JWeinCom said:
Pretty sure that even after the release of the 2DS, the 3DS models continued to sell better. The feature seems to be worth the extra cost to most people at least. Probably not worth the cost in terms of performance, but offputting is a bit much. Not really sure what you're trying to argue with software, because if the shift of shovelware to mobile was a factor, then that seems to cut against the argument you're making if I'm not misunderstanding. If that was a big part of the Switch's decline, more horsepower wouldn't have really helped. So, absent that, what would the 3DS have sold? 100 m? What would a beefier DS have sold? The Vita was what people are suggesting the Switch 2 should be. Essentially the same, with better graphics, and QOL improvements. It may not have had the improvements you think it ought to have had, but it did everything the PSP did, and then some. People weren't interested. Those kinds of sequel consoles are just not guaranteed to have the same appeal as predecessors. I did not say the Switch 2 would be the same thing as going from the GBC to GBA. The GBA was a legitimately massive leap over the GBC that allowed you to do types of games that just couldn't have been done before. The Switch 2 will not do that. It was also for the most part a wholly unique library that couldn't be found anywhere else. Outside of the first party stuff, the Switch 2 presumably won't have a ton of exclusives. The GBA came out at the height of Pokemon where handheld gaming was taking off. I'm not saying the Switch 2 won't simply continue the trend of Switch sales, but the scenario is different, so there is no guarantee of that. Yeah, the hybrid feature is appealing. But, people already have a system that does exactly the same thing, the Switch. If you're expecting them to drop another several hundred dollars, then the new system should do something worthwhile that the old one doesn't. If we have the same kind of cross gen period as XBoxSx/PS5, the value proposition on the Switch becomes very unclear. Is the Switch audience going to be sold on shinier graphics when that really hasn't been a major selling point in the first place? They can just only put games on the Switch 2, and some people are going to buy it because they just have to have the next Smash Bros. But I think a lot of people are going to think why am I going to 400ish dollars for a system that plays pretty much the same kinds of games at the same level of quality? What's the pitch? "It's like the Switch, but a little better." "Well, if you want to play the next animal crossing, you kind of have no choice". |
It seems like you’re assuming Vita did poorly because it was a straight forward successor and that seems like a very poor conclusion. A big part of PSP’s appeal was that it was pretty much the first all-in-one portable multimedia device, you could play games, watch movies, listen to music and surf the web. That was a really big deal in 2005. Fast forward to 2012 and everybody has a smartphone and/or tablet that does all of those things, it’s no longer a selling point.
On top of that, many of the top selling games on PSP like Grand Theft Auto, Monster Hunter, Gran Turismo, Metal Gear, God of War, Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts, etc did not get new additions of Vita.
If a bunch of other wildly popular hybrid devices release before Switch 2 and it doesn’t get Zelda, Mario Kart, Pokemon, Smash Bros, Animal Crossing, etc then yeah it will probably bomb.
We have seen with NES to SNES, GB to GBA, PS1 to PS2, PS2/XB to PS3/360 to PS4/XB1 to PS5/XSX that more powerful devices with QoL improvements can do very well. Devices that have a big drop off from their predecessors do so because of specific reasons, not because they were straight forward successors.
When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.