If the Switch isn't the successor of the 3DS as well as the Wii U, is it just getting a mainline Pokémon for the lulz?
Companies often say that things that aren't totally true (Nintendo did say the DS wasn't a successor to the GBA...). They can't just outright say that the Switch will replace the 3DS while the 3DS is selling perfectly well, but we are still allowed to apply a little bit critical thought to what Nintendo or any other company says, right?
The Switch being a successor to the 3DS and the Wii U does not mean it needs to outsell them combined to be a success (though I think it will), because neither the 3DS nor the Wii U were particularly successful for Nintendo in terms of profit. The 3DS did well enough unit-wise, but Nintendo had to bleed a lot to achieve that, which deeply affected their bottom line. They don't have to do the same with the Switch because the Switch is a much better value proposition than the 3DS was at launch, so Nintendo's bottom line will be much more postively affected by the Switch than the 3DS could manage.
