Forums - Nintendo Discussion - NSW is here to Stay!! Itís Life Will Be Long and No Successor Will Come Before 2025!

When will NSW2 come out?

2022 Holiday 11 10.28%
 
2023 Spring 17 15.89%
 
2023 Holiday 21 19.63%
 
2024 Spring 35 32.71%
 
2024 Holiday 15 14.02%
 
2025 Spring 7 6.54%
 
2025 Holiday 0 0.00%
 
2026+ 1 0.93%
 
Total:107
shikamaru317 said:

I think we're going to see Switch 2 sooner than many seem to think. I will be shocked if Switch 2 isn't out by Spring 2023 personally. Next gen is coming soon and PS4/XB1 support will be dropped from 90% of games by Q2 2022. While it is affordable for a PS4/XB1 game to be downgraded to run on Switch, the downgrades required to get next-gen games to run on Switch will be far more extensive and costly. And I can't see Nintendo allowing 3rd party support to mostly disappear from 2022-2025, 3 whole years, lol, they know from past generations that 3rd party support is essential for success, 1st/2nd party and indies can only move but so many units before sales dry up. By Q1 2023 a Switch 2 with significantly better specs will be possible for $300-350, specs that aren't too much lower than the rumored 4 tflop Xbox Lockhart, which should make getting next-gen 3rd party support even easier for Nintendo to get than current gen 3rd party support on Switch 1. I absolutely expect Nintendo to take advantage of that.

Your post raises a few questions:

1. What rational basis do you have in order to assign such great importance to AAA third party games? It can't be sales, so what is it?

2. Switch has been out for over three years now. Has it been lost on you that Switch hasn't been getting the majority of new AAA third party games during that timeframe?

3. Nintendo wrecked the Wii by moving on far too soon in hopes of getting more AAA third party games. Before the Wii U launched, AAA third party publishers already withheld ~75% of upcoming games that were scheduled to release on the PS3 and 360. What makes you confident that Nintendo will be stupid enough to repeat the same mistake?



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Around the Network

I think that the switch still has a good amount of life left. I originally thought we would see a replacement console in winter of 2022. But with how sales are going with the switch this year and will likely continue, I think Nintendo is going to wait until winter of 2023. Nintendo might do a select few games as cross gen to hold over profits and consumers for a year. But it would surprise me if Nintendo waited longer than 2023.



     

Check out my lastest games review: Fast RMX and  Snipperclips: Cut it out Together

RolStoppable said:
shikamaru317 said:

I think we're going to see Switch 2 sooner than many seem to think. I will be shocked if Switch 2 isn't out by Spring 2023 personally. Next gen is coming soon and PS4/XB1 support will be dropped from 90% of games by Q2 2022. While it is affordable for a PS4/XB1 game to be downgraded to run on Switch, the downgrades required to get next-gen games to run on Switch will be far more extensive and costly. And I can't see Nintendo allowing 3rd party support to mostly disappear from 2022-2025, 3 whole years, lol, they know from past generations that 3rd party support is essential for success, 1st/2nd party and indies can only move but so many units before sales dry up. By Q1 2023 a Switch 2 with significantly better specs will be possible for $300-350, specs that aren't too much lower than the rumored 4 tflop Xbox Lockhart, which should make getting next-gen 3rd party support even easier for Nintendo to get than current gen 3rd party support on Switch 1. I absolutely expect Nintendo to take advantage of that.

Your post raises a few questions:

1. What rational basis do you have in order to assign such great importance to AAA third party games? It can't be sales, so what is it?

2. Switch has been out for over three years now. Has it been lost on you that Switch hasn't been getting the majority of new AAA third party games during that timeframe?

3. Nintendo wrecked the Wii by moving on far too soon in hopes of getting more AAA third party games. Before the Wii U launched, AAA third party publishers already withheld ~75% of upcoming games that were scheduled to release on the PS3 and 360. What makes you confident that Nintendo will be stupid enough to repeat the same mistake?

