Thanks for being patient with me so far rol ...
| RolStoppable said: I don't think there's any progress in this discussion to be made on questions like by how many percent IPs are going to grow, but I'll address other points. Holding a monopoly makes things easier. Vita's worldwide performance may have been small, but what it had in Japan was sufficient for third parties to devote time to the system. Those software titles didn't include big sellers, but it's supplemental material that helps to make the library more robust. Or in other words, it reduces the probability for software droughts to happen. And this is really a key point in the Switch's prospects, because both the 3DS and Wii U suffered from droughts at various stages in their lives. The 3DS and Vita libraries were also quite different, and if sequels to Vita games and their sequels move to Nintendo's platform, consumers are likely to follow. Granted, absorbing the Vita consumer base doesn't result in a big number, but that's still several million people Sony gave up on. Nintendo isn't going to stop making Switch games. I don't know why you say such things as "Nintendo still has to give incentives in a monopoly." You are right, but it's a Captain Obvious statement that is redundant because it isn't something that is or should be in doubt. Your comments regarding revisions fall into the same category. You frame it in a way that implies concern, but somehow you still come up with three options. It's as if you find it hard to concede that Nintendo has a winner on their hands. StarDoor already pointed out that your month counts for the lifecycles of the DS and 3DS are wrong. What I am going to point out is that you are using a double standard. For Switch you take an average of all Nintendo handhelds to project the length of its lifecycle, but for the PS4 and XB1 you only use the previous generation. In all instances you ignore the unique circumstances that led to lifecycles of different lengths. That Sony and Microsoft kept the PS3 and 360 on the market for as long as possible wasn't motivated by waiting for better technology to be ready, rather it was because both suffered losses in the billions early in the generation and wanted to make back as much money as possible. The one thing that shows with Switch is that Nintendo wants to not repeat mistakes of the past. The software release schedule has already been talked about, but there has also been an investor-related statement by Kimishima that the length of Switch's lifecycle will be determined by market demand. This makes sense in relation to the Wii where Nintendo moved on too quickly. I think the next Just Dance is still releasing for the Wii; if Ubisoft can still sell Wii software, you better believe that Nintendo would have had no problem to benefit from properly supporting the Wii from 2011 all the way through 2013. Many Wii U games could have easily been Wii titles, so this isn't much of a fantasy scenario. The big caveat with the length of Switch's lifecycle is that Nintendo may get arrogant because of its success and put out a new (and possibly nonsensical) console early, so that's the one way how I could see your expectation of a 2022 launch come true. |
I can see your point in software library robustness but the Switch is doing fine as it is for software output in it's first year so I assume that Nintendo consolidating as much support as possible from whatever scraps Sony had left is just for insurance ? (All of this still hinges on the possibility of whether or not that support will mostly undividely transfer to the Switch. I checked all of the PS Vita's titles that was able to make a dent (clear 300K) with this sites data and surprisingly enough a relatively high portion of the games that have sold over 300K appear to be either IPs owned by Sony or has a history of being exclusive to Sony platforms from publishers like Namco Bandai and Sega both of which also frequently releases PS4 versions of these games so I'm not sure how that mess will play out with the PS4.) There's multiple variables to account for before we factor in whether or not a significant porportion of Vita's userbase will matter for selling Switch hardware like a developer's choice of platform, how sharing these games with the PS4 will affect the outcome and how much portability matters to these customers ...
I don't think Nintendo are going to stop making Switch games FWIW, it's how I wonder the Switch is going to grow beyond already having it's biggest established IPs. (maybe it'll be time to introduce a new AAA IP ?)
Revisions are mostly dependent on the transistor technology and usually come with cost savings (we've exhausted this until the next generation starts, most chip designers are transitioning for reasons because of pure performance and perf/power rather than perf/$) so most of the cost savings on a new possible Switch revision will come from making the other components smaller like the motherboard, display, battery, casing and cooling solution instead of the memory or logic chips. (cost structure is arguably more tighter this gen since these chips are not getting cheaper to produce, the only thing console hardware designers can do so far is take advantage of the lower power consumption to lower the price and the Switch is probably not ever going to sell for sub-$149 like the 3DS able was through the 2DS for as low as $79)
I'm also not sure if my imagination that we'll get 3 new Switch SKUs will translate to reality either ... (Why would Nintendo ever want to make a Switch home console to sacrifice one of it's biggest selling point known as portability ? So that Nintendo can appeal to it's premium hungry customers that usually don't care about hardware power other than for the possibility that they do for Nintendo games ? How are some games going to function without the touchscreen if Nintendo decides to not include a controller with an integrated touchscreen ? These doubts are exactly why I can probably rule out the idea of a Switch home console altogether and reiterate that there is realistically at most 2 possible SKUs on the horizon or they could decide not to make my theoretical 'Switch Pro' and only make a moderately cheaper 'Switch Slim'.)
I stand corrected for DS but don't stand corrected for 3DS depending the differing supply chains at the start of each region. I could very well have a double standard but I'd argue my prediction is more based on a strange heuristic because home consoles really do seem to have longer lifespans now ... (consensus is still 2020 or 2021 for new home consoles)
Recouping cost is a valid motivation but it can most definitely be more than just that because sooner or later we'll come to the point where chip manufacturing technology will stagnate. Digital technology can't keep growing on an exponential rate forever so we'll eventually come to a halt and that day is approaching fast with the next generation most likely being the last one since there's no cost advantage to be had in releasing new and more powerful hardware ... (this is most likely going to be our 'post-Silicon' future where our consumption for digital devices will be drastically reduced shortly thereafter, in this ironic twist of fate just as how solid state physics predicted vast possibilities it'll come to abrupt end)
I have another reason why the Switch may launch in 2022 and it maybe because Nintendo could afford a slightly shorter hardware cycle if they decide they want their next system to be backwards compatible and Nvidia will be ready to deliver the new SoCs in a strict schedule ...
