2021 obviously isn't going happen, that's just nuts. 2023, sure. 

But really Nintendo has basically already shown everyone a phased transition in plain sight. 

The 3DS receiving basically 20 Nintendo published titles (not counting 3rd party titles published by Nintendo like Yokai Watch) in 24 months after the Switch came to market, the last being Kirby's Extra Epic Yarn in March 2019 ... so two years of continious support post-Switch.  

By contrast the DS received 5 Nintendo published titles after 3DS came out in Feb. 2011. They Wii got 0 after Wii U released. 

I think Switch - Switch 2 will be similar to that taken to an even further level because whatever project Nintendo does for Switch 1 (say Super Metroid Remake as a hypothetical example) ... that game can also be shared with the Switch 2, the 3DS couldn't do this with Switch (Metroid II Remake is 3DS only). 

I could see the Switch getting even 3 years of support after Switch 2 launches and 30+ titles. They already did 2 years + 20 titles for 3DS, there a lot of smaller scale games that could be made to work on both ... Advance Wars, future Ring Fit titles, 2D Mario, Pikmin (is Nintendo really going to want to spend a PS4 tier budget on this game?), Zelda: TP HD, Zelda: WW HD, Zelda: OoT + MM HD, More Clubhouse Games, Zelda Musuo, Cadence of Hyrule 2, Snipperclips Next, Punch-Out!, Style Savvy, more Pokemon and Fire Emblem even (these can run at 4K on Switch 2 and still look very sweet), an Animal Crossing spin-off like Home Designer was, etc. etc. etc. 

As long as Switch 2 has big guns exclusive like Mario Kart 9, Splatoon 3, the next Zelda after BOTW, the next 3D Mario after Odyssey 2, third party games like Monster Hunter World 2, Resident Evil 4 Remake, etc. the Switch 2 won't have issues selling. The Switch 1 will just transition to serving the budget consumer, entry level consumers like kids. 

What I'm addressing though is Otter's argument for a 2021 replacement. We agree on a likely 2023 handover.

This is just like a pile of wrong to be honest.

What in this world could make you think if the audience isn't ready for a successor to the Switch in 2021 (seriously who in the world would want a Switch 2 next year right in the middle of Switch' lifecycle??!) then the audience isn't ready for a very standard revision of a Nintendo portable? That makes ZERO sense. Nintendo always does new versions of their portables. They already have the Lite for Switch, so we know they are sticking to their normal strategy. It would be standard operating procedure for them to release an upgraded version sometime soon. Which is obviously a completely different thing than cutting off several years of the Switch's lifespan when it is the most popular system in the world by a long shot in order to prematurely bring in a very lackluster successor next year.

I don't even understand what kind of logic could lead you to assert such a ridiculous idea. I feel like the only way you could possibly think this way is if you haven't realized that the Switch is absolutely killing it and you are still suffering from the "Switch won't sell much" idea that some people had just before the Switch launched.

Switch owners or possible Switch owners are definitely not thinking about a successor coming out (other than idle speculation) and won't start thinking about it for probably a couple more years. Right now we're thinking about when we're gonna get the second round of games that came out early (BotW2, another 3D Mario), when we're gonna get the first round of a bunch of IP (Metroid, Bayonetta, Pikmin, Paper Mario, possibly Star Fox, 2D Mario, etc) and a whole bunch of other games. The Switch has plenty of years left that we are wondering what the next few years of Switch games are gonna be. If you want to start seriously talking about a Switch successor on the horizon get back on here in two years, at that point a Switch successor will indeed only be a year or two away.

Sorry but you seem to be under the impression that the Switch 2 will be the Switch at a higher resolution. Switch 2 is not a PS4 Pro. It's a whole new system with much more power 6 or 7 years later. If you're developing a Switch 2 game its not gonna be as simple as lowering the resolution to put it on the Switch, otherwise it'd pretty be that simple to port any PS4/XboxOne game to the Switch now.

Of course there is a development separation between the Switch and its successor. That's like saying there is no development separation between the Wii and Wii U because they both use Wii remotes.

And here is the crux of why you are wrong. The next gen Nintendo system is not a Switch Pro designed to simply run Switch games at a higher resolution. You are arguing for a PS4 Pro-like upgrade to the Switch while pretending that you are talking about a Switch successor. Those are two very different things.

Next gen Switch will be vastly more powerful than the Switch. Sure there will be some non-graphically-intense games that can simply be downgraded to also run on the Switch to increase sales of the game for the tens of million of players who still have the Switch as their primary system. But most Nintendo game will obviously be taking advantage of the much more powerful hardware to make games that would need to be downgraded significantly to run on Switch. Same architecture helps in porting but doesn't do anything to cover the vast gap in performance. It's more like making a game for PS4 and Switch in that sense. <-- a much more accurate statement than the one you made.

