The ideal timing for the Switch successor would be a launch during the fiscal year where Switch hardware shipments drop below 10m units. There isn't a good reason to act sooner because software sales peak later than hardware sales. You mention revenue, but that's less important than profits; Nintendo has higher profit margins on software than on hardware, so an overall drop in revenue due to declining hardware sales (which will inevitably happen at some point) won't decrease their profits on a proportional level.

Usually? Well, there is no "usually," especially if we include PS & Xbox. Permanent price cuts seem to be all over the place when they happen. But Nintendo has been kinda sparse with the price cuts this century, especially when it comes to handhelds. Most models never got a price cut at all, though some new models have been lower-priced ones, meaning they could be viewed as a de facto price cut. Of the models that did get a price cut, the GBA SP didn't get a price cut until 2 months before the DS was released, and the DS Lite didn't get a price cut until after the 3DS was released. The 3DS got a price cut early, but only because it cost too much for what it was and early sales were hurting as a result. As for their home consoles, the Wii & Wii U got one $50 cut a piece; the Wii's was about halfway through the system's 6-year primary lifespan, while the Wii U's was only 10 months after release.

With the Switch, I guess it depends on whether Nintendo approaches it more like one of their handhelds or more like one of their home consoles, and it could very well be more likely to be the former. The Switch Lite could be the closest thing to a price cut it gets, as it was a de facto one by reducing the entry price point by $100. Nintendo may feel like they won't have to cut the price of either Switch model until they get close to releasing the Switch 2 (or whatever the Switch's replacement is).

As for the prospects of a longer life cycle, has it been confirmed that it's something Nintendo is dead set on? Also, does that entail that the Switch won't be replaced before the 6 to 6-½-year mark, or merely that it will continue to get some sort of software support even after it's replaced? They haven't been keen on supporting any of their systems in the long term since the N64 (the NES and, to a lesser extent, the SNES had decent post-replacement support). Nintendo's habit of abandoning a system tends to be preceded by a draw down in development for their current system as they devote more resources for their next one.

Unless they have a lot of massive surprises in store, there's already worrying signs that they're repeating themselves with the Switch. They already blew through most of their big guns by 2019. Of all their games that have sold over 5 million copies, only two (AC and 3D All-Stars) were 2020 titles. Aside from BotW2 and possibly Metroid Prime 4, they don't have any top-tier new first-party games announced for this year. The rest of the upcoming slate of announced titles is mid-tier titles and re-releases of older games. If we don't see something big announced this year like, say, Mario Kart 9 or a new main series Super Mario or Pokemon game, that won't be very encouraging to the prospects of the Switch having a 7-8 year primary life cycle like PS & Xbox.

I'm not saying it won't happen, but Nintendo has yet to give any reason to think that it will happen. Old habits die hard, and I consider the default position to be "Nintendo will keep doing what they've always done since the N64."

Look at the second paragraph in the post you quoted. Investors ask Nintendo about the future outlook of the company regularly and Nintendo answers that a new console isn't coming anytime soon. And yes, what Nintendo means is the timeframe until replacement, not the entire lifetime which includes support after replacement.

Nintendo supported the 3DS for two years after its replacement, so that's also something to consider. The fundamental point of this continued first party support was maintenance of a broad price bracket. Switch was $300, so by keeping the 3DS around, Nintendo had $100-200 covered with their various 3DS models. First party support for the 3DS was phased out around the time when it was feasible to have a cheaper Switch SKU (Switch Lite), albeit a more restricted one. Going forward, you should expect Nintendo to handle it the same way, because the Switch successor is very likely to launch with a price of $300 again. Also, the GB/C, GBA and DS had decent post-replacement support too. Out of Nintendo's successful consoles, there's only the Wii which didn't have post-replacement support, so your stance to make the anomaly your default expectation is puzzling. (Failed consoles getting cut short is the norm in this business, so N64, GC and Wii U seeing no post-replacement support is nothing out of the ordinary.)

Ah yes, the old "released all the big guns argument" that has been made every single year.

