. They don't last forever because most chemical reactions are not perfectly reversible. Their specific application and environment strongly affects how long they last. But we do know conclusively that when lithium batteries are kept hot and charged and discharged at high current (such as in a handheld gaming device), they degrade faster. Cells which are kept at a stable temperature and low currents (such as headphones) degrade very slowly and can last a long time.
If you look past superstition, there's an entire industry that's been rigorously studying this problem for decades. There's a lot of literature and evidence.
Lithium cells do degrade. How fast they degrade depends on cell quality and environmental factors. It is, unequivocally, a question of when a battery will fail. It might well be a decade or two, but it will fail eventually.
Battery failure is a "when" because batteries have a limited number of charge-discharge cycles. Modern lithium-ion batteries have a life expectancy in the range of 300-600 cycles. So if you've never had such a failure, it probably just means you're not a heavy user of your devices.
I try to keep my cell phones as long as I feasibly can. Every single one I've used for more than 3 years has had its battery fail (as expected for a device that sees such heavy cycling). My current phone is on its 3rd replacement battery.
The Switch 1 is almost 10 years old. Batteries don't have that much longevity.
And it was unnecessarily hard (actually dangerous due to fire risk) to replace it with a 3rd-party battery replacement due to excessive amounts of strong adhesive holding the battery in place.
My launch Switch 1 battery is still working. Capacity is probably 80% or less but it still works fine.
My PSP, maybe five years ago, had a swollen battery. A friend a couple days ago was complaining that his PS4 controller's battery held no charge at all.
All li-ion batteries degrade over time, they may not fail completely, but the capacity will be diminished for sure.
How many years do you use them?
I'd guesstimate 5 or so on average. I have noise-cancelling headphones that are coming up on 13 years soon.
I finally fixed my PS3 and came to discover that the controller batteries are just fine. Good batteries with proper BMS seem to be fine to live a very long life.
My take is they didn't optimize for something that a small percentage of users would have problems with.
It's not really a small percentage of users. All users will have trouble with the battery - eventually. My DS4s ran out of battery life in about three years of usage; I still have one of them that I use wired with my PC, but I absolutely cannot use it wireless. Likewise with my DS5s - one of them barely held a charge 2-3 years in. I'm sure with good battery management you can extend the lifespan to be closer to 5-6 years, like my M1 MBP from 2021 that still has a 9+h battery life (though down from 12 as I remember), but that only keeps them going for a little longer. It's just a fact of how Li-ion batteries work that they will lose their capacity eventually.
E: DS4 = DualShock 4, DS5 = DualSense; these are the standard PlayStation controllers for the PS4 and the PS5 respectively.
Props for using the Apple wording, I guess.
Battery life is shorter, and some are a tad heavier.
5 years later, after a battery swap, the model with a replaceable battery has a longer battery life than the one stuck with a degraded battery.
Is it?
>Battery capacity: 5172mAh, approximately 1% smaller than current version (5220mAh)
Quoting just one of the smallest one feels a bit... charged. There's small tradeoffs among all of them when you account for weight.
For everyone else here's the full list:
Switch 2 Battery capacity: 5172mAh, approximately 1% smaller than current version (5220mAh) Weight: Approximately 411g, around 10g heavier than current version With Joy-Con 2 controllers attached: Approximately 548g, around 14g heavier than current version (approximately 534g).
JoyCon 2: Battery capacity: No change. Weight: each 2g heavier
Switch 2 Pro Controller: Battery capacity: 897mAh, approximately 16% smaller than current version (1070mAh). Weight: Approximately 228g, around 7g lighter than current version (approximately 235g).
N64 Controller: Battery capacity: No change. Weight: Approximately 234g, around 1g heavier than current version (approximately 233g)
GameCube controller: Battery capacity: 525mAh, approximately 5% larger than current version (500mAh). Weight: 215g, around 5g heavier than current version (210g).
They quoted what matters the most as it's for a device which has single shortest runtime on a battery: the Switch console itself.
