Lifecycle is also a loose term ... what's the 3DS lifecycle? It didn't just spontaneously die on March 2017, Nintendo was still releasing new content for it in 2019 ... so that's what? Eight year product cycle? It's still stocked in every retailer and sold and there are still new games coming out for it even in 2020. 

Switch will probably be similar to that, and continue to get new games years after Switch 2 is released. 

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/nintendo-says-switch-is-approaching-the-middle-of-its-life-cycle/

Between this and their past insistence that they want a longer lifespan for the Switch, it seems safe to say Nintendo won't be replacing it any time soon and those hoping for a successor next year are out of luck.

As I've said, there's simply no good reason to hurry on from one of the fastest selling systems ever while there's still so much potential life left in it.

Let's just hope they don't do a Wii and let its last few years turn into drought city; their future lineup is looking extremely barren atm. And no, covid-19 isn't an excuse, they have games that have been in the works for years now while the pandemic's been going less than 2 months.

Even if Switch 2 comes out 2023, it doesn't "replace" the Switch anyway. You're probably talking a $350 product at launch and the people buying the Switch 2 for the first 1-2 years will be people overwhelmingly who owned a Switch for 4+ years by that time and are looking for a sexier, newer console.

The money Nintendo would be taking away with a Switch 2 would likely be PS5/XBSX potential sales, not original Switch systems. There is lots of overlap with PS4/XB1/Switch owners, so really more than likely the type of person who's buying a Switch 2 in 2023 is the type of person who would be looking at an PS5 or XBSX ... not buying like some 3rd redesign of a system they already have.

The people who buy a system in year 6/7/8 are not the consumer that buys a brand new console no matter what, often times you're talking about parents looking to buy a first game system for a very young child or someone who doesn't care when games come out and wants an absolutely over-ripened software library with possibly discounted games and/or extreme budget conscious consumer that refuse to spend over $200 or something like that for a game machine.

Switch 2 doesn't replace the Switch not until Switch 2 Lite (a cheaper, more portable version) would be available and you're probably talking 2025 or 2026 for that. A $350 Switch 2 and a $169.99 Switch Lite are not competing for the same consumer at all.

Software wise both can be supported for a long, long time, Nintendo supported the 3DS for well over a year after the Switch's release with a new release averaging out about every month through 2017 and into 2018 and still were releasing new product into 2019.

Besides by the time you reach like 1000+ games, lol, there's more than enough software product there anyway. The difference nowadays is there are digital stores that can keep a back catalog of thousands of games up basically indefinitely. Back in the day the reason systems got phased out is because retail stores had to make space/room for younger, better selling systems, you couldn't keep stocking Super NES games when Playstation, N64 needed that space. But today? There's no reason honestly to even stop selling the 3DS. Stores can stock the system itself easily and people can buy it and simply purchase games off the eShop.

If Nintendo really wanted to and they were willing to say make all DS/3DS eShop titles $19.99-$29.99 flat ... they could sell the 3DS for another 4-5 years probably. 

Well there is if you have a plan and reasoning behind it (of which is there are plenty)

I mean the PS One relaunch in 2000 ($99) was competing 1:1 sales wise with PS2 ($299) for about a year but its natural to assume they targeted very different audiences. Sony could have kept pushing PS1 til 2002, but giving the PS2 a year head start over its competitors and entering at the beginning of the DVD era secured them a bigger future then the PS1 was ever going to have. It also meant their audiences didn't go on to invest in gamecube/xbox/Dreamcast.

If Ninetndo's expectation is that a systems lifespan ends at the release of a new console, then its looking like a Switch 2 in late 2023 is the earliest they'll do but that doesn't have to be the case at all. (and Nintendo have always combined genius with being quite slow) 

PS1 sold 30m after the PS2's launch and that was without any major cross generation support from developers (which Nintendo could easily do and I actually think cross gen of a title like BOTW2 will increase its software sales significantly without incurring much cost). Subsequently sony had FY02 where they shipped 30m units of combined PS2/PS1 hardware. There's every chance that Switch + any of its revisions never ship more than 20m in any fiscal year again (this fy year steady/ next year decline).

There are windows of opportunity that come and go, or become harder to access over time. This is the only reason why anyone would say a Switch 2 should come sooner than later. Nintendo doesn't operate in Vacuum, nor do they have to settle for the profits they're currently seeing. They could easily absorb notable hardware, Software, services/subscriptions sales from playstation 5 and Series X with a new platform, all whilst tackling their blue ocean market  with the current Switch. Wait too long and people will be forced to opt into competitor platforms and their ecoystsems (majority Switch owners have multiple consoles). Once that happens they will never invest in a Switch 2 the same, the ceiling will be lowered (even if its still massively high)

The technology will be here in 2 years if Nintendo wanted to try this more ambitious route, I don't actually expect they will do anything of the sort lol

The problem with all your arguments and numbers is that Nintendo themselves say the Switch will have a longer lifecycle than their past products. There is no way to spin this: You are literally arguing against the makers of the Switch. 

Same I said to Soundwave: Nintendo themselves say they expect the Switch to have a longer lifecycle than previous consoles. It's hard to argue against that. Of course, there are always opportunities, as you correctly said. However, a new console is always a big risk. The launch of new hardware can make or break companies in this business. So there are not just opportunities but also lots of pitfalls. So, the question Curl asked remains: Why release a new console when the last one is still at the height of its success? 

This question was answered in detail. I also literally listed systems which had a successor release the the year after their peak and seen major success

Businesses have different personalities, some rest on laurels and are too safe, others are too reckless. And theres' tons of grey inbetween.

I've ejoyed expressing my thoughts on the topic, there's nothing more to share.

Edit: just a reminder that every member of the big 3 have had made serious errors in judgenent in the last decade. What they intend to do =/= what they should do. I certainly wasn't debating what I think Nintendo will do.

They never said anything about when a successor could come to market or are bound to any rule about that because some little message board says so. 

The 3DS is still an active platform that Nintendo produces and its now more than 9 years old. You can go into any major retailer and still find a 3DS section of systems and games. Its going to probably end up with one of the longest product cycles in Nintendo history. Its had a longer product cycle than the Wii or DS even despite selling less and not being a huge success. 

That probably is the blue print for Switch - Switch 2, the original Switch will likely continue on for years after Switch 2. I can see the original Switch getting some new games (which will also play on Switch 2) well into 2026 and being sold in stores quite possibly into 2028. 

Just because you define a product cycle as 100% over the moment a successive console comes out doesn't mean a company views it that way. That POV doesn't even make sense, the 3DS for example basically continued to be supported as it would have anyway long after the Switch came out, how can you say that platform is non-active when its obviously still alive and kicking. 

I don't see fragmentation as a big issue. If the developer is at all worried about fragmentation they can just release a title across all versions of the hardware. However, if its a game that can only run on the newer hardware then they choose whether it is worth it or not to release it on the new hardware only. I just don't see how this is a negative thing.