I don't see why the would release a handheld that isn't compatible with the Switch library.  I see no reason why they would split their development teams again when they struggled with the 3DS and Wii U output.  I believe they'll just shrink the Switch to a more portable form factor and that will be called the Switch Lite or something like that.

That really all depends on Nintendo's actions doesn't it?

Dunno, I appreciate the 3ds xl's size/weight more than the (massive and slightly heavy imo) switch tablet. 

Make that slim down happen already. :)

Also, love the 3ds' clamshell design. Not worried of scratching it. 

My switch is docked 95% of the time... MK8 on a 55" tv though... now that's fun.

No there isn't relly logical reasons, and that would against facts that I mentioned. I don't pretend anything, for me (and for huge majority of people here) that is very obvious and actually almost certain scenario.

And im asking what actions do they need to do in order for you to no longer think its a possibility?

For example, lets say by Spring 2019 Switch has a Vita sized revision with a better battery life and a $199 price tag while 3DS is no longer getting any new 1st party titles and only forcasted to ship 2-3 million units during the fiscal year.

In such a scenario would you still believe that a seperate 3DS successor is a possibility?

Who said anything about having to split their development teams? If a 3DS successor had hardware and an OS similar to the Switch developing games for both platforms would be significantly less time and expense than between the Wii U and 3DS, thus Nintendo wouldn't supporting "two platforms" in a traditional sense, would they? In the meanwhile, such a device could allow Nintendo to offer a lower cost, higher battery life, lower power, more portable, non-motion control supporting "version of a Switch" that used a 3DS-based cartridges that is fully 3DS and DS backwards compatible, and would allow developers to develop specifically for that similar yet markedly different platform. With no joycon support required, the device wouldn't have to support multiple controller inputs, or motion controls, all developers would have to do make a pro controller-like control scheme the default control scheme of this platform. Think of it more as a "new operating mode" for a Switch family of devices that also exists as a standalone platform because of it's similar but significantly differernt spec sheet.

Why would they do this over a "Switch mini"? Because they can't actually make the Switch any smaller, at least height wise. See, the height of the Switch is actually dictated by the size of the Joycons. Since the joycons are detachable and fit on the side of the Switch's screen, whatever Switch Nitnendo develops has to support that. They're not going to come up with smaller versions of the Joycon controllers, as that would be a logistical nightmware, and very difficult to educate the market on. So while they might be able to make the Switch a bit less wide, and give it a better battery life, it's not going to get much easier to fit in a pocket any time soon. So you might say, "well they could just make a Switch that supports Joycons, but doesn't allow them to attach, and instead has the Joy-con style controls permanently affixed to the side." So what then? Does that really seem like a Nintendo-solution to you? That if you want to play one of the Switch games that exclusively uses motion controls with you on the go you have to bring your Switch Lite and a set of joy cons (undoubtedly sold seperately). I don't know about that. It's one thing to bring along a pro controller as an option, it's another to force gamers into doing it. The best way to make a "more portable Switch" is to make a device that doesn't support Joycons at all. Hence the 3DS successor instead of a Switch mini.

So What would Nintendo gain by this? Say a $99-$149 version of a Switch that plays a scaled down version of most of its library, along with its own exclusive titles, as well 3DS, and DS would interest a whole bunch of people that dislike the Switch's poor battery life and high cost, and sheds some of the bulk that doesn't interest the primarily portable crowd like motion controls, dockability etc. Developers wouldn't have an obligation to support this "new operating mode"-like platform if they just want to make Switch games, and if they did choose to support this new platform, the expense could not be more minimal. Developers could also sell owners of both platforms two copies of the same game for both devices if they choose, or offer digital "combo packs" that comes with versions a game for both platforms.

There's no way anyone can honestly claim such a device (or a similar one) is a less than 1% possibility of existing within the next few years, despite what many on this site would claim.

I also want a smaller and lighter Switch Mini, but the weight of 3DS XL ain't that much better.

• Switch with Joy-Cons = 397 g
• 3DS XL = 336 g
• New 3DS XL = 329 g
• PS Vita Slim = 219 g

And due to the clamshell format, the whole DS/3DS line has a bad weight distribution, which becomes especially noticable on the heavier models (DS XL/LL, 3DS XL and New 3DS XL). Clamshell has its advantages (screen protection) and its disadvantages.

But why they would do that if they can just make smaller Switch and continue working on exactly same games!? They can make smaller, cheaper, with stronger battery Switch and to continue working on exactly same hardware, OS and games.

Nonsense, of course they can make smaller Switch. Switch Mini/Pocket could have built in Joy Cons, dont need to be exactly same height or size, Switch Mini/Pocket would most likely be just for handheld play. All Switch games that have motion controls also have classic controls support (I think 1,2 Switch is only exception), even ARMS.

Far more logical and far more easier is just to make Switch Mini/Pocket, basically smaller Switch, 4-5" screen with same 720p resolution, with built in Joy Cons, only for handheld play, stronger battery, with price point around $150-200 and of course that plays all Switch games (exept 1,2 Switch), so real Switch Mini/Pocket just for handheld play instead separate platform. I dont see any reason why Nintendo would do something like you are saying over what I wrote.

A "mini"/slim Switch would indeed be nice, until they are capable of doing that at a reasonable price they can just support the 3DS with occasional titles

Yeah, I'm sure they would have a grand time trying to explain to consumers that "these Switch games only work with these type of Switches and these other Switch games only work with these other kinds of Switches" makes a lot of sense. Sounds a lot like what happened with the Wii/Wii U confusion, and that didn't go over well

How about instead they make a seperate platform, avoid that confusion altogether, give developers more options, and offer full 3DS/DS backwards compatibility in the process?

And for clarity, I'm not saying this is what I believe Nintendo should do, I'm just saying it's a reasonable possibility that shouldn't be dismissed.