Just keep it the same, the only thing they need to do is state that it's a different form factor of the existing system.

And that's where I think the challenge will lie, if any. Nintendo will have to distinguish the console enough that it's not necessarily the Switch, but still the Switch. They don't want a Wii U type situation in their marketing of the Switch. The Switch is firmly established as a hybrid console that plays home console-type of games and has the ability to provide immediate local multiplayer thanks to the Joy Cons. The "Share the Joy" concept of the Joy Cons are well-established. This isn't a 3DS situation in which the 3D aspect of the console eventually lost relevance. The Joy Cons are pretty significant in distinguishing the console as something to share with. Games like Snipperclips, 1-2 Switch, and Super Mario Party heavily utilize the concept, especially since SMP does not have Pro Controller or Joy Con grip support, especially with some of the mini games needing a single Joy Con for its features.

Nintendo would have to be careful in how they market a so-called Switch mini or Joy-Conless Switch.

1. First point was about games, and fact that you could play 99% of games with built in controls. Its not point about identity, its point about offering different type of revisions and price points of same platform.

2. Its not issue at all, we literally talking about few games (4-5 games from over 1.000 games) that cant be used in handheld mode. DSi and 3DS revisions also have games that couldnt be played on every DSi or 3DS revision.

3. What? I very clear said what would be point of that model, again, "this would be just one low price point revision and one offer of "Switch family" for people who want cheap device that they would play only in handheld mode". And no, not every person would choose more price "real Switch" instead low price point only handheld Switch.

I mean you overcomplicate things too much, point would be to offer different type of revisions and price points, you would still have standard Switch model on market in any case, so Switch like platform will not loose anything it will have broader appealing with different type of revisions and price points. You talking about originality, but you forgetting that Nintendo with 2DS ditch 3D and clamshell Dual Screen design in order to have low price offer of 3DS family, they will most likely do something similar with 3DS also.

3DS is dying and it will be dead next year, Nintendo will want low price point Switch next year or year after latest, and they cant have soon enough Switch for $150-200 with just normal revisions and costs save buy time. They will want broad apealing on market, so you will have low price point Switch, normal version and more expansive, similar like 3DS family.

No, low price point Switch with built in controls focused on handheld play is great idea, it would effectively be replacement for price point on market that 3DS currently covers. Imagine something like this in one point:

-Switch Mini/Pocket (smaller form factor, smaller screen, built in controls, without dock...) - $150

-Switch TV (something similar like Vita TV, just for home console use, comes with Switch Pro controler but supports Joy Cons) - $150

-New Switch (revision of current Switch and it will replace current Switch on market similar like New 3DS replaced OG 3DS) - around $250

-Switch Pro (improved Switch in some way) - $300

So we basically talking about Switch family, so offer of different type of revisions and price points of same platform, 99% games would run in any mode and thats more important.

Switch will probably be much bigger than just single device with one concept, Switch will most likely be platform with different type of revisions and price points, something similar to 3DS with difference that Switch like hybrid has much more potential for different type of revisions than 3DS.

1. First point was about games, and fact that you could play 99% of games with built in controls. Its not point about identity, its point about offering different type of revisions and price points of same platform.

2. Its not issue at all, we literally talking about few games (4-5 games from over 1.000 games) that cant be used in handheld mode. DSi and 3DS revisions also have games that couldnt be played on every DSi or 3DS revision.

3. What? I very clear said what would be point of that model, again, "this would be just one low price point revision and one offer of "Switch family" for people who want cheap device that they would play only in handheld mode". And no, not every person would choose more price "real Switch" instead low price point only handheld Switch.

I mean you overcomplicate things too much, point would be to offer different type of revisions and price points, you would still have standard Switch model on market in any case, so Switch like platform will not loose anything it will have broader appealing with different type of revisions and price points. You talking about originality, but you forgetting that Nintendo with 2DS ditch 3D and clamshell Dual Screen design in order to have low price offer of 3DS family, they will most likely do something similar with 3DS also.

3DS is dying and it will be dead next year, Nintendo will want low price point Switch next year or year after latest, and they cant have soon enough Switch for $150-200 with just normal revisions and costs save buy time. They will want broad apealing on market, so you will have low price point Switch, normal version and more expansive, similar like 3DS family.

