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
Otter said:

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.

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?



Around the Network
The_Liquid_Laser said:

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.

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



Shaunodon said:

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?

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. 

Last edited by Otter - 4 days ago

Otter said:
Shaunodon said:

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?

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.



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

Eagle367 said:
Otter said:

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.

If we think power isn't essential to Nintendo, its even more reason to move away from hard restarts unless they have a unique concept which is demanding of a hard reset.

Honestly I'm not arguing evidence of what they will do, simply arguing that it would make sense. I'm not sure many of us suspected a hybrid system in 2017 before it was rumoured or that Nintendo would put key franchises on mobile. I still recall many Nintendo fans on here upset when they first publically announced the NX so soon after the Wii U.

If people believe that Switch 2 will introduce something distinctly new then fair enough. To me Switch 2 will be a more powerful Switch. I Suspect further USPs will come through accessories (like ring fit/VR which will be dependant on more power).

Nintendo have never had problems selling premium versions of their hardware late in a gen, the only difference now is that late gen updates carry them further into the future and will usher in way more software support and prolonged income. In the past a soft transition wouldn't make sense, this would have resulted in Nintendo creating 2 games per platform (DS/3DS) either forcibly killing an old platform or preventing a new one being effectively utilised. Instead in this age , they could easily scale games and graphical leaps are increasingly incremental. Again so why wait until the financial dip that would come with waiting until 2024/5?


Marketing wise, its entirely up Nintendo how they wish to play it. The DS Lite ushered in a new era for the DS line of products and the phat DS was quickly phased out. It was just as effective a  new system launch. Since we referenced Xbox Series X, it's worth noting that MS have literally commited to supporting Xbox One for an additional 2 years. The whole industry now is fairly different from what we had 10 years ago, so I don't feel it necessary to cling to what used to be done and assume thats the only thing consumers will accept or companies will push. People on this forum also thought a PS4 Pro/Xbox One X would not happen, many argued the Switch lite defeats the point of the Switch.

I'm also curious what people think Nintendo learned from their failure transitioning from Wii-Wii U. 





Around the Network
Otter said:
Shaunodon said:

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?

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. 

"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."

All third-party AAA and all irrelevant to the Switch market.

"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?"
"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."

Ok. So your three exmaples here are:

-Dragon Quest XI*-- a game that reviewed far better on Switch, and reviewers all said that the techincal downgrades were negligible and that the QOL improvements all far outweighed them.
-Pokemon-- a game that's been heavily criticised for it's lazy development.
-Breath of the Wild-- a game already judged as perhaps the greatest of all time and setting record sales for it's franchise.

How exactly does any of this argue in favour of better hardware? People don't need Zelda in 4k 60fps. It's already a masterpiece. Switch has shown that devs who put work into a decent port get rewarded with good sales. And devs are always gonna desire porting to Switch while there's a large and growing userbase.

Momentum for Switch isn't slowing. We already know Nintendo have a ton of games gearing up for the next couple years, as Switch basically enters the second half of it's lifespan. Devs aren't dumb enough to ignore all those potential sales, so they have to come to Nintendo, not the other way around. This isn't rocket science.



Shaunodon said:
Otter said:

"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."

All third-party AAA and all irrelevant to the Switch market.

"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?"
"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."

Ok. So your three exmaples here are:

-Dragon Quest XI*-- a game that reviewed far better on Switch, and reviewers all said that the techincal downgrades were negligible and that the QOL improvements all far outweighed them.
-Pokemon-- a game that's been heavily criticised for it's lazy development.
-Breath of the Wild-- a game already judged as perhaps the greatest of all time and setting record sales for it's franchise.

How exactly does any of this argue in favour of better hardware? People don't need Zelda in 4k 60fps. It's already a masterpiece. Switch has shown that devs who put work into a decent port get rewarded with good sales. And devs are always gonna desire porting to Switch while there's a large and growing userbase.

Momentum for Switch isn't slowing. We already know Nintendo have a ton of games gearing up for the next couple years, as Switch basically enters the second half of it's lifespan. Devs aren't dumb enough to ignore all those potential sales, so they have to come to Nintendo, not the other way around. This isn't rocket science.

I think most of your comments missed the points I was trying to make.