1. Not just AAA's, but smaller 3rd parties as well. Switch is great as a secondary system, but I feel like there aren't alot of gamers using it as their primary system, unless they really like Nintendo 1st party. Nintendo 1st party is strong, nobody can dispute that, but in the end you're only getting like 5 or 6 Nintendo 1st/2nd party games a year, that leaves alot of dry periods, unless you like indies or smaller Japanese games alot (which some do, but not all gamers). Switch just doesn't feel like a complete package for a gamer like myself who likes many different types of games, specifically because it is largely lacking in the 3rd party department, especially western AA's and AAA's. 

2. That fact isn't lost on me at all. Switch, much like Wii and Wii U, is largely being avoided by the larger western publishers and even the smaller ones, sometimes Japanese publishers as well. When it does get those games, they are late ports, sometimes bad ports at that. I absolutely feel like if Switch was the complete package it would be selling even better than it already is. The concept of a portable/console hybrid was clearly a great idea or else Switch wouldn't be selling as well as it is, but the lower specs that the handheld form factor necessitates also makes getting the latest, state of the art games to run on the Switch a nightmare of porting. However, MS seemingly planning to offer a lower end entry level next gen console might just be able to change that situation for Nintendo finally. If Lockhart is indeed 4 tflop, Nintendo might just be able to pull off something like 3 tflop docked, 1.5 tflop handheld by 2023, which would make getting ports of next-gen AA's and AAA's much easier for Nintendo, as the downgrades needed would be far less extensive than those needed on Switch with current gen games. Nintendo has an actual opportunity to have the best of both worlds for most of next gen, both the successful hybrid form factor, and the latest 3rd party support for the latter half of the 9th gen. They should take advantage of that. If the form factor is what lead to the success of Switch 1, there is no reason to believe that a successor with the same hybrid form factor, but higher specs that allow it to get more games from 3rd parties, wouldn't be an even bigger success for Nintendo. 

3. I was under the impression that Wii's sales started to tank before the Wii U was even announced. Weren't 2011 sales already down by about 35% compared to 2010 sales? I don't think it was Wii U that killed Wii, so much as it was that the motion control fad was already starting to die out, people were ready for new hardware that wasn't so gimmicky. Wii U was just a poor idea all around, they just replaced one gimmick with another, and it was a gimmick that people didn't really like all that much. If Wii U had been a proper next-gen console aimed at core gamers, without the silly tablet gimmick and specs that were at least triple the specs of the 360 and PS3, I think it would been more successful than Wii U was, obviously not a Switch level success, but probably would have been able to move somewhere between Gamecube and N64 numbers, since they would have had the early sales advantage of having the first next-gen console. 



shikamaru317 said:
RolStoppable said:

Your post raises a few questions:

1. What rational basis do you have in order to assign such great importance to AAA third party games? It can't be sales, so what is it?

2. Switch has been out for over three years now. Has it been lost on you that Switch hasn't been getting the majority of new AAA third party games during that timeframe?

3. Nintendo wrecked the Wii by moving on far too soon in hopes of getting more AAA third party games. Before the Wii U launched, AAA third party publishers already withheld ~75% of upcoming games that were scheduled to release on the PS3 and 360. What makes you confident that Nintendo will be stupid enough to repeat the same mistake?

1. Not just AAA's, but smaller 3rd parties as well. Switch is great as a secondary system, but I feel like there aren't alot of gamers using it as their primary system, unless they really like Nintendo 1st party. Nintendo 1st party is strong, nobody can dispute that, but in the end you're only getting like 5 or 6 Nintendo 1st/2nd party games a year, that leaves alot of dry periods, unless you like indies or smaller Japanese games alot (which some do, but not all gamers). Switch just doesn't feel like a complete package for a gamer like myself who likes many different types of games, specifically because it is largely lacking in the 3rd party department, especially western AA's and AAA's. 