Some people seem to be trying to greatly confuse the situation. Calling for essentially the Switch successor to not be a successor at all but merely an upgraded Switch a la PS4 Pro. Some people are calling for a successor to the Switch to be brought out literally years before it is needed in some attempt to artificially cut the Switch's lifespan short because they seem to not realize the Switch is not the Wii U.

The reality is much more obvious and simpler. Nintendo has an insanely popular system and years left of software to produce for it. So we will see years of life left in it before any successor. It is also a portable so we will see more revisions to it, no doubt including a premium version, as Nintendo ALWAYS does with its portables. We've already seen the start of that with the Lite. Basically, expect another revision or two of the Switch in the next couple of years, and expect a much more powerful Switch successor in 3-4 years. End. Of. Story.

That's mostly the case which why I specified the level of investment. Most people own a Switch in addition to another platform, but if the Switch was their sole or primary platform Nintendo would see much higher software sales across the board, more investments in their online service and digital purchases. The idea is them reaching PS2 levels of success and Switch 2 becoming the primary development platform for many developers in the next decade. Things like it becoming "primary" gaming platform require better third party support. Of course not saying it isn't the primary platform people many people already.

For the second point, visual concessions are definitely made to get 1st party games running on Switch, if BOTW2 is 30fps/900p on Switch and 60fps/4k (maybe upscaled) on Switch 2, that'd be awesome. The more visually demanding games will see more obvious benefits more but even simple things like anti aliasing make a big difference to visuals and Nintendo titles mostly lack it. Just look at the beauty below and Nintendo could of course do way more with draw distances, texture detail etc, stuff that is all axed during optimisation.



That's very much a docked perspetive, handheld wise Switch 2 would have better screen, better joycons, their could also be performance efficiencies which center on battery life in portable mode instead of upgrading visuals (although I could be misunderstanding the science here)

This certainly won't be appealing to everyone but the intention wouldn't be for the system to appeal the everyone from day one. Its to complement the Switch in the early days, appealing to people who would otherwise start to invest elsewhere in the coming years, already trapping them in a new Nintendo eco system that will last til 2026+. Switch 2, people who invested in Switch 4-5 years prior. Switch 1, people casually interested who mainly want to play Mario, animal crossing, pokemon or just look for a device for their kids.

Its early availability courts third parties; It'd have titles not on the the Switch like FFVII, Monster Hunter, Assassins Creed, Elderscrolls, Mordern Warefare. It'd receive games on day one and not 1 year later. A reduced difference in parity whilst also boasting portability will make 3rd title perform even better on switch 2 and Nintendo will be seen a valid place to look for such titles. This is an uphil battle, as was the Xbox attracting franchises like GTA. Its worth the fight.

I believe many Switch owners will start to invest in PS5/Series X in a few years out of force, I think Nintendo could offer that alternative soon with DLSS and boast the games that would otherwise be skipping Switch. I said it before, Nintendo do not need third parties but its a massive revenue source and security from gen to gen, that shouldn't be scoffed at. Switch has made progress, and they can make even more. If Nintendo can see a viable route to expand its reach without sacrificing their core competencies, then they should try it. I actually don't see the risk.

At worst: 

Its too early, but that means means little if Nintendo have a monopoly as people say. The general public would still rather just get a PS5/Series X to play third parties which means Switch 2 relies on Nintendo's core audience. Nintendo's core audience who got the Switch 4-5 years prior would surely invest in system which operates as a Pro? When ever the time is right the Switch 2 would eventually take the reigns, even if it starts slower than hoped. Part of this dynamic will also people acknowledged in how Nintendo role out the platform, they won't market it as a replacement.

Switch 1 sales are slightly effected by competing for retail & manufacturing space but ultimately its not being "replaced" or having software support withdrawn until Nintendo decides. Maybe they'll be a few core exclusives like Metroid 4 but nothing that would end the Switches life early killing their cash cow.  If sony can produce 30m playstations and playstation 2s in one year, I'm sure Nintendo can produce 20m Switch's and 10 Switch 2s. 

This is my narrative and I'm sticking with it

The only thing I think is up in the air is when the tech would be available and at what price, that deserves a separate conversation. Fall 2021 amazing, 2022 perfect, 2023 meh

Edit: sorry the format is being sucky and won't me remove that white space 

Switch has sold over 50 million systems. So if it is still true that most people who have a Switch have another system that likely means that most people who have a PS4 or XBO also have another system. People just like to think of the Switch as the other system for whatever reason so that perspective shapes the idea of Switch being the other system. Nothing about the fact that gamers often buy more than one system in a given generation says the Switch isn't the primary system for a lot of them despite your assumptions. Given how hot the Switch is and especially that the other systems are getting replaced soon it is quite the assumption to assume the Switch isn't the primary console for many of these people.

