RolStoppable said: I don't think so. One of the key reasons for the Wii and DS innovations was a distinction to Nintendo's competition that was banking on simply outspending Nintendo by selling powerful hardware at a loss. These innovations allowed Nintendo to stand out with the additional benefit of high profitability. Switch is the same thing, only even harder for Sony and Microsoft to put out similar products, hence why they can't and won't do it. That's why there's no reason for Nintendo to pursue a major innovation, because a straight-forward Switch successor is already assured to have a unique position in the console market and roll in the money. Nintendo's current position is most similar to the transition from the GB to the GBA. Back then Nintendo had almost a monopoly in the handheld market, today they absolutely do have a monopoly. The GBA was nothing more than a better GB: Increased the amount of buttons from four to six, more powerful hardware. The GBA sold faster than the GB and the only reason it couldn't clear 100m in lifetime sales is Sony's strategic choice to launch a premature next gen with the PSP which forced Nintendo's hand to launch a new system as well, because otherwise the PS1 vs. N64 situation could have repeated where Sony got a 18 month headstart on Nintendo. The stage is set for Switch's successor to be nothing more than a more powerful version with some refinements in other areas than the chipset itself. Such as more comfortable and more reliable Joy-Con controllers, or a better organized digital storefront, to give a couple of examples. Nintendo can leverage their monopoly on the handheld side to once again greatly bolster the variety and quantity of their home console side. |
But... whether their hand was forced or not, they released the DS and it was hugely successful. Even with the first real competition in the handheld market, it sold far better than the GBA did, and I think it is safe to say far better than a more powerful GBA would have in the GBA's place. Why would the lesson from all this be that Nintendo shouldn't try to innovate unless it is absolutely necessary?
If you have a monopoly over a type of product with a relatively fixed demand, that's one thing, and you can get away with not really trying. But, a monopoly in a luxury market is different. Especially when your monopoly is over a small subset of a luxury market. There is a large chunk of the audience that might simply say "meh" and drop out of the market. So, whether or not another major player can or will introduce a Switch competitor, Nintendo's sales can still vary by tens of millions depending on their hardware choices.