They won’t drop the “Prime” because it wouldn’t make sense in the timeline/era they are going to make the game (also because it will probably have a similar style to other Primes), but I can see they adding something like Metroid Prime 4: Something Something, just like it was with Metroid Prime 2: Echoes and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption.

You wrote: "Hell, even holding cards for the rest of the year seems obnoxious because now every time someone says they dont like the lineup youll hear "they are just holding the cards babey!!" Consider the fact that a lot of people bought the Switch off the idea that Nintendo was coming back and that wed get consistent games. Now consider why it isnt necessarily good to hold information back". 

What's personally frustrating for you is totally different matter, all I can say to you is patience. :)

Hardly, they were very clear thats Metroid Prime 4 game, but  they will preobably include onother hadline like in case of Metroid Prime 2 and 3:

-Metroid Prime 2: Echoes

-Metroid Prime 3: Corruption

Maybe, but they may want to drop the number to get new people into the series, as is quite customary in the industry these days.

Dude, I literally said at the end of that comment that end of the year games im lenient on, because I dont think they need to be announced so soon. And I said it was obnoxious because of the fanbase. I know you're capable of reading and processing information, so do it.

" What's personally frustrating for you is totally different matter "

No its not. Thats literally what we've been talking about this whole time. You started a discussion because you had a different opinion than mine; the discussion was based on my opinion.

It doesn't really matter, point is that Prime means thats main 3D Metroid game, and that's exactly point with Metroid Prime 4 announcement.

Metroid Prime 4: Switcheroo

Eh I know. I was just wondering what the final title may be! T_T

I'm not spouting some BS trying to make out it's going to be a spinoff or something. xD

Pokemon not TBA but 2018 or later?

I already addressed this, you can literally read my first reply ( " I approve of not hyping up a game two or three years before it releases " ), or my reply to Axumblade, etc. 

I'm not sure why you guys are resorting to fallacies. I mean, in my other comments I literally refer only to summer or exclude the later part of the year and yet you're replying about August. I guess technically the number I specified in one of the early replies does include August, but I think it's more likely August titles would be E3 if a surprise announcement or they'd be announce a few months (April-ish?) before release. But more importantly, it's never good in a discussion to basically make a point where in you defend something on the basis that the alternative is worse while simultaneously making a purposely narrow set of options in order to make your reasoning stand as correct. The reality is I've already addressed this, yes, in the most basic fundamental principle Nintendo's way of announcing projects is better than Sony's or Microsoft's for example but that doesn't mean I don't take issue with the fact that it's almost February and all we know are very early releases, which do not include summer. 

But obviously everything is based on context, and in this case it wouldn't even really matter if we had big games in the early part of the year, but that isn't the case. You can try to make a negative a positive or something, but i'm not going to fall for it. It is inherently obvious that the first few months of this year will be decent(i'd argue mediocre) but not much else. Which is why I think it would be cool if we knew more titles. 

(And also, i'm writing this if there's no  February/March direct, but honestly I've always thought it was a possibility there was, so if I jinx it just know not to necro bump).