Otter said:
Shaunodon said:
Why would 2022 be it's last full year when we still can't say for certain it's actually peaking? A year ago it certainly wasn't mainstream thought that Switch should still be peaking now. Even if it's incredibly unlikely to peak for a third year in a row, the fact they already have several confirmed heavy hitters announced and dated for 2022 and beyond, along with some that are surely in the pipeline by now (MARIO KART 9), if they can time the releases right they should be able to minimise the sales drop year-over-year until at least 2024. Why do people keep assuming Nintendo should want to move away from one of, if not the most successful product they've ever had, as soon as possible? Why would they prioritise holding back BotW2 and MK9 for cross-gen, when they can release them sooner to an already massive install base, while also sustaining Switch sales for years to come? |
Several thoughts here:
1. Nintendo themselves have projected 2021 to be the system's peak. We know they are conservative with their projections, but their projections do reflect some of their internal thinking and planning. If they've internally projected a decline this year, we can be sure they are thinking heavily about their next hardware moves. Hardware needs software and so Nintendo actually has to internally commit quite far in advance to releasing a new generation of hardware, as they need to spend 2-3 years developing exclusive software to take advantage of it. They can't just play the waiting game, I don't believe any company does this.
2. Peak year is not really the bottom line in the discussion. I mean the PS1 peaked the same year the PS2 was released. This wasn't a mistake or some failure from Sonys side, no one argues the PS2 was released too early. It went on to be the highest selling console of all time. Its release date was perfect.
3. Related to this, people seem to mainly understand console cycles and motives of companies in terms of units sold, the reality is companies care about $$$$, not units. You can make more money with 2 machines killing it than just one, and they don't have to cannibalize each other. Plenty of long-term Switch owners will be eager to buy new Nintendo hardware in 2023, meanwhile late adopters who are picking a Switch system 6-7 years late are a completely different audience altogether. You cannot treat them as one audience. The Switch OLED omitting any improvements for docked play/specs/battery etc is not a trivial decision imo. It says a lot.
|
One of the benefits of having an extremely successful product already on the market, is that you don't have to be in a rush to prepare a successor. The games people are suggesting should be held back for cross-gen have already been in development for several years. Going by your estimates, even if they only begun developing games for a Switch successor now, they'd still have a good chance of having them ready for a 2024 launch year.
Unless you believe in cliff-theory, what chance is there that Switch sales will begin to seriously decline before 2024? Even with the hypothetical of Nintendo wanting two successful systems on the market at once, why should they jeopradise the sales of Switch (already selling at a historic rate), when they can easily sustain it for a couple more years, have more time to prepare titles for a successor, and should still be able to have them co-exist well after that point too?