Because who cares if the controller lasts 27 or 30 days? (Or so, don't quite me on exact numbers).
> like all the smartphone brands
But there is at least some argument that smartphones nowadays have some pretty crazy waterproofness that I'm not sure is physically possible with a replaceable battery?
This is not true. There are old replaceable-battery dumbphones that were rated in feet of submersion.
In more concrete terms, there are modern (2025) smartphones like the Samsung Galaxy XCover7 Pro w/ replaceable batteries which have IP67 (1 meter of water for 30 minutes) or higher certification. The back panel popping off too easily (and dumping the battery with it) is one of the common cons with the device though, so while you can get everything it is an extra layer of difficulty to try to design around correctly.
We love to mock flat-earthers but believe it or not there are many people on HN who don't believe gaskets are a real thing.
I expect smartphones to look more like the Pro Controller tradeoffs than the joy cons. The issue with replaceable batteries is you need the extra space for the battery structure so unless phones grow they'll have lower capacities. There's also IP ratings, phones have pretty good IP ratings these days often surviving drops in puddles etc where none of these products have any official IP rating to preserve when adding doors etc for replacement batteries.
I'm baffled that we still are thinking that we want thin phones. We have a gigantic camera bump that would be removed if the phone was thicker. Who wants a razor in their pocket, like really?
> So there was nothing "limiting" them from making it already with user-replaceable batteries, they just didn't care enough until EU forced them (like all the smartphone brands). Love EU.
At the very least, the design will be more complicated to accommodate replaceable batteries. That costs money. There's a lot more to "limiting" than functionality.
They could've just designed it that way to begin with.
Thanks to this regulation, they will the next time around.
A more complicated design costs more money to build/test and introduces more modes of failure in the final product.
I'm not too worried. Removable batteries were standard fare for decades before Apple came around and set negative precedent. I don't recall it ever causing issues.
The current hack is to buy devices made for disposable batteries and then use rechargeables. Electric toothbrushes almost all come with built-in non-removable batteries... except the cheapest ones, which also work fine.
I’m happy that my gadgets no longer need expensive AA batteries.
...or NiMH AA rechargeable batteries if you could be arsed.
It's amazing how quickly we forget
Removable batteries were standard fare for decades before Apple came around and set negative precedent.
You must be newly hatched.
I have plenty of devices in my gadget box with non-replaceable batteries that pre-date Apple's iPhones, and even its iPods.
Sure. But I bet you also have plenty of gadgets with replaceable batteries.
Just because something is standard fare doesn't mean it's the only option. Point is, it was quite common in the past.
Except for an up-to-16% reduction in capacity, and slightly increased weight, depending on the product.
You mean an up-to-5% increase in capacity, and slightly decreased weight, depending on the product?
The truth is that the product with the 16% reduced capacity (Switch 2 Pro controller) is 7g lighter and the one with the 5% increased capacity (Gamecube controller) is 5g heavier.
Besides those two, the general idea is that the capacity is the same with 2-3% extra weight.
Some of these are no change because the existing versions already have pretty user replacement friendly batteries. The JoyCons for example already use the hard sided cells with plugs so I'm not sure what the change will actually amount to. If I had to guess it's maybe to change the glue or method of holding the battery in place to satisfy the ease of replacement requirements.
How do those stats look 5 years later, when one is stuck with a degraded battery, and the other has had an easy battery swap?
The 16% is for the Pro Controller though, to be fair.
The Switch 2 itself loses 1% of battery capacity, most other products none at all.
Your framing seems a bit selective to the point of being misleading.
16% less battery life in a controller is pretty significant!
I wonder if it will feel significant. I can't remember being limited by the controller battery. The runtime on a single charge is probably still going to be measured in weeks, and at that scale I feel like it doesn't really matter.
Yes but it's limited to only the Nintendo Switch 2 Pro Controller.
The basic Joy-cons have no change to their battery capacity.
