If the Mario collection is handled properly it can be incredibly HUGE for the holidays. We know it's coming they just haven't announced it yet so we shouldn't fear over that. There is a pretty big game coming in 3 weeks. We should get news for rest of the year soon.

The Wii died because Nintendo stopped making any games for it. Tell me how many games for the Wii came between 2010 and 2013? They won't have that problem with the switch.

Nintendo is swimming alone in its blue ocean. has no reason to rush.
For now, is to observe the market. The success (or failure) of xcloud, observe the prices for an SSD, new architectures for mobile, smaller transistors, or even newer technologies that even ps5 and series x do not have.
I can see happening anytime between 23 and 25.
My vote went to 24 launch, using 22/23 technology.

Wrecked the Wii? The Wii was being "wrecked" from the minute it was posting 5m yearly declines (2009). This was long before the Wii U was eating development resources (2011), the Wii's decline cannot be blame on Wii U. 

Nintendo's focus should be on keeping their core userbase that made Switch a success in 2017 happy and invested in their echosystem. Whether third parties arrive or not will be largely be dismissable if they succeed with this core userbase. The Wii U failed fundementally at exciting even this core audience and arrived when all of the Wii's momentum was already dead. I find it strange that people are using that failed transition to insist that Nintendo should wait until interest in their product is at a signifcant low before making moves to introduce  their next. There are clear changes in technology and the modern gaming landscape which would make make Switch 2 (arriving 2022) a completely different beast to any other Nintendo system transition, its all down to what they want to achieve. Software shouldn't an issue at all. Not for a new platform and not for people who decide to stick with Switch 1 for longer.

Quick question. Do you think its better to get returning users to reinvest in a upgraded SKU (like a Switch Pro) which will only be a profit center for an additonal 2 or so years. Why not have them invest in a platform which benefit Nintendo for another 5 years and completely reinvigorates software sales and interest in services long term?

Keeping in mind holiday 2022 is 5years & 7months after the Switch's original launch.

A lot.

2010 was a much healthier software cycle with more key releases then 2009 but still we saw 5m decline, which was in line with what we saw the year before. We could argue that 2010 had a weak Q1, but so did 2009 and actually 2008 (Wii's peak) Q4 didn't have a big release, 2009/2010 holiday releases performed better in this regards. We know that systems go through cycles in interest and that interest in the Wii was driven by specific experiences which later lost their appeal. Wii Fit U was released in 2013, no one cared and it didn't help Wii U. The idea that the Wii would have continued to sell amazingly until 2013 with a slightly beefier or well rounded release schedule feels very far fetched imo and ignorant to what made the Wii a success to begin with (especially compared to the Gamecube). Wii could of course had a healthier end life. Maybe it could be looking at 110m sales as oppose to 100m by now, but the problem wasn't that 2012 was too early to release a new system. The problem was simply that the new system -Wii U- was not compelling. Nintendo tried to have something for the Wii audience (Nintendo Land & NSMU) but it proved that they don't have that much power over the interests of this market and their USP wasn't strong enough. Meanwhile their core market was not excited by NSMBU or a mini game collection either.

I think the opposite regarding this, but I don't consider it "rushing" as opposed to a calculated decision to introduce new devices which keep audience invested within the echo system for a long term. The blue ocean market is not an easily predictable market, they certainly did not make the Switch a success from day one and their interest in 2 years is not gauranteed. Without Corona we have no idea what the Switch's current sales would look like (obviously it would be good, but how good?), so I don't think that a system cycle should be centered around them as an audience, nor around sales seen in the peak of a pandemic. This current market returning to Nintendo next generation is not something we can predict.  If there was a Switch 2, and the original Switch is still receiving games and is cheaper, what is the harm? The blue ocean market who only care about collecting a handful of games for the platform isn't going to suddenly vanish. I'd say its actually quite the opposite, generally consumers look for a steady influx of refreshments around brands and products to keep them excited and interested in them. A Switch successor arriving sooner than later will actually contribute towards the BlueOcean maintaining interesting in Nintendo & dedicated gaming machines even if they don't choose to transition until 2025.

People have found a way to describe Switch sales "falling off a cliff" without using the word "cliff".  Anyone predicting lifetime sales of 110 or less for Switch is basically describing a cliff.  They already shipped over 55m as of Nintendo's March 31, 2020 report.  Since then they have been breaking sales records.  They are going to more than double that 55m because they are still on an upward trajectory (a dramatic upward trajectory in fact).  Switch hasn't peaked yet.

By the same token, anyone predicting a release date of 2022 or earlier for Switch's successor is using cliff talk.  3DS has been Nintendo's most disappointing handheld system (other than the VB), and it still had 6 years until it's successor.  Switch is blowing away 3DS sales, and it's also peaking a lot later, and it still hasn't had a price cut.  Any talk of a successor in 2022 or earlier is either out of touch with reality or intentionally deceptive (or both).  It's cliff talk.

"Hey, I'm not saying Switch is going to fall off a cliff.  I just think it's going to have a sudden and dramatic downturn in sales."  It's the same thing.

