Carl2291 said:
You'd be making a valid point if the Switch was replacing the 3DS. Instead, you're talking nonsense. https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/242777-nintendo-says-switch-wont-replace-3ds "3DS has a long life in front of it. We’ve already announced games that will be launching in the first couple quarters of this year. There are a number of big games coming. And in our view, the Nintendo 3DS and the Nintendo Switch are going to live side-by-side. You’re going to be meeting different price points, you’re going to be meeting different types of consumers, you’re going to have the newest, freshest content available on Nintendo Switch, you’ve got a thousand-game library available on Nintendo 3DS, plus some key new ones coming. They’re going to coexist just fine. We’ve done this before, managing two different systems. I think there’s a sense that Nintendo Switch is a portable device. It is portable. But at its heart, it’s a home console that you can take with you on the go." https://www.polygon.com/2017/1/31/14465360/nintendo-switch-wont-replace-nintendo-3ds "Our intention has always been to have Nintendo 3DS and 2DS side by side with the Switch, It's great that we have even more momentum [with the 3DS] than we anticipated, but it's always been our position to have these two products side by side." "We have heard speculation that Nintendo Switch will replace the Nintendo 3DS, as both are game systems that can be played outside the home, but Nintendo 3DS has unique characteristics that differ from those of Nintendo Switch. Furthermore, the price points and play experiences offered by the two systems are different and we do not see them as being in direct competition. We plan to continue both businesses separately and in parallel." |
Funny you say I'm taking nonsense. Not only is that insulting to me but it's also insulting to many others who also believe Switch to be a 3DS successor.
Read over on gaf and their main Nintendo sales guy (Chris1964) has regularly explained how Nintendo's primary developers have moved focus to the Switch. Actually if you have an account post on the gaf thread and ask if the Switch is a 3DS successor or not. They'll explain very well to you why it is.
For a console to get support when their new generation has arrived is nothing new. Sure look at ps2 and ps3. Now whether Nintendo intended to have a seperate handheld only succesor or not, they probably changed their mind after seeing the success of the switch.
Edit: succesor would be my preferred term to use instead of replace. because replace suggests the other console just ends but we've seen with many successors in the past (Switch, vita, PS3, ps4, XB1) that the consoles they are succeeding don't actually get replaced for a few years after launch.