It's because they're basically already using user replaceable batteries, to the point I'm not sure what the SKU revision will actually do. My best guess is they won't be gluing the battery down any more? Otherwise there's not anything I can see they would need to change.
https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Joy-Con+Battery+Replacement/113...
Agreed, that one's not great. But it seems to be the only product that has serious trade-offs.
seeing as the product itself already advertises that it's best to not charge it to 100% feel like nothing's being lost here no matter how one tries to spin it
You still lose capacity with a smaller battery, even if you don't charge it to 100%.
Important to understand non-functional requirements (NFR). They’re saying the core features are the same. They are not saying they’re identical in weight, repair cost, water/dust resistance, battery lifetime, or cost.
Amazes me they don't just sell it like that everywhere because it sounds a lot like a product improvement...
> The revised products will be available on a rolling basis in territories where Nintendo of Europe conducts business, either directly or through a distributor, namely: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom.
According to their latest fiscal report [0], Europe sales-volume of Switch2 is ~24% of the total global sales volume.
The change surely eats into their margin per device, so they prefer to keep the higher margin for the rest of the world and recalculate their margin for europe.
However interesting: "The Americas" sells 34% of all Switch2 in the world [0]. I wouldn't expect the US to mandate the same changes, but if e.g. Canada or Brazil also demand replaceable batteries, it could push the needle to making it a default HW-feature of Switch2...
[0] https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2026/260203_2e.pdf
The higher margin is mostly coming from assembly costs, right? I can't imagine it comes from the actual cost of the battery being so much higher. I hope that once they start pushing these out and retool factories for them they can sell them more broadly.
The lower margin for the new variant you mean?
From my experience, it comes from costs generated by:
1. Additional R&D-work and QA for the modification
2. New supply-chain deals for lower-volume components
Current sales-volume of Europe is only a quarter of the global volume, so price-negotiation is based on a much lower total volume-forecast.
Even if not, Battery prices today are ~15% higher than in 2024 (I expect Nintendo signed the supply-deal in late 2024), it'll be hard for Nintendo to cancel their existing supply-contract before fulfilling it (!), move to a different component AND get the same/lower price.
--> Better to sell other regions as-is, fulfill the contract and hope for a better climate in a year.
3. Tooling/Assembly (Ramp-Up costs, different processes, QA,...)
4. Re-certification of HW for relevant bodies in that region (Europe is quite lean on this, CE-certification is simple compared to US FTC/FCC)
I can almost hear the conversation with Nintendo of America CEO about covering 1/3 of the cost to get the same SKU and him simply responding "No, we just raised the prices because of component-cost increase, we wait for the HW-refresh in 2H/2027"
I wouldn't be surprised if they plan to unify the SKU again with a premium "Switch 2 OLED", offsetting the additional costs, preserving the margin and having an additional selling-point...
I would prefer the current versions without anything replaceable. I have the Switch bought on day 1 and a Pro Controller which is 9 years old. Yes, the Switch was mostly used docked, but the battery is last thing failing there, it rather has issues with the fan, the screen scratches etc. The controller works perfectly and I charge it once a month. The replaceable battery would only make it less solid.
The biggest Switch issue by far is joystick drift on joycons. I've replaced 3 on my Switch 2 already and we have the same issue on the new Switch 2 in the office.
My day 1 Switch battery was definitely significantly degraded when I did a DIY battery swap a couple of years back.
Battery longevity varies based on usage patterns and likely other factors (temperature?), but it's normal to notice a significant reduction in capacity within 4-5 years.
And the amount of adhesive holding the old battery in made replacing it an unnecessarily hard and actually dangerous (risk of battery fire due to physical damage) process.
EU also forced Nintendo to provide lifetime free repairs on drifty joycons since Nintendo chooses not to address the issue.
https://www.euroconsumers.org/game-over-for-faulty-nintendo-...
Quite a few of these aren't EU members, some aren't even in Europe; do we know why they were added? e.g.: Switzerland or United Kingdom; but also Oman or United Arab Emirates.
