Nintendo has announced that the Nintendo Switch 2 will have a suggested retail price of R$ 4,599.90 in the Brazilian market starting on September 1, 2026. This adjustment corresponds to a 2.2% increase compared to the initial launch price of R$ 4,499.90 in June 2025.
The Japanese company continues to sell the previous Switch model, whose price will remain unchanged in Brazilian territory.
The decision to raise costs for the Brazilian market occurred just over a month after a similar move in the United States. In the US, the increase was more pronounced, jumping from US$ 449 to US$ 499, representing an 11% growth.
In a press release, Nintendo justified the increase as a 'response to various changes in market conditions, which are expected to persist in the medium and long term,' although it did not detail the meaning of this statement.
It can be inferred that this readjustment is linked to the RAM and SSD memory supply crisis. The intense production of data centers intended for artificial intelligence has put pressure on suppliers, reducing the availability of these components for the market and drastically raising the prices of various electronics.
In the video game segment, Nintendo is not the only one making such adjustments. In March 2026, Sony raised the price of the PlayStation 5, which went from R$ 4,499 to R$ 5,099. Internationally, Microsoft implemented increases of up to US$ 150 on the Xbox line and also discontinued the sale of the 2TB model.
Other sectors have also seen price increases for their products since last year, including companies such as Apple, Dell, Lenovo, Roku, and Raspberry Pi.
OpenAI announced on Thursday, the 30th, a significant decrease in the costs of its smaller and mid-sized artificial intelligence models. This measure aims to make the use of these technologies more viable for companies amid growing concerns about AI-related expenses.
The company, known for developing ChatGPT, implemented an 80% cut in the cost of the GPT 5.6 Luna model and reduced the price of the mid-tier Terra model by 20%. This change comes in an increasingly competitive market, where there are disputes with other companies and the emergence of lower-cost Chinese alternatives.
The new pricing structure primarily affects the cost charged for data processing in OpenAI's smaller models. Specifically, the Luna model is now priced at 20 cents per million input tokens, compared to the previous value of US$ 1. The Terra model saw its price drop from US$ 2.50 to US$ 2 per million input tokens.
Regarding response generation, the Luna's cost was reduced from US$ 6 to US$ 1.20 per million tokens, while the Terra was adjusted from US$ 15 to US$ 12. The price of the company's main model, named Sol, remained unchanged.
This reduction occurs during a period when many corporations are finding it challenging to estimate the financial impact of intensive AI use. The sector has shown a trend of transitioning from fixed subscription plans to usage-based billing systems, which can generate instability and increases in operational costs.
OpenAI attributes this possibility of price drops to efficiency advancements integrated into GPT 5.6, citing improvements in both code development and internal system performance optimization.
The pricing strategy also exerts pressure on competitors. Anthropic, which has a strong user base among developers and companies with its Claude line, maintains higher prices on the mid-tier model equivalent to Terra. Data shows that Claude Sonnet 4.6 costs US$ 3 per million input tokens and US$ 15 per million output tokens, values higher than those currently practiced by Terra.
Furthermore, the market dispute is intense with the growth of open-source models developed by Chinese competitors, such as GLM 5.2, linked to Z.ai, which is pointed out as an option capable of approaching the performance of major Western companies at a lower cost.
Analysts observe that the price decrease may encourage more organizations to adopt artificial intelligence tools. However, this movement may also exert financial pressure on companies in the sector before any potential public stock offerings.
The mergers and acquisitions market showed aggressive warming in the last quarter, moving approximately $1.4 billion. This figure represents the most robust volume in the last twelve months and the second largest in three years. However, a more detailed analysis of this capital indicates a significant shift in the type of acquisitions, signaling that funding for ambitious projects requiring ground-up development is scarce.
Currently, there is a trend of consolidation focused exclusively on cash flow stability. Companies are prioritizing the purchase of already consolidated user bases over the appeal of traditional intellectual property. Recent moves, such as Supercell buying Metacore and Atari incorporating Hipster Whale, illustrate this new business approach.
Instead of investing in creating a new brand, the market shows a preference for paying a premium for proven retention and predictable Lifetime Value, absorbing casual studios specialized in maintaining daily player engagement.
This search for financial security takes on a more critical tone when analyzing the opposite side of the market, where the traditional model of large productions has suffered a major reality check. A notable regulatory event last week was the approval of the purchase of Electronic Arts (EA) for $55 billion. This transaction was led by a Saudi sovereign wealth fund, consolidating the use of soft power to acquire Western infrastructure.
Although a check of this magnitude may seem like a positive capital injection at first glance, the executive perspective reveals that this move functions more as heavy support for a structure that could no longer sustain itself autonomously. The inherent financial risk of leveraged operations of this size is that buyers contract massive loans and transfer this debt directly to the acquired company. As an immediate consequence, EA's balance sheet saw an increase of almost $20 billion in liabilities.
With this financial pressure, the company is suffocated by debt that demands immediate returns, eliminating any room for the patience necessary for innovation. Structural damage has already begun to be perceived internally, as in the case of BioWare, which reduced its staff to fewer than 100 employees after the failure of Dragon Age, now depending entirely on the production of the next Mass Effect to justify its corporate existence under management that no longer tolerates risky investments.
For those who follow the business landscape, the lesson about the reevaluation of digital entertainment is clear. However, the outlook for the sector's future is not pessimistic. While financial capital has lost tolerance for unpredictability, the squeeze on superproductions has created the ideal environment for the expansion of the independent market. In recent years, the global revenue of independent games has grown at double-digit rates, varying between 14% and 16% annually, capturing significant shares of revenue on digital platforms and proving that decentralized creativity is quite profitable.
Independent titles have dominated awards and gained public favor for several seasons. There is a conviction that the true future of game development lies in this dynamic. The independent model provides greater agility in production, complete creative freedom, and requires minimal investment, allowing for a much more equitable distribution of resources. Thus, the collapse of the traditional format under the weight of its own debts should not be seen as a tragedy, but rather as the best news to ensure a healthier and more ventilated gaming ecosystem.
