NSW is here to Stay!! It’s Life Will Be Long and No Successor Will Come Before 2025!

[Pavolink]

Wyrdness said:

Pavolink said:

- Please avoid hyperbole. Smartphone tech comparison is not at the same level as the NASA.

- Same can apply to the Switch. It could still be active in 2030 getting some games, but that does not neglect a succesor in 2022 or spring 2023. Wii even got Just Dance this past year and we already had Wii U and Switch.

- Developing the Switch succesor version alongside the other ones could let to more inhouse development and better quality from third parties. It can be easier for developers to add another version than look for an external studio to port an already released game. They can also have a refresh, such as the New 3DS, to address tech improvements.

- No it highlights the irrelevancy of that point perfectly because we're talking about dedicated gaming platforms and you're bringing up non gaming devices.

- You brought up active life in regards to the Switch to the 3DS and DS I just pointed out how with each it increased and changes, GB was out for 10 years before a pro model (GBC) came out and 13 until its eventual successor in the GBA and was active a further 2 years. Standard factors that you're trying to go by don't apply to the case of the Switch the parallel markets gives it far more staying power than many of its successors.

- You mean like how current gen versions were developed alongside the PS4/X1 versions? Guess how that has worked out, you're not being at all realistic here because if you think rushing out a platform is a way to to catch ports and change the situation you're fooling yourself as many of the in house developers in general have a little clue in how to approach the extra version because all they know is working with usual platforms. What's ironic is that the scenario I'm pointing out to you in releasing a later platform with better tech is better for in house developers as the less compromises make the porting and optimization easier.

The reason the extra version more so than anything is always delayed is because western third parties never wanted to factor the added platform to begin with consumers on Nintendo platforms don't support the business models they prefer so the added version is more so to squeeze out a bit more profit out of a title most of the money now days is made through mtx and season passes upfront sales are now only really covering the development costs which is the core reason behind the whole GAAS approach. This is why an outside studio is used to do the porting as at that point the in house teams are needed for the next project and its cheaper to just have people who know what they're doing take on the job.

What this ultimately means is if rushing out a platform is not going to facilitate a change then the's no point they may as well release a non rushed platform later on and get better quality port and hardware that makes them easier to get while letting the NS have a strong prolonged life.

-The tech I mentioned is expected to be implemented in the mobile/portable market.

-Then I'm wrong saying "active life" and mean main focus or main hardware or main device or whatever. My point is that Switch could see a successor in 2022-spring 2023 and still keep getting some games even after, just like the past Nintendo hardware. Releasing a succesor is not going to kill the Switch, even less if it is retrocompatible.

-Releasing a succesor at the time I pointed is not rushing it. What are the arguments to point that it would be rushed? Was Switch rushed because it came 4 and half years later than the Wii U? At what point can we say it is not rushed? 2024? Why? How do we know that? Also, not every game has a GAAS or mtx approach. Inhouse development of a Switch 2 version could happen if the tech in the device facilitates the development, and afaik, Switch tech is easy to work with, and I expect the same with the succesor. Budgets are increasing and developers are willing to put more versions on shelves if that helps with sales. I honestly don't believe there's an agenda against Nintendo, or at least not from most developers.

curl-6 said:

Pavolink said:

It actually needs to be stronger if they want to keep getting at least the same third party support from the western studios. At this point, games like the succesor for Doom Eternal, Wicher III  and Skyrim are most likely not going to appear on Switch, the downgrade may be too much. And yes, even if there are very few AAA titles, those still are good for the library. Getting Skyrim and Doom, and later on games like Witcher III, was positive marketing.

Let's also remember that Switch is 2015 tech, and by 2022, it is going to be 7 years old with better and not expensive tech in the market that would only bring benefits to the console maker and developers, making it easier to port as much titles as posible and bring another big and diverse library that would ensure another hit.

Indies, exclusives and Japanese support cannot carry on for a long time if the sales curve starts to go down. If they wait for a long time to release the succesor, Nintendo may end with another Wii situation where the console was basically dead without any hype for the successor.

Switch 2 will simply get those AAA games later, just as Switch 1 got games like Witcher 3 and Doom 2016 later.

2022 is too early by your own metrics too, because if Switch 2 comes out then it'll be based on a 2020/2021 mobile SoC and won't be able to get PS5/XSX ports anyway.

If 2015 Switch-tech can get those games, 2020-2021 Switch 2-tech can also get AAA games.