It's easier for Nintendo of Europe to switch over everyone than to stock and supply 2 versions of every product. Also I'd bet most of their sales come from the EU countries where the replaceable battery requirement is forcing this new SKU deployment anyways.
Norway is in the ECC together with Iceland, but for some reason Iceland is not on the list where these SKUs will be available.
That's probably because Iceland is not an official Sales-territory of Nintendo, it's handled by Bergsala AB, a swedish distributor which serves the market there.
It's everywhere Nintendo of Europe (the subsidiary in the EU) operates.
This makes sense - thanks!
Storage, and distribution costs.
It’s infuriating that it’s not just the default, especially for a game console where the majority of profit is coming from software sales.
Every Switch that becomes unplayable where fixing it costs more than a $20 battery replacement is a console that is not buying games from the Nintendo eShop.
Or a new switch being bought by the parent for the distressed child
Shorter battery life is just fine
> Amazes me they don't just sell it like that everywhere because it sounds a lot like a product improvement...
I'm not so sure. The first laptop I bought, a Titanium Powerbook, had replaceable batteries. And even better than that: you could hot-swap them while the laptop was running on battery power, and the laptop wouldn't even shut off. It felt leagues ahead of even modern replaceable battery functionality, and honestly? After owning that laptop for years, I felt like I just wasted my money with that additional battery.
Part of it, I'm sure, was that I didn't have an external charger to charge the battery not currently in the laptop. But on the whole, it just didn't feel like it was actually worthwhile, and when Apple stopped shipping replaceable batteries, I've never missed it.
(Hot swapping the batteries really was awesome, though)
I had an Apple laptop that had two bays, one on the left and one on the right. Usually, you'd have the battery on the left and the CD drive on the right. But for lots of people, battery life was more important than a CD drive on a laptop, so you could double your battery life by putting in a battery on both sides.
Tech used to be fricken cool :-)
Compulsory Apple-defending post is compulsory.
Non-replaceable batteries are worse for consumers and worse for the environment. The fact that you "do not miss" a better world, does not mean it is not better.
I have an old ThinkPad as my only laptop. It came to me used, with an aftermarket battery.
That battery was great for a couple of years before it started to get wonky, so I replaced it with a different aftermarket battery.
This process took zero tools. It took less time to swap in a new battery than it did for me to write this comment. Anyone can do it; it is not an arduous procedure.
What was the added environmental cost here? Some "single-use" plastics that lasted for years?
Easily swappable batteries do have significant downsides, you either need to compromise on capacity or form factor.
Of course that doesn’t mean they should be hard to replace with some tools and effort.
To be fair back in those days laptops only lasted on battery power for a few hours at most (also old batteries had a very short lifetime compared to modern ones) so being able to swap it was an actually useful feature.
> Non-replaceable batteries
Most batteries are replaceable. The difference is the level of effort involved.
Replacing a Switch 1 battery really annoyed me. No problem with tiny screws and fiddly disassembly.
Big problem with the truly excessive amount and strength of adhesive holding the old one in place, and having a real struggle to remove it (even after trying with IPA and dental floss)
> The fact that you "do not miss" a better world, does not mean it is not better.
In the abstract, yeah, it's better. But the extra battery cost me a lot of money, and I did not feel it was money well spent.
Phones used to work like that too. I think all my feature phones and first Android phone worked if it was plugged in with the battery removed.
The thing about the TI powerbook was, it didn't have to be plugged in to hot swap the battery. You could do it when running on battery power. (It had a tiny internal battery, that could run it for like 20-30 seconds, so long as the screen was closed).
It did also run when plugged in with the battery removed, which is good 'cause the battery eventually failed. So this way I can still run it.
Oh! Cool!
[delayed]
>Nintendo Switch, Nintendo Switch Lite, and Nintendo Switch – OLED Model will all continue to be manufactured in 2026, and should be widely available in Europe all year.
>From mid-February 2027, almost ten years after Nintendo Switch launched in March 2017, Nintendo will no longer sell to retailers hardware in the Nintendo Switch family of systems – specifically Nintendo Switch, Nintendo Switch Lite and Nintendo Switch – OLED Model. Sales of Nintendo Switch hardware on Nintendo Store will also end in mid-February 2027.
