RolStoppable said:
superchunk said:
What do you mean?
I am not saying that it won't replace the 3DS. I was only parroting Nintendo's actual statements on the Switch and the reason why I think Nintendo didn't just come out and say Switch is replacing both lines and will be their only path forward.
|
Gaming journalism played up quotes to mean something different than they really meant. For example, when Nintendo was asked by mainstream media if the 3DS would be discontinued now that the Switch is launching, Nintendo answered "No, the 3DS still has life left in it." - At least one gaming website picked up on this, removed the question from their excerpt and interpreted the quote as meaning that Switch and 3DS will live side by side, therefore Switch is not the successor of the 3DS.
That Nintendo calls Switch a home gaming system that you can take anywhere has more to do with software prices than anything else. By fueling such a perception, people will have no problem with $60 games. It works, because not even Nintendo haters have picked up on this; they like to call Switch a handheld, but fail to draw the conclusion that software prices have increased and would therefore be an easy target to post more negativity.
|
Interesting viewpoint and definitely has merit. I also did not consider the game prices specifically because I consider Switch a WiiU successor.
Though I still think Nintendo was purposefully careful to not allow Switch to be seen as a 3DS successor so that:
1. 3DS hardware sales and thus profitability was secured.
2. 3DS could remain as a revenue safegaurd should Switch not do well.
I don't think what you say and what I am saying contradict eachother. More than likely it is all part of the overall plan that looks for max potential benefit regardless of the outcome of Switch's launch.