So are you aware of what the actual sales trajectory was between 2008/9/10? My opinions are only based on the evidence I've found. The point is not that 2010 sales were "wrecked" but that the level of decline, inspite of a strong software line up doesn't paint a picture that Wii's later years could have been much better then what they actually were. Throwing in an extra title before Mario Galaxy 2 in 2010 wouldn't suddenly make a 5m difference in my opinion. So my question is what do you see as the reason for the consistent 5m declines (or what is the actual sales data)

FY09 25m
FY10 20m
FY11 15m
FY12 9.8m
FY13 3.8m (this is the only year with a sudden sharpness, otherwise you see a repeated pattern and I don't buy an argument that 2010 was a bad year of releases)

And the later 2 paragraphs all center around whether Nintendo can release a game on 2 platforms. My point is that they can, a unified but scalable development environment is what Nintendo is currently doing and what they should continue doing with a Switch 2. The Switch's success should be partially be credited to the existence of the Wii U afterall, that soft transition (porting games over instead building them from scratch) is what I'm expecting, not a hard reset. I do not see a Switch 2 causing a significant disruption to games arriving on Switch. We're talking about titles early in development now, arriving in over 2 years time with less compromises. I don't see the threat to 1st party Nintendo games at all, I think people are actually more likely to buy said games if they are on a newly purchased platform. And I've mentioned why I think a new soft transitional platform 5 years in makes more sense then a mere SKU upgrade where said person is out of the echosystem 3 years later like the DSi XL for example.

" You are asking for a shorter lifecycle than the Wii despite Switch being in a much better position." Considering no one is talking about the ending the Switch's life cycle, this point seems to be intentionally ignoring the conversation at hand. If you think it would end the Switch's life cycle can you explain why? I mean we would essentially be looking at 2 systems for a signifcant price difference between them, both having most major releases from Nintendo made for them.

Also I think we're mindlessly obsessing over these arbitrary comparison of years. In the proposed reality where a Switch 2 releases in 2022, I see the 2023 software and hardware sales being way higher than the alternate 2023 where Switch is Nintendo's only platform. So although I can understand why people think a traditional wait is more realistic, I'm certainly not seeing the ridiculousness of Nintendo wanting to have more consistent highs as opposed to the typical peaks and declines which in the past have been centered around limits of technology and resources.

That strategy only worked because it was the Wii U. It's easy to forget how many in the average gaming public still aren't aware of the Wii U's existence. It also wasn't a soft transition but a hard transition from the Wii U, spending practically it's entire last year in dead silence until finally receiving BotW and a 'farewell' postcard. Trying to implement that same strategy of moving on from a system while quickly porting all it's relevant games to a new one, would have more than a few flaws this time around.

And what compromises are you even talking about? Most best-selling games on the Switch have still yet to utilise the full capability of the hardware. The only games that are compromised are the ones that appeal to a minority of the Switch's market. But that hasn't been a problem for them or Nintendo with the Switch anyway, so why'd they need new hardware to fix this?

Lol can’t wait for 29mil FY and then that decline to 20mil for FY22 With YoY down 30%

The strategy described is just cross gen support. Not porting old games over although high quality remasters here and there would be cool (BOTW1/BOTW2 bundled), I'm just referring to development not being halted as developers try to get to grips with new technology. Nintendo described this as a problem with them moving to HD development and why the Wii U had a weak software line up. Switch 2 will start out the gate with great software support because it will share its libary with Switch, both Switches new and upcoming releases and more. All whilst boasting superior quality. PS4 and Xbox One early adoption was driven by cross gen games like COD, Destiny, Dragon Age, Watchdog, MSG4, FIfa, Far Cry 4 etc. It wasn't until year 2 developers started dropping 360/PS3.

Most 1st party games on Switch do not even use AA. And believe me, 1000s of man hours go into compromises that are made to get 1st party games running well on Switch, but you won't see the difference until Nintendo demonstrates it. DQ9 is one of the Switches best looking games and best quality ports, if it wasn't for the PS4 version we would also say what compromises?

(And this image doesn't even do justice to the res difference)



If Nintendo had a more powerful system you would see a version of Pokemon where the pop-in is not aweful and low quality textures are not everywhere. You would have a version of BOTW which runs at 60fps 1440p-4k and features like far more lush foliage, draw distances, higher textures and more populated environment, more environemnt fx. This is only just the tip of the iceberg. And of course in handheld mode, you could have signifcantly improved battery performance on the new system alongside 1080p for non demanding games.

I can't bring up an actual Nintendo ports because they don't exist but you get a glimpse of how much more immersive a game like BOTW could be at higher FPS/Res alone. 




I mean if you understand the concept a Switch Pro, its that but also with its own exclusives (like new3DS/DSi) but with a longer shelf life, because it will transition into the main platform, which also means Nintendo's future is far secure then a hard reset in 2024/25. Consumers are very familiar with this concept of slowly phasing out aging devices. 

It amazes me how Nintendo continuously shows that weaker hardware and somewhat bad graphics do not affect their sales at all yet people keep insisting that somehow stronger hardware will be good for them. The problem we have is you are thinking like it's a PS or Xbox console and not like a Nintendo console. And we are thinking of it as a Nintendo console and trying to see how Nintendo will do things. Looking at their past, their own statements, their current leadership, etc we have no reason to believe that anything earlier than 2024 is even being entertained at Ninty right now. Of course situations are dynamic and things can change but right now I see no evidence of a switch 2 releasing in 2022 or early 2023 that will benefit Nintendo in any real way.

Regarding switch pro having exclusives and then being the main device or something, I don't see Nintendo doing that. The way the console market works and how people are hardwired is that hard resets happen. That means if Ninty or the other makers don't have the hardware reset, they won't experience the sales boom they do with a new console. Also any bad reputation from the base model carries over. Case in point is Xbox X and Xbox one. Xbox X didn't sell as well due to the reputation of One even though it was a huge update specs wise. XSeX is an opportunity to reset everything and create a new better narrative and hence sell more. 

The marketing benefit of a new generation has been too beneficial for these companies. You have to make your new toy sound like a huge deal. Iterative updates like in smartphones and laptops just don't work that we'll for an entertainment device like a video game console. But if a company can market their product as a huge deal while being more iterative, well that's a challenge I'm not sure the big 3 want to accept just yet.

Also it's unfair to talk about the lazy pokemon game. It would still have the problems no matter the power of switch because they just didn't polish it enough and do enough to remove all the issues.