I'm just going to brain fart at you

-Consumers have shown they do not not need exclusivity to purchase a new platform (the point wasn't nintendo need Far Cry to sell)
-Consumers do not need Zelda in 4k and better graphics, that doesn't mean it wouldn't make for a major selling point. A bigger screen has notably increased sales of past handhelds


-DS>3DS, Wii >Wii U... All hard transitions where Nintendo waited and lost significant percentages of their previous install base. All on the hope of a new USP that didn't work. There's a lot more too it, but just maybe when you're dealing with Blue Ocean market its better to not let activity dwindle and risk becoming a fad.


-Nintendo users typically depend more heavily on ever greens (its why 2017 games are often in the chart), this makes me think that a prolong generation won't necessarily result in the constant software highs people expect. A cross gen Mario kart 9 on a new platform > MK9 on Switch alone.

-The driving force of the Switch initial success sales were hardcore Nintendo fans between 25-40, typically male. Who is to say they have no interest in a premium Switch device 5 years later where all of the Nintendo masterpieces shine like never before? And it supports the next 7 years of Nintendo games.

-What is Nintendo's next move? If its just better graphics, don't wait for the Switch to be selling 10m and interest in it to die before introducing a more power system. In terms of opportunity cost, there's way more to loose launching late, then launching early. By many people estimations on here, PS2 launched early because PS1 peaked only 2 years prior. PS1 peak 1998- PS2 release- 2000. 

-Nintendo has proven to have a fairly fickle audience for its home consoles and a strong but modest 80m audience for handheld devices. Once this core audience is fed, they should look at retargeting them with a new device. That will happen by 2022. 

-Mark my word, most devs will literally ignore all those potential sales of Switch. Giving Switch late ports, or skip it entirely. Human resources are limited and there are only so many studios you can outsource ports to. Hitting PS4/PS5/XSX/X1X in a timely manner is infinitely more important to them.


-Nintendo is not going to devs, Its simply continueing in the philosophy unified but scalable developing adapted to different play styles. The life cycle for the people of who adopted in 2017, will largely differ from those in 2020. They are of course keeping in mind, timing wise when would it be more beneficial to their partners for them to release a new System. Waiting until PS5/SX are very established offers far less value to major publishers. 

P.S I fully understand why people think a Switch 2024 is the right thing to do. It just humours me that people think 2022 would be crazy or like there is no evidence that it is actually advicable.



Otter said:

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.

Wii shipments for the fiscal years ending March...

2009: 25.94m
2010: 20.54m (-21%)
2011: 15.08m (-26%)
2012: 9.84m (-35%)
2013: 3.99m (-60%)

Like I said in my previous post, 2009 closed out with high stock levels; 5.43m were shipped in January to March 2009, followed by only 2.23m in April to June 2009. If you account for stock levels and take away 1m from 2009 and add it to 2010 which is more representative of sell-through, then you are only looking at a decline of ~3m from one fiscal year to the next which is under 15%. Consequently, that would make the decline for 2011 bigger, but 2011 was already notably weaker in releases than previous years.

https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/finance/software/wii.html

2007: Wii Sports, Wii Play
2008: Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros. Brawl (Japan, America), Wii Fit (Japan)
2009: Wii Fit (America, Europe), Super Smash Bros. Brawl (Europe), Mario Kart Wii
2010: Wii Sports Resort, Wii Fit Plus, New Super Mario Bros. Wii
2011: Wii Party
2012: N/A
2013: N/A

The biggest fiscal years strongly correlate with the release timings of the biggest Nintendo games. SSBB and Wii Fit spilled over into 2009, because it wasn't until March 2008 that SSBB got released in America while Wii Fit got a spring 2008 release in both America and Europe. 2010's big releases (WSR, WFP and NSMBW combined for over 80m lifetime); 2011's releases couldn't even combine for 30m (Wii Party, Super Mario Galaxy 2 and all the rest). 2012's release schedule was underwhelming; I already posted what Nintendo did during calendar year 2011. It's no secret that the Wii lived by Nintendo's first party lineup, so it shouldn't be hard to believe that it died by the lack of it.

Moving on to your faulty hardware logic...

Someone who buys a revision isn't necessarily out of the ecosystem only three years later. All it takes to retain is a next gen console that is worth buying and if Nintendo pulled that off, they would prolong the lifecycle of Switch and get all the benefits from next gen. Your logic is that a good five years of Switch are enough and that should be used to fuel into (presumably) five good years for Switch 2, but it would obviously be better for Nintendo's business if they get a good seven years out of Switch that fuel into another long lifecycle for Switch 2. There's no good reason to believe that they can't pull that off. It would actually be easier to go that route, because their best first party developers can finish their Switch games in late 2020 and throughout 2021 and then prepare to launch next gen games in late 2024 and throughout 2025 to get Switch 2 strong out of the gates. But judging from your post, you are actually talking about second string teams being supposed to prepare the launch year titles for Switch 2?