2. That fact isn't lost on me at all. Switch, much like Wii and Wii U, is largely being avoided by the larger western publishers and even the smaller ones, sometimes Japanese publishers as well. When it does get those games, they are late ports, sometimes bad ports at that. I absolutely feel like if Switch was the complete package it would be selling even better than it already is. The concept of a portable/console hybrid was clearly a great idea or else Switch wouldn't be selling as well as it is, but the lower specs that the handheld form factor necessitates also makes getting the latest, state of the art games to run on the Switch a nightmare of porting. However, MS seemingly planning to offer a lower end entry level next gen console might just be able to change that situation for Nintendo finally. If Lockhart is indeed 4 tflop, Nintendo might just be able to pull off something like 3 tflop docked, 1.5 tflop handheld by 2023, which would make getting ports of next-gen AA's and AAA's much easier for Nintendo, as the downgrades needed would be far less extensive than those needed on Switch with current gen games. Nintendo has an actual opportunity to have the best of both worlds for most of next gen, both the successful hybrid form factor, and the latest 3rd party support for the latter half of the 9th gen. They should take advantage of that. If the form factor is what lead to the success of Switch 1, there is no reason to believe that a successor with the same hybrid form factor, but higher specs that allow it to get more games from 3rd parties, wouldn't be an even bigger success for Nintendo. 

3. I was under the impression that Wii's sales started to tank before the Wii U was even announced. Weren't 2011 sales already down by about 35% compared to 2010 sales? I don't think it was Wii U that killed Wii, so much as it was that the motion control fad was already starting to die out, people were ready for new hardware that wasn't so gimmicky. Wii U was just a poor idea all around, they just replaced one gimmick with another, and it was a gimmick that people didn't really like all that much. If Wii U had been a proper next-gen console aimed at core gamers, without the silly tablet gimmick and specs that were at least triple the specs of the 360 and PS3, I think it would been more successful than Wii U was, obviously not a Switch level success, but probably would have been able to move somewhere between Gamecube and N64 numbers, since they would have had the early sales advantage of having the first next-gen console. 

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.



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

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.



Around the Network
shikamaru317 said:

1. Not just AAA's, but smaller 3rd parties as well. Switch is great as a secondary system, but I feel like there aren't alot of gamers using it as their primary system, unless they really like Nintendo 1st party. Nintendo 1st party is strong, nobody can dispute that, but in the end you're only getting like 5 or 6 Nintendo 1st/2nd party games a year, that leaves alot of dry periods, unless you like indies or smaller Japanese games alot (which some do, but not all gamers). Switch just doesn't feel like a complete package for a gamer like myself who likes many different types of games, specifically because it is largely lacking in the 3rd party department, especially western AA's and AAA's. 

2. That fact isn't lost on me at all. Switch, much like Wii and Wii U, is largely being avoided by the larger western publishers and even the smaller ones, sometimes Japanese publishers as well. When it does get those games, they are late ports, sometimes bad ports at that. I absolutely feel like if Switch was the complete package it would be selling even better than it already is. The concept of a portable/console hybrid was clearly a great idea or else Switch wouldn't be selling as well as it is, but the lower specs that the handheld form factor necessitates also makes getting the latest, state of the art games to run on the Switch a nightmare of porting. However, MS seemingly planning to offer a lower end entry level next gen console might just be able to change that situation for Nintendo finally. If Lockhart is indeed 4 tflop, Nintendo might just be able to pull off something like 3 tflop docked, 1.5 tflop handheld by 2023, which would make getting ports of next-gen AA's and AAA's much easier for Nintendo, as the downgrades needed would be far less extensive than those needed on Switch with current gen games. Nintendo has an actual opportunity to have the best of both worlds for most of next gen, both the successful hybrid form factor, and the latest 3rd party support for the latter half of the 9th gen. They should take advantage of that. If the form factor is what lead to the success of Switch 1, there is no reason to believe that a successor with the same hybrid form factor, but higher specs that allow it to get more games from 3rd parties, wouldn't be an even bigger success for Nintendo. 