What is with this obsession of yours of BotW2 being on Switch 2?? There is no reason whatsoever to think that, like literally that is the most bizarre thing to talk about. Switch is in the middle of it's lifecycle, and we know BotW2 should be launching fairly soon on the Switch as it got a trailer 11 months ago and is a direct sequel re-using the map and engine and no doubt many assets and whatnot of BotW which means a much shorter development time. I wouldn't be surprised if they had planned to release it this holiday before the pandemic, and now its likely been pushed back to next year.

Fall 2021 for another Switch revision to compliment the Switch and Switch Lite, sure, a new system hellllll no that would make Nintendo the dumbest business on earth. 2022 definitely way too early still by every measure. They're not gonna launch a new system in a year when their current system is probably still selling around 15 million units. 2023 would be about right as the Switch should be slowing by then but honestly a spring 2024 launch might make even more sense in order to get the Switch 2 as close to the other systems as Nintendo can (waiting on a more powerful chip perhaps) in order to garner more next gen 3rd party multiplats.

I mean, you may as well be arguing that instead of launching the PS4 Pro, Sony should have skipped that and later launched PS5 in 2018 amazing, 2019 perfect, 2020 meh. By your Switch 2 logic of cutting off a system well before it's time, PS4 should have launched a year or two ago and XBox Series should have probably launched like 3 years ago. For some reason you just REALLY want Nintendo to keep following what they did with Wii U, except you don't realize the reason they cut the Wii U off so early was because it was a massive failure, while the Switch is a massive success and in its fourth year its sales are still improving.

Inevitably though some people who would have picked up a Switch 1 over the next three years (and then a Switch 2 further down the line) would just get a Switch 2 if it came out next year, meaning a net lost sale for Nintendo.

To get the most sales, and hence the most money, Nintendo will want to get its customers to buy both, which means waiting until they've extracted the sales potential of Switch 1 before giving people a successor to buy instead.

We're probably just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. 

This is the only point I care to address because I think it's quite interesting. And honestly I'm brain farting so read at your own risk

If Microsoft could have skipped Xbox One X and instead waited a year to release what would essentially function as the rumoured anaconda. Then yeah I think they should have done that.

IF the tech was available to fulfil the function & purpose; if it wasnt then no.

2018 Xbox Series S $499 (Series X 2022)

- play current gen & cross games at 4k, 60fps

-Play ground up next gen games which mostly won't come til 2022. 900p-1440p(upscaled to 4k)

-Notably under cut PS5 in terms cost by time of its 2020 launch.

The main point is understanding the purpose of a platform.

In this case, the rumours suggest Mixrosoft think (and I think I kinda agree) that not everyone cares about 4k and that diminishing returns means 50% difference in GPU is not that important if you can be cheaper (and in my hypothetical Series S situation arrive 1/2 years early). Playing the same generation of games just with slight less clarity which wouldn't matter given most peoples home set ups and attention to detail. What you have to establish is when a decent % of your userbase are ready to spend on new hardware and when can you nake that bare minimum tech leap, also understanding what that leap is (SSD or no SSD stc)

A soft transition could help reduce the risks you see with hard transitions. DS > 3DS, Wii > WiiU, PS2 > PS3. Xbox 360 > Xbox One. Late gen updates do not do this. The 2010 DSi XL still dies when the 2004 DS stops receiving interest from developers. Nintendo doesn't make money from that hardware sale after 2 years, and they have convince the users to come back in their ecosystem. 

-----------

Things that would be problematic however

- if Microsoft could not offer "next gen" features like SSD inside a 2018 Series S,

- If the difference in CPU strength meant Xbox Series S targeting 30fps whilst PS5 boasted 60fps.

- essentially if it lacked feature parity outside of easily scalable GPU features.

- If Sony decides to follow their lead but leverages advances to release a more powerful system that manages to be even cheaper in 2020  when most would start shopping for a new system.

All at once you have to look at the desires in your existing base, both those who bought a system in 2014 and those who will in 2018. You have to look at what technology is available and at what price, and you have try and stay ahead of your competition without exposing yourself to to weak spots.

---------

But there's really so much nuance this topic deserves and I don't really feel like wasting any more energy on it.

I will leave this thread with a memory I had before we got the PS4 Pro/X1X. This forum was 50/50 split with some arguing that a mid gen update would be suicide, it would be ridiculous and would never work. At most they can do a PS4 lite/slim. Sony would piss off their userbase who aren't ready, developers would struggle etc. This wasn't one or 2 people, this was a good half of us. Jump to 2020 and look where we are, no one even questions it. Times change, so don't be surprised if the way you perceived a generation last decade slowly fades away in the one to come (whether  it be from Nintendo or someone else)