No, low price point Switch with built in controls focused on handheld play is great idea, it would effectively be replacement for price point on market that 3DS currently covers. Imagine something like this in one point:

-Switch Mini/Pocket (smaller form factor, smaller screen, built in controls, without dock...) - $150

-Switch TV (something similar like Vita TV, just for home console use, comes with Switch Pro controler but supports Joy Cons) - $150

-New Switch (revision of current Switch and it will replace current Switch on market similar like New 3DS replaced OG 3DS) - around $250

-Switch Pro (improved Switch in some way) - $300

So we basically talking about Switch family, so offer of different type of revisions and price points of same platform, 99% games would run in any mode and thats more important.

Switch will probably be much bigger than just single device with one concept, Switch will most likely be platform with different type of revisions and price points, something similar to 3DS with difference that Switch like hybrid has much more potential for different type of revisions than 3DS.

I think its a really good idea but will say 200$ instead of 150 for the first two, cant see nintendo dropping its pricr that much if it sells well

With rumors of a Switch revision floating around for next year, one idea many have suggested, was a small, cheap, handheld only model that has no detachable Joy-Con, or dock, and was just a generic handheld device. Anytime this idea is suggested, I have to facepalm in disappointment. In truth, such a device is not only a bad idea, but would also completely defeat the point of the Switch. As the Joy-Con actually make it a better system. Here's why.

Software compatibility - Problem #1 with this concept is that you automatically kill support for any game that relies on them to work. Sure, a lot of Switch games offer button based controls as alternatives. But then you have games like 1-2 Switch, Just Dance, Nintendo Labo, Super Mario Party, etc. that forgo handheld mode support, so that the game can be designed completely around the Joy-Con. So now this handheld only Switch isn't guaranteed to play all Switch games.

Discourages use of the Joy-Con - Another issue is that just the mere existence of such a device will automatically scare developers away from doing anything cool with these controllers. Now they have to consider not everyone has these controllers to play, so they have to dumb the game down just to function on buttons. While some people may like that, it kills a ton of creativity that could be had on Switch, and can even make several games worse to play as a result. This isn't like 3D where it was explicitly mandated to be optional, Nintendo allows developers to design games exclusively around the Joy-Con, so making a handheld only Switch tosses all of that out the window for no reason.

It makes the Switch more generic - The biggest problem I have with the proposal of this idea, is that it demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of why the Switch is so successful. It's easy to say the Switch is selling well because it's a Nintendo handheld. And while it's true portability is a big part of it's success, it's far from the only reason. I think the bigger reason why the Switch is a success is because it's a way more original concept than "Just another great Nintendo handheld". In a day and age where conventional handhelds are dead due to the ubiquity of smartphones, the Switch offers features and play-styles that instantly distinguish itself from your typical mobile device. It's a home console, you can play on the TV as well. You can also play with a friend by sharing a Joy-Con, pop up the kick-stand and play motion control games anywhere. Have Jean Sebastian Joust Nonsense with 1-2 Switch at a coffee shop, build cardboard toys out of it with Nintendo Labo, turn dual screen gaming on its head with Super Mario Party. And a host of other ways to play. A large part of the Switch's appeal, lies in the seemingly endless play-styles you can mine from it, and that's thanks almost entirely to the Joy-Con. There's a reason they're the Switch's logo, because the focus isn't the console or its play-styles, rather it's the controllers that help enable those play-styles. The Joy-Con help give the Switch something to stand on its own with. Take them away, you take away everything that makes the Switch interesting, and turn it into the very thing it was designed NOT to be. Just another generic, run-of-the-mill gaming handheld, in a day and age where those devices are practically extinct.

This is why I believe Nintendo shouldn't entertain the thought of such a device. It's an unnecessary product that would have no real market and would defeat the entire point of the Switch. Besides, whatever problem it could solve, can already be addressed by time and a dock-less bundle. A Switch bundle without a dock honestly, does a much better job at appealing to the more price conscious side of the mobile market, while still retaining the core concept of the Switch.

Haha, I see now.

I suspect they're concern trolling and straight up troll-trolling.

But anyway, Nintendo COULD release a console like that, but why dump all the money into creating a piece of hardware that will probably do more to confuse old parents and impulse buyers than to find a new base of happy customers.

