sethnintendo said:
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. |
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.