3. I was under the impression that Wii's sales started to tank before the Wii U was even announced. Weren't 2011 sales already down by about 35% compared to 2010 sales? I don't think it was Wii U that killed Wii, so much as it was that the motion control fad was already starting to die out, people were ready for new hardware that wasn't so gimmicky. Wii U was just a poor idea all around, they just replaced one gimmick with another, and it was a gimmick that people didn't really like all that much. If Wii U had been a proper next-gen console aimed at core gamers, without the silly tablet gimmick and specs that were at least triple the specs of the 360 and PS3, I think it would been more successful than Wii U was, obviously not a Switch level success, but probably would have been able to move somewhere between Gamecube and N64 numbers, since they would have had the early sales advantage of having the first next-gen console. 

1. Through Switch's first 37 months on the market, Nintendo had released 30 games that became million sellers. If you add the games that weren't million sellers, including Nintendo's digital-only games, then Nintendo has released more than one game per month on average, so that's more than twice the quantity that you assumed. This number is excluding the NES and SNES apps that are part of Nintendo Switch Online where Nintendo makes their classic games available.

In any case, you have conceded that your basis is your personal taste, much like curl-6's seemingly endless complaints.

2. This assumes success of Lockhart and that would be a huge gamble for Nintendo to bank their strategy on. We've already seen in the eighth gen that the base models of the XB1 and PS4 were getting merely passable versions later on, and Lockhart is going to start out with that while mid-gen upgrades for the PS5 and XSX should be absolutely a given, so by 2024 it's much more likely that the base for third party developers will be the PS5 and XSX, not Lockhart. Beyond that, an early Switch 2 launch comes with the problem that the majority of owners is not ready for next generation, especially if the primary incentive for upgrading are games that the majority doesn't care about (AAA third party software). Nintendo ran into this problem with the Wii U where their sales pitch at E3 2011 was AAA third party software and Wii owners reacted very hostile to it.

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nintendo_products#Wii

Software sells hardware, and Nintendo's first party output took a nosedive in 2011 in terms of pedigree and quantity. 2011 had:

Kirby's Epic Yarn (February, PAL-only)
Mario Sports Mix (Febuary (NA), January (PAL))
The Last Story (January, JP-only)
Pandora's Tower (May, JP-only)
Wii Play: Motion (June)
Rhythm Heaven: Fever (July, JP-only)
Xenoblade Chronicles (August, PAL-only)
Kirby's Return to Dreamland (November)
Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games (November)
Poképark 2: Wonders Beyond (November, JP-only)
The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword (November)
Fortune Street (December)

There are a lot of staggered releases in there, so cleaned up it looks like this:

Japan: 9 games
North America: 6 games
Europe, Australia: 8 games

I've written down the release months above, so you can tell how barren most of the year was for each territory and that it was a very backloaded year (4 of the 5 global releases in 2011 landed in November or December). Furthermore, it was a year without big system sellers because Nintendo kept having the wrong idea with Zelda; the producer Eiji Aonuma took pride in saying that the whole game feels like a puzzle, but none of the big Wii hits have the word 'puzzle' come to mind.

That a release schedule like that isn't good for momentum should be clear, but I can emphasize my point with the much more recent 2018 of Switch where the first three quarters of 2018 were light on important Nintendo software and momentum suffered. The holiday quarter of 2018 was huge because of Super Mario Party, Pokémon: Let's Go and Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, allowing 2018 as a whole to finish with healthy year over year growth over 2017, but it didn't look healthy for much of 2018, especially because of the April to June quarter.

The Wii's 2009 played out similarly, but you probably don't remember the major dip in hardware sales in the first half of 2009 that made people rejoice that the fad is over. The second half of 2009 saw Nintendo release Wii Sports Resort, Wii Fit Plus and New Super Mario Bros. Wii as major games, and the resulting hardware sales made the haters choke on their own venom.

