By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
TheBraveGallade on 07 March 2021
Edit Thread
Fight-the-Streets said:

Why most here think that a beefy upgrade isn't possible/doesn't make sense? In my opinion it makes perfect sense. Nintendo said many times that they aim for a long lifecycle (after they saw the massive success). But what is a long Nintendo-lifecycle? The longest home console lifecycle (before the successor arrived) was the NES in Japan with 7 1/3 years (Jul 1983 - Nov 1990) and the longest handheld lifecycle was the Game Boy with 12 years (1989 - 2001). In comparison, Xbox 360 and PS3 were generally perceived has having a very long lifecycle with 8 resp. 7 years (2005/2006 - 2013). Xbox One and PS4 followed up with 7 years (2013 - 2020). On the handheld side, the PS Portable had also a lifecycle of 7 years (2004-2011). The most successful home console, so far, the PS2, had a lifecycle of 6 2/3 years (Mar 2000 - Nov 2006) and the most successful handheld, so far, the Nintendo DS, had a lifecycle of 6 1/4 years in Japan (Nov. 2004 - Feb 2011).

Listing all the above, it is fair to say that Nintendo is aiming for at least a 7 year lifecycle of the Nintendo Switch until a true successor comes out. Most probably, they aim even further, to a 8/9 year lifecycle. It is often said that the Switch sells more in line like a Nintendo handheld than a Nintendo home console. What did Nintendo do again with their most successful handheld, the Game Boy? Ah right, they came out with a major upgrade, the Game Boy Color to extend the lifecycle of the Game Boy tremendously. Of course, Pokémon was the main invigoration but the maxim of software sells hardware is as true now for the Switch as it was back then for the Game Boy, that's a given.

If Nintendo really wants to have a (very) long lifecycle for the Switch they have no choice than to bring out a major upgrade. Yes, as I said, Software sells Hardware but at one point the Switch will be so outdated, tech wise, that you can't stem it with software alone anymore, the games will just not look fresh anymore. The original Game Boy was a very low-end tech right from the beginning. At the time the Game Boy Color game out in 1998, the original Game Boy (incl. its revisions Game Boy Pocket and Game Boy Light in Japan) was just outdated and didn't excite people anymore. Yes, Pokémon would have boosted the hardware sales even without a Game Boy Color but at the same time the Game Boy Color was obviously necessary as it sold very well. The Game Boy Color really excited people, the colors really gave a fresh, next-gen wow-effect in the consumers eyes.

The Game Boy Color had also its exclusive games and I think the Switch Pro needs that too, not from first party side but from 3rd party (i.e. triple A multiplat titles). It will not segregate the market as the current Switch will not get those titles anyway (with a few heavily watered down exception far and between like Doom, Doom Eternal, Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus, Wolfenstein: Youngblood, Mortal Kombat 11 and a few others). Therefore, those who don't want/can't upgrade to the Switch Pro don't have anything to complain, they wouldn't get those 3rd party triple A games anyway!

true, and a xavier based DLSS upscaled to 4K while running 720p60/1080p30 natively would satisfy like, 90% of the devs out there.

though, one thing i have to point out is that the GBA was in development even before the GBC, and when the original prototype had to be scrapped it was then theat they came out with the GBC.

reminder that even in 2001, the GBA was powerful enough to pretty much wipe EVERY SINGLE GB competitor off the market when it came out.

Its only the extreamly powerful PSP that made nintendo cut the GBA's lifespan short. the GBA was one of the fastest selling consoles ever after all, its just that it only had like three and a half years on the market before its sucessor came out.