You also mentioned a cross-gen release strategy, but how do you get Nintendo fans to upgrade for processing power when they've not shown to go for that in the past? You hamper Switch 2 sales by doing cross-gen and that in turn would make the already reluctant third parties (they never have faith in Nintendo) hesitate even more. You'd invite a negative feedback cycle where lack of sales leads to lack of games which leads to lack of sales.

But above all, you assume that Nintendo fans would be tired of Switch in only two years from now. What is that based on?



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

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

Otter said:
Shaunodon said:

"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."

All third-party AAA and all irrelevant to the Switch market.

"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?"
"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."

Ok. So your three exmaples here are:

-Dragon Quest XI*-- a game that reviewed far better on Switch, and reviewers all said that the techincal downgrades were negligible and that the QOL improvements all far outweighed them.
-Pokemon-- a game that's been heavily criticised for it's lazy development.
-Breath of the Wild-- a game already judged as perhaps the greatest of all time and setting record sales for it's franchise.

How exactly does any of this argue in favour of better hardware? People don't need Zelda in 4k 60fps. It's already a masterpiece. Switch has shown that devs who put work into a decent port get rewarded with good sales. And devs are always gonna desire porting to Switch while there's a large and growing userbase.

Momentum for Switch isn't slowing. We already know Nintendo have a ton of games gearing up for the next couple years, as Switch basically enters the second half of it's lifespan. Devs aren't dumb enough to ignore all those potential sales, so they have to come to Nintendo, not the other way around. This isn't rocket science.

I think most of your comments missed the points I was trying to make.

I'm just going to brain fart at you

-Consumers have shown they do not not need exclusivity to purchase a new platform (the point wasn't nintendo need Far Cry to sell)
-Consumers do not need Zelda in 4k and better graphics, that doesn't mean it wouldn't make for a major selling point. A bigger screen has notably increased sales of past handhelds


-DS>3DS, Wii >Wii U... All hard transitions where Nintendo waited and lost significant percentages of their previous install base. All on the hope of a new USP that didn't work. There's a lot more too it, but just maybe when you're dealing with Blue Ocean market its better to not let activity dwindle and risk becoming a fad.


-Nintendo users typically depend more heavily on ever greens (its why 2017 games are often in the chart), this makes me think that a prolong generation won't necessarily result in the constant software highs people expect. A cross gen Mario kart 9 on a new platform > MK9 on Switch alone.

-The driving force of the Switch initial success sales were hardcore Nintendo fans between 25-40, typically male. Who is to say they have no interest in a premium Switch device 5 years later where all of the Nintendo masterpieces shine like never before? And it supports the next 7 years of Nintendo games.

-What is Nintendo's next move? If its just better graphics, don't wait for the Switch to be selling 10m and interest in it to die before introducing a more power system. In terms of opportunity cost, there's way more to loose launching late, then launching early. By many people estimations on here, PS2 launched early because PS1 peaked only 2 years prior. PS1 peak 1998- PS2 release- 2000. 

-Nintendo has proven to have a fairly fickle audience for its home consoles and a strong but modest 80m audience for handheld devices. Once this core audience is fed, they should look at retargeting them with a new device. That will happen by 2022. 

-Mark my word, most devs will literally ignore all those potential sales of Switch. Giving Switch late ports, or skip it entirely. Human resources are limited and there are only so many studios you can outsource ports to. Hitting PS4/PS5/XSX/X1X in a timely manner is infinitely more important to them.


-Nintendo is not going to devs, Its simply continueing in the philosophy unified but scalable developing adapted to different play styles. The life cycle for the people of who adopted in 2017, will largely differ from those in 2020. They are of course keeping in mind, timing wise when would it be more beneficial to their partners for them to release a new System. Waiting until PS5/SX are very established offers far less value to major publishers. 

P.S I fully understand why people think a Switch 2024 is the right thing to do. It just humours me that people think 2022 would be crazy or like there is no evidence that it is actually advicable.

Again you've just managed to make a bunch of faulty arguments that don't apply to Nintendo, or the people who buy their systems. Too many for my liking.

It's not just about the Switch peaking now (which we don't even know for sure, since they're likely gonna have a stacked year in 2021), but it's also the massive momentum Switch is building up. Trying to predict a possible decline based on past Nintendo systems is equally faulty, because they've never had the kind of software support or widespread appeal that Switch has right now.