Yes, Nintendo did release the 2DS, but that was largely responding to a widescale demand from parents who wanted to get a new handheld for their young children - since there was widescale panic from tabloids about 3DS potentially capable of blinding children. There isn't any such demand for some kind of non-Switch Switch. Also, 3DS to 2DS is an easy product name, I don't think the "Non-Switch" is a very appealing sounding product for anyone. Additionally, the 2DS is capable of playing all the 3DS games, since 3D was not essential to gameplay; this is not true about the Joy Cons, which are the only controllers that work with every game on the Switch.

1. The vast majority of games...something like well over 90%, work perfectly well in portable mode, and even a smaller amount of games are incapable of running games in portable mode. I already play my Switch PRIMARILY as a portable device, and software compatibility isn’t a huge issue. Unless I want marginally better controls in Mario Odyssey or want to play Arms, I only plug it into the dock when I want the big screen experience these days.

2. Portable mode as a whole discourages the use of joycons. Any developer that wants to include portable play in their games makes the joycons an optional experience. 

And if a developer REALLY needs to use the joycon for their games? That’s already most of the userbase if a portable-only Switch ever comes out, and unless that model outsells the regular  Switch model and supersedes it, that’ll always be the case. And if it isn’t? There probably wasn’t a huge market for joycon-heavy games anyway.

So far, there have been VERY few games that actually use the joycons in any sort of compelling way. There doesn’t appear to be much demand from developers to utilize joycons.

3. I agree with the idea that the Switch is successful because it isn’t generic. The hybrid concept is a brilliant one. But the Switch’s success is not built on 1-2 Switch and Labo. Neither product have done especially well, in fact. The jury is still out on Super Mario Party, but regardless: the main reason why the Switch is successful is not its bevy of playstyles. It’s not because of the joycons and HD rumble. It’s because it’s a portable device that can also be a console device that has loads of console-quality games that work seemlessly between the two modes.

But I’d also argue that the Switch has succeeded not BECAUSE of the joycons, but in spite of them. We didn’t need better motion control. We didn’t need HD rumble. They are neat little features, but they aren’t why I love my Switch. 

When you look at Nintendo’s top sellers, what do you see?

https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/finance/software/index.html

Loads of games that rely heavily on the joycons to function? Nah. You mostly see high quality games, that work perfectly well in portable mode. Of the two exceptions (Arms and 1-2 Switch) neither of them are exactly HUGE sellers. 1-2 Switch certainly isn’t Wii Sports. Arms is doing fine for a new IP, but it’s no Splatoon. Everything else works great in portable mode.

And if you REALLY want to play those joycon games? A joycon-less Switch ought to also be able to connect with accessories via Bluetooth to do table top-mode anyway.

Ultimately though, my MAIN problem within your argument is...that you act like a joycon-less Switch is going to replace the regular Switch. That wouldn’t be the idea, at all. The whole point of it would be to give portable gamers a proper replacement for the 3DS, one with a similar POCKETABLE portable form factor. This is my biggest issue with the Switch right now: it simply isn’t as portable as my 3DS is. It’s a pain to stick in my pocket, or any other place I could have put past Nintendo portables. The joycons can pop off, it’s bulky. It simply isn’t portable ENOUGH.

People have been all anxious for Nintendo to kill off the 3DS and replace it with the Switch, without considering that the Switch had to make sacrifices in portable mode that are inconvenient or frustrating for portable-only or portable-primary people to deal with.

The whole point of a device like this would be to fill the niche currently occupied by the 3DS. More portable. Cheaper. Hell, they could even replicate the 3DS form factor, add 3DS/DS backwards compatibility via emulation, and include a second screen for some exclusive (but purely optional) dual screen functions, such as inventory management in BotW or restoring second-screen functions in Wii U ports. But it WOULDN’T be to usurp the Switch. If anything, it would provide an option for people who don’t care about the handful of joycon games or TV functionality.

It’s something I would definitely buy if it’s not overpriced. And it most definitely wouldn’t usurp my regular Switch either, much like how my iPhone doesn’t usurp my iPad Pro.

TheMisterManGuy said: 

3. But their success shows that there is an audience for these games on Switch. A handheld only model completely screws that audience over.