Otter said:
Shaunodon said:

"PS4 and Xbox One early adoption was driven by cross gen games like COD, Destiny, Dragon Age, Watchdog, MSG4, FIfa, Far Cry 4 etc. It wasn't until year 2 developers started dropping 360/PS3."

All third-party AAA and all irrelevant to the Switch market.

"DQ9 is one of the Switches best looking games and best quality ports, if it wasn't for the PS4 version we would also say what compromises?"
"If Nintendo had a more powerful system you would see a version of Pokemon where the pop-in is not aweful and low quality textures are not everywhere. You would have a version of BOTW which runs at 60fps 1440p-4k and features like far more lush foliage, draw distances, higher textures and more populated environment, more environemnt fx. This is only just the tip of the iceberg."

Ok. So your three exmaples here are:

-Dragon Quest XI*-- a game that reviewed far better on Switch, and reviewers all said that the techincal downgrades were negligible and that the QOL improvements all far outweighed them.
-Pokemon-- a game that's been heavily criticised for it's lazy development.
-Breath of the Wild-- a game already judged as perhaps the greatest of all time and setting record sales for it's franchise.

How exactly does any of this argue in favour of better hardware? People don't need Zelda in 4k 60fps. It's already a masterpiece. Switch has shown that devs who put work into a decent port get rewarded with good sales. And devs are always gonna desire porting to Switch while there's a large and growing userbase.

Momentum for Switch isn't slowing. We already know Nintendo have a ton of games gearing up for the next couple years, as Switch basically enters the second half of it's lifespan. Devs aren't dumb enough to ignore all those potential sales, so they have to come to Nintendo, not the other way around. This isn't rocket science.

I think most of your comments missed the points I was trying to make.

I'm just going to brain fart at you

-Consumers have shown they do not not need exclusivity to purchase a new platform (the point wasn't nintendo need Far Cry to sell)
-Consumers do not need Zelda in 4k and better graphics, that doesn't mean it wouldn't make for a major selling point. A bigger screen has notably increased sales of past handhelds


-DS>3DS, Wii >Wii U... All hard transitions where Nintendo waited and lost significant percentages of their previous install base. All on the hope of a new USP that didn't work. There's a lot more too it, but just maybe when you're dealing with Blue Ocean market its better to not let activity dwindle and risk becoming a fad.


-Nintendo users typically depend more heavily on ever greens (its why 2017 games are often in the chart), this makes me think that a prolong generation won't necessarily result in the constant software highs people expect. A cross gen Mario kart 9 on a new platform > MK9 on Switch alone.

-The driving force of the Switch initial success sales were hardcore Nintendo fans between 25-40, typically male. Who is to say they have no interest in a premium Switch device 5 years later where all of the Nintendo masterpieces shine like never before? And it supports the next 7 years of Nintendo games.

-What is Nintendo's next move? If its just better graphics, don't wait for the Switch to be selling 10m and interest in it to die before introducing a more power system. In terms of opportunity cost, there's way more to loose launching late, then launching early. By many people estimations on here, PS2 launched early because PS1 peaked only 2 years prior. PS1 peak 1998- PS2 release- 2000. 

-Nintendo has proven to have a fairly fickle audience for its home consoles and a strong but modest 80m audience for handheld devices. Once this core audience is fed, they should look at retargeting them with a new device. That will happen by 2022. 

-Mark my word, most devs will literally ignore all those potential sales of Switch. Giving Switch late ports, or skip it entirely. Human resources are limited and there are only so many studios you can outsource ports to. Hitting PS4/PS5/XSX/X1X in a timely manner is infinitely more important to them.


-Nintendo is not going to devs, Its simply continueing in the philosophy unified but scalable developing adapted to different play styles. The life cycle for the people of who adopted in 2017, will largely differ from those in 2020. They are of course keeping in mind, timing wise when would it be more beneficial to their partners for them to release a new System. Waiting until PS5/SX are very established offers far less value to major publishers. 

P.S I fully understand why people think a Switch 2024 is the right thing to do. It just humours me that people think 2022 would be crazy or like there is no evidence that it is actually advicable.

Again you've just managed to make a bunch of faulty arguments that don't apply to Nintendo, or the people who buy their systems. Too many for my liking.

It's not just about the Switch peaking now (which we don't even know for sure, since they're likely gonna have a stacked year in 2021), but it's also the massive momentum Switch is building up. Trying to predict a possible decline based on past Nintendo systems is equally faulty, because they've never had the kind of software support or widespread appeal that Switch has right now.

Nintendo have enough resources and experience to give Switch a healthy long lifespan, while also sufficiently preparing for their next system in a few years. The only way they could screw it up is by trying to do too much, think too hard, and release a new product far too early that no one needs and will confuse their market. One would hope they're not taking any terrible advice like that.