The Wii's 2012 saw another major decline over 2011. 2013 onwards essentially flatlined for Wii's hardware sales, but you can tell why if you check the Wikipedia link above and read up on Nintendo's software output for the Wii during the late life of the console.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

RolStoppable said:
shikamaru317 said:

Your post raises a few questions:

3. Nintendo wrecked the Wii by moving on far too soon in hopes of getting more AAA third party games. Before the Wii U launched, AAA third party publishers already withheld ~75% of upcoming games that were scheduled to release on the PS3 and 360. What makes you confident that Nintendo will be stupid enough to repeat the same mistake?

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.


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.

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.

jonathanalis said:
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.

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.

Last edited by Otter - 4 days ago

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.



Otter said:
RolStoppable said:

Your post raises a few questions:

3. Nintendo wrecked the Wii by moving on far too soon in hopes of getting more AAA third party games. Before the Wii U launched, AAA third party publishers already withheld ~75% of upcoming games that were scheduled to release on the PS3 and 360. What makes you confident that Nintendo will be stupid enough to repeat the same mistake?

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.

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.

Looks like you are going with shipment figures for your argument, but one important thing to note here is that the Wii went into the fiscal year ending March 2009 with very low inventory and ended the fiscal year ending March 2009 with very high inventory. This inflated shipments for the fiscal year ending March 2009 and is the reason why you even see a 5m decline for the fiscal year ending March 2010. Regardless, the fiscal year ending March 2010 saw shipments of 20.54m, so when you refer to such a figure as "wrecked", then I have to ask you if you are trolling or genuine.

The biggest source of Nintendo's profits are sales of first party software, so logically the most effective way to keep profits high is by releasing games, not introducing new hardware (refering to next gen, not revisions). Launching new hardware is a hard task where a lot of factors have to strike a healthy balance, including the release schedule of first party games. Right now all of Nintendo's top development teams are working on Switch software to be released in late 2020 or throughout 2021, so a holiday 2022 launch for Switch 2 is absolutely not feasible if the intent is to please Nintendo's core audience (which is the basis of the argument you are making). There's no chance to have a sufficient amount of system sellers ready by then.

Keep in mind that neither Switch hardware nor software have peaked yet, but you are talking about a successor that is supposed to launch in two years. Five years and seven months is a ridiculous proposition given the circumstances here. You are asking for a shorter lifecycle than the Wii despite Switch being in a much better position.

Last edited by RolStoppable - 4 days ago

Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

RolStoppable said:
Otter said:

Looks like you are going with shipment figures for your argument, but one important thing to note here is that the Wii went into the fiscal year ending March 2009 with very low inventory and ended the fiscal year ending March 2009 with very high inventory. This inflated shipments for the fiscal year ending March 2009 and is the reason why you even see a 5m decline for the fiscal year ending March 2010. Regardless, the fiscal year ending March 2010 saw shipments of 20.54m, so when you refer to such a figure as "wrecked", then I have to ask you if you are trolling or genuine.

The biggest source of Nintendo's profits are sales of first party software, so logically the most effective way to keep profits high is by releasing games, not introducing new hardware (refering to next gen, not revisions). Launching new hardware is a hard task where a lot of factors have to strike a healthy balance, including the release schedule of first party games. Right now all of Nintendo's top development teams are working on Switch software to be released in late 2020 or throughout 2021, so a holiday 2022 launch for Switch 2 is absolutely not feasible if the intent is to please Nintendo's core audience (which is the basis of the argument you are making). There's no chance to have a sufficient amount of system sellers ready by then.

Keep in mind that neither Switch hardware nor software have peaked yet, but you are talking about a successor that is supposed to launch in two years. Five years and seven months is a ridiculous proposition given the circumstances here. You are asking for a shorter lifecycle than the Wii despite Switch being in a much better position.

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.