I mean i can understand it more, it could make business sense for them to port to Switch and its well well within reach but it does take notable effort. For example Mortal Kombat required a whole separate team to port it to Switch. Demanding is a tricky topic because a poorly optimised game may not look impressive but be quite demanding. Soul Caliber for example runs at 720p on Xbox One, that won't be an over night port to the Switch. 

As we've in few PS5 games shown so far, many devs don't really have the resources or ambition to yet to capitalise off such powerful hadrware. We're looking at PS4 quality games running at max settings, which is why I think even the lazy devs will port these titles to Switch 2. I think a lot of PS5 games will have a lot of CPU room to spare too. 

This is the first I'm hearing someone say that the DS'&Wii life was cut short.  The DS receieved Pokemon Black and white 2 in 2012 and it shifted almost zero consoles. We saw games that did great on the DS, struggle on the 3DS  (Nintendogs + cats). Market shifts towards mobile phones and other trends I think are causes for the DS falling off a cliff sales wise and I really doubt more of the same from Nintendo would  have changed that. 

Saturation of hardware sales is really a different trajectory of software sales. We saw big late gen 3DS titles like Yokai Watch and Pokemon sell big but struggle to give 3DS hardware boosts and offset its decline. 

With the Wii we saw a pretty consistent 5m fallout after  2009, that did not begin with the Wii U.  Mario Galaxy 2 & Donkey Kong Country, Sonic Colours, XenoBlade, Metroid Other M, Red Steel 2, Golden Eye and more didn't stop Wii's decline. 2010 was a significantly better year than 2009, but 2009 had Wii Sports Resort,  Wii Fit and NSMB. Its not about the number of games released but about their ability to attract new audiences. People will argue Skyward Sword sold relatively poorly because it required a wii remote plus but Mario Galaxy 2 didn't and it still sold almost 50% less than its predecessor. Point being there's always been fatigue which settles in. 

I think its impossible to make an argument here because there is no president of Nintendo systems selling a lot of hardware in late gen because of more pokemon or mario games. What we do see is that these ever green titles released in the first half of systems life are the system sellers and continue to sell the system throughout its life time. And this is exactly why Nintendo generations cannot blankly be compared with Playstation or Xbox.

The only thing that comes to mind is how great 2000 was for the N64 (Majoras mask, Banjo Tooie, Perfect Dark, paper Mario, Mario tennis etc.) but people will say the PS2 stole its momentum or whatever.

In the modern age, Nintendo can have this smooth transition. Waiting post 2023 before introducing new hardware seems bizzare. I don't see why a Switch 2 would mean an end of the Switch 1. We're not shifting from 2D/3D, we're not shifting from SD to HD, we're not building on entirely new hardware or achitecture. Instead of throwing out a completely unnecessary SKU, waiting for their audience to die 2 years later then hoping they come back next gen, Nintendo can be a bit forward thinking and give a meaningful invetsment for those who want new hardware. Something that can carry them (Nintendo) forward for the next 4+ years. All the meanwhile there is nothing lost, the handheld market you spoke off will continue on Switch 1 but also games that would never had been made for it can be made for Switch 2. In the end Switch 1 will still get its 6 year life span.

A good way to look at it was if Microsoft waited a year longer and investmented more in Xbox Series X, so that it was the rumoured Lockheart and would support the next 5 years of games and not a mid-gen update. But anyway I'm not seeing arguments for why they shouldn't release a Switch 2, just arguments of why they should continue to support current Switch (which they can obviously keep doing). Enough speculation from me though, I see them being successful regardless of which route they take I just think people are underestimating striking whilst the iron is hot (they've literally never done this) and there are many unique opportunities that a early release (by 2022) will allow them imo.

Oh and speaking of the DS we musn't forgot DS, DS Lite, DSXL, DSi, DSi XL...

LMAO at all these hardware revisions.

Wii sales were declining for a long time. That system didn't have another 20 million year in the tank, not even close, they declined significantly every year even despite releasing NSMB Wii, Wii Sports Resort, Mario Galaxy 2, etc. etc.

The DS may be could've held for another year but ultimately would've had a reckoning coming against the rising tide of the smartphone gaming market. Once that happened, that style of portable was going to have problems. The Switch addressed this by making a higher end portable system that had games in scope comparable to home consoles, but if Nintendo had continued making DS type systems, likely a third DS sells even worse than the 3DS.

You have to give the consumer a lot more than that these days when they can get simple/ease to play/bite size experiences for free on their phone, you have to offer a hell of a lot more today. Audiences are not some static entity whereby once you have one kind of hit, nothing ever changes and you can just continue on with that indefinitely. 

U know (other than comments on the wii which is a whole nother conversarion), I think u hit the nail on the head with eveey point  and it all comes down to ur basic arguement that the switch is a portable w a cool added feature as opposed to a home console thats also portable. I think the difference in POV might come from people's wants and misconceptions though. I know if 10do continues on a path of 60$ handheld games and a huge lack of AAA (console games) ill be skipping the switch 2 regardless of when it releases. I love that it uses cartridges,  I love that it has more LAN games than the competitors and I like how ez it is to carry from one monitor/tv to another. I dont care at all that u can "play on the go".

I got the impression from the marketing that the switch is a home console thats portable. Which is, I think, where the misconception comes in.  I bought into it with zelda, mario, spla2n, and xenoblade 2 coming out that 1st year.  All games that, to me, are AAA console titles of different genres (Some more mainstream than others). In hindsight i probably shouldve known better w the lack of 3rd party AAA announcements. I think at the time I blamed it on the wii&wiiu generations killing (to varying degrees) 3rd party interest in 10do.

The NES had two real Mario games, Super Mario Bros. 1 and Super Mario Bros. 3.

The actual SMB2 was basically like what DLC would be today, just a remixed version of the first game that was so underwhelming that NOA refused to release it. SMB2 that ended up being released in the West was a completely seperate game that just had Mario characters pasted onto it, most people know that.

The Switch should get a second 3D Mario and probably a 2D Mario on top of having Mario Maker 2 as well, you don't need a product cycle to extend into 2024 or something ridiculous for that to happen. There should be a new 3D Mario for 2021.

Game development cycles being longer just means you have to plan better and be on the ball sooner, but it's not like the NES/SNES actually had that many more Nintendo games. 

The SNES had only one real new Mario game, one Zelda. I mean some of the release schedules Nintendo had in the 90s was hilarious, like in '93 they released Star Fox in spring and basically nothing else but Mario All-Stars and NHL Stanley Cup as major titles for the rest of the year. It didn't matter as much back then because there was so much more 3rd party content that could push the system. 

Some solid counterpoints. I particularly like the point, if im understanding correctly, that blaming dev cycles can be viewed as strategic obstacle to overcome (COD as much as I hate the series is a good example) as opposed to a scapegoat crutch to lean on.

Or rather, attract old audiences they had lost at that point imo.

Curious for ur opinion. IF, and its an admittedly a highly unlikely if, releasing a switch 2 "early" meant it picked up every ps4 game that was also a ps5 game for a span of 2-3 years, would u still doubt that any of their customers would be ready to move on? Would u still consider it an awful idea? 2 different questions there to be clear.

I'm sorry but do you even know anything about mobile tech or Nvidia's product pipeline or future technologies? 

Saying a 2022 chip from Nvidia wouldn't significantly blow the doors off a chip from 2015 is laughable. 

Even if it is 2022, they'll be able to do Ampere based 7nm by then without much fuss, that is a huge jump from the Tegra X1.