Understandable, but maybe that shouldn't be buried in the FAQ...
More complete:
The below products will not be replaced by versions that contain user-replaceable batteries in Europe:
- Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) Controller for Nintendo Switch
- Pokémon™ GO Plus +
- Nintendo Switch
- Nintendo Switch Lite
- Nintendo Switch – OLED Model
- Nintendo Switch Pro Controller
- SEGA Mega Drive Control Pad for Nintendo Switch
- Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES) Controller for Nintendo Switch
Nintendo will no longer offer the above-named products on Nintendo Store after mid-February 2027.
Brussels effect, please do your magic; thanks.
Brussels effect, please do your magic; thanks.
"Brussels Effect" is the new "California Emissions."
Please keep the conversation merit based.
Related page posted on 04-jun-2026: "Compliance with EU Directives and Regulations" https://www.nintendo.com/en-gb/Corporate/Consumer-Informatio... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48402926)
Interesting, in the fineprint they actually confirm that they set the "Switch 1" End-Of-Life by Feb.2027 and stop selling it.
This means they will lose the revenue of that product-line (currently ~15% of their total hardware unit sales according to their fiscal report [0]), which may help accelerate the need for a "lite" version of the Switch2 to recover this market-segment...
...or not, because console sales is generally dropping and there's actually no competition to Nintendo in the handheld console segment...
Bleak times ahead for the gaming industry, and for the gamers...
[0] https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2026/260203_2e.pdf
Not sure what they'll do (Maybe they'll release Switch2 Lite or Switch 2 OLED in Q2/Q3 2027). but I guess like Apple stopped with Lightning until they finished their transition to USB-C they'll just let the transition work.
Wish they'd do a Switch 2 edition without a screen. I use mine (Switch 1) 100% docked.
Are the batteries in the Nintendo switch locked in anyway? Wonder if its viable that third party batteries could have an increased capacity.
There are definitely third party batteries, but the replacement process is not trivial for a typical person. Lots of adhesives are involved.
Also, third party batteries vary wildly in quality -- I've replaced the battery in my Nintendo switch twice, both times using brands I've heard of, and neither battery is as good as the original OEM battery was when i first got it.
So now the rest of the world will try to put a hand on these models. Lets see how this goes.
It's kinda crazy that they're releasing an improved version only in places where it's mandatory by law. You'd think it's cheaper (and definitely better PR) to just release the new version everywhere.
I will agree with you! Just release it for all. Also now they have to make 2 devices, which it should probably be more hassle.
Honestly, amazing stuff. For all the flak that the EU gets this is absolutely an essential regulation
One might argue that this is one of the reason why the EU is getting flak: because it sets up regulations that lower some companies profit.
It’s equal parts funny and frustrating to see how deep into the ”a few hypothetical percent of profits for corporations matters more than customer rights and less e-waste” some are.
They will still get all the flak, facts never mattered.
And just like everything moving to USB-C, they won't get credit for the Switch 3 et al having replaceable batteries world-wide.
I don't know about that, i think it's pretty common knowledge that the EU caused the iPhone port change, and it's generally regarded as a good thing
I'm preparing to release my first app to the App Store and they're currently requiring me to dox myself if I want to sell in the EU. Which facts am I missing that makes this not very inconvenient for me?
It might be a good regulation but it is definitely not essential!
This. The top problems facing the world are gaming consoles' charging sources. Everything else is thankfully solved.
It's not about games consoles. It's about reducing the mountains of e-waste.
We shouldn't be throwing away laptops, smartphones, or consoles - or soon, entire EVs, just because the battery has degraded.
All of those things can be recycled and almost all of them can be replaced whether or not its end-user-servicable.
Nothing should be improved unless it solves world hunger.
Shameless plug: we're building an e-bike battery (compatible with Bosch controllers) that's also repairable, if some people like that idea!
https://infinite-battery.com :)