Nintendo have enough resources and experience to give Switch a healthy long lifespan, while also sufficiently preparing for their next system in a few years. The only way they could screw it up is by trying to do too much, think too hard, and release a new product far too early that no one needs and will confuse their market. One would hope they're not taking any terrible advice like that.



Otter said:
Eagle367 said:

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.

If we think power isn't essential to Nintendo, its even more reason to move away from hard restarts unless they have a unique concept which is demanding of a hard reset.

Honestly I'm not arguing evidence of what they will do, simply arguing that it would make sense. I'm not sure many of us suspected a hybrid system in 2017 before it was rumoured or that Nintendo would put key franchises on mobile. I still recall many Nintendo fans on here upset when they first publically announced the NX so soon after the Wii U.

If people believe that Switch 2 will introduce something distinctly new then fair enough. To me Switch 2 will be a more powerful Switch. I Suspect further USPs will come through accessories (like ring fit/VR which will be dependant on more power).

Nintendo have never had problems selling premium versions of their hardware late in a gen, the only difference now is that late gen updates carry them further into the future and will usher in way more software support and prolonged income. In the past a soft transition wouldn't make sense, this would have resulted in Nintendo creating 2 games per platform (DS/3DS) either forcibly killing an old platform or preventing a new one being effectively utilised. Instead in this age , they could easily scale games and graphical leaps are increasingly incremental. Again so why wait until the financial dip that would come with waiting until 2024/5?


Marketing wise, its entirely up Nintendo how they wish to play it. The DS Lite ushered in a new era for the DS line of products and the phat DS was quickly phased out. It was just as effective a  new system launch. Since we referenced Xbox Series X, it's worth noting that MS have literally commited to supporting Xbox One for an additional 2 years. The whole industry now is fairly different from what we had 10 years ago, so I don't feel it necessary to cling to what used to be done and assume thats the only thing consumers will accept or companies will push. People on this forum also thought a PS4 Pro/Xbox One X would not happen, many argued the Switch lite defeats the point of the Switch.

I'm also curious what people think Nintendo learned from their failure transitioning from Wii-Wii U. 



You seem to be ignoring my biggest statement about hard resets. They inject new life into the companies when sales start to dip. When hardware and software sales aren't what they used to be, the hard reset comes in to change the entire narrative. That's what XSeX and PS5 are doing regardless of supporting Xbone or not. The point of a hard reset isn't the graphics boost or the new innovation, it's the sales boost that software and hardware receive when they slow down immensely. 

Other than DS lite, there has never been a dramatic shift in sales from a soft upgrade. Not in software or hardware and certainly not in the number of 3rs party support. The games won't increase for the switch just because there's a powerful version put there. The only way more games will come is if 3rd parties sell like crazy on the switch. Ninty needs to prove it can sell 3rd party games like crazy and the barrier is bigger than it is for the rest who automatically get them. But when they start to sell 3rd party games, more come like even EA has 7 games for it now and the switch has a mindboggling amount of games already. More than 1200 I believe or at least more than 1000. Granted a lot are cheap cashgrabs. 

But hardware power will not get Nintendo more third party, more sales will and for that, prolonging the life of the switch is actually more beneficial because if Ninty releases a switch 2, third parties will look at the strong brand of the switch and how much it sold and want to jump on it early which will of course create positive marketing and more sales and games will come. I personally believe that will bring more 3rd parties in than an early increase because the switch will be a hardcore gamer success unlike the Wii which was a fad.

Also, the fact that the more they wait, the more power they can pack into the thing and the closer they can be to the ps6 and neXtbox, whatever they may be. Add in that mobile chip tech right now is developing really fast and quickly approaching non mobile chip tech in many avenues and waiting might be the best thing for power, games and marketing. 

I do think Ninty will release a pro version plus even a cheap TV only version that maybe has the pro chip and sell it for $200. Ninty can do a lot before it gets the real hard reset. And guess what they can still say that they will support the switch pro version for 2 years like Microsoft and it won't matter because the real hype and marketing will be around the new model. All they need is backwards support and people will eat it like cake. 

I personally would love a chain approach where they keep supporting 2 versions at the same time and replace the oldest supported version with a new one every 4 years so your version can last for 8 years if you want but I don't think that will net them the right amount of profits and sales. We'll see what Ninty does but looking at what we have right now, I see no evidence of that approach and all I see is at least 2024 spring.



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