You mention how they need to announce something big this year while ignoring the fact that 3D World+Bowser's Fury is releasing next week which is a gauranteed 5+ million seller with potential to do over 10 million.

Then next month is Monster Hunter Rise (not 1st party but a major exclusive). MH4 & MHX each did over 4 million on 3DS so with the Switch affect+World making the series huge in the West, Rise should easily pass 5 million with potential to do 10 million as well.

On top of that we have seen over the last few years that Nintendo is more than willing to announce games just a few months before launch so the whole, "they have nothing scheduled" argument is tired and nonsense at this point.

Usually? Well, there is no "usually," especially if we include PS & Xbox. Permanent price cuts seem to be all over the place when they happen. But Nintendo has been kinda sparse with the price cuts this century, especially when it comes to handhelds. Most models never got a price cut at all, though some new models have been lower-priced ones, meaning they could be viewed as a de facto price cut. Of the models that did get a price cut, the GBA SP didn't get a price cut until 2 months before the DS was released, and the DS Lite didn't get a price cut until after the 3DS was released. The 3DS got a price cut early, but only because it cost too much for what it was and early sales were hurting as a result. As for their home consoles, the Wii & Wii U got one $50 cut a piece; the Wii's was about halfway through the system's 6-year primary lifespan, while the Wii U's was only 10 months after release.

With the Switch, I guess it depends on whether Nintendo approaches it more like one of their handhelds or more like one of their home consoles, and it could very well be more likely to be the former. The Switch Lite could be the closest thing to a price cut it gets, as it was a de facto one by reducing the entry price point by $100. Nintendo may feel like they won't have to cut the price of either Switch model until they get close to releasing the Switch 2 (or whatever the Switch's replacement is).

As for the prospects of a longer life cycle, has it been confirmed that it's something Nintendo is dead set on? Also, does that entail that the Switch won't be replaced before the 6 to 6-½-year mark, or merely that it will continue to get some sort of software support even after it's replaced? They haven't been keen on supporting any of their systems in the long term since the N64 (the NES and, to a lesser extent, the SNES had decent post-replacement support). Nintendo's habit of abandoning a system tends to be preceded by a draw down in development for their current system as they devote more resources for their next one.

Unless they have a lot of massive surprises in store, there's already worrying signs that they're repeating themselves with the Switch. They already blew through most of their big guns by 2019. Of all their games that have sold over 5 million copies, only two (AC and 3D All-Stars) were 2020 titles. Aside from BotW2 and possibly Metroid Prime 4, they don't have any top-tier new first-party games announced for this year. The rest of the upcoming slate of announced titles is mid-tier titles and re-releases of older games. If we don't see something big announced this year like, say, Mario Kart 9 or a new main series Super Mario or Pokemon game, that won't be very encouraging to the prospects of the Switch having a 7-8 year primary life cycle like PS & Xbox.

I'm not saying it won't happen, but Nintendo has yet to give any reason to think that it will happen. Old habits die hard, and I consider the default position to be "Nintendo will keep doing what they've always done since the N64."

Replace "gauranteed 5+ million" with 10 million and "potential to do over 10 million" with 15 million for both games and you are good.

I mentioned SM3DW+BF in a prior post. While the Bowser's Fury expansion is new, the core game is a re-release of a 7-year-old Wii U game. Will it do well? Certainly. Re-releases can and often do well, and most of these Wii U re-releases have done better on the Switch (for obvious reasons), so SM3DW ought to do at least as well as its original Wii U release. But will it move any appreciable amount of hardware? Doubtful. Re-releases/remakes/remasters aren't typically known for having any real system-selling potential on any platform, with exceptions being incredibly rare. And Nintendo is running out of notable Wii U games to re-release, or at least ones that would be worth re-releasing. I doubt there's much demand for, say, Smash 4 or Splatoon to come to the Switch when they already have just-as-good-or-better sequels on it. All they have left that there's a point in re-releasing and that people will actually be interested in is maybe the HD Zelda re-releases and Xenoblade Chronicles X.

Forget ports of old games. Where's the original games, i.e., the ones that aren't ports, remasters, or remakes? Nintendo isn't really able to readily fill in the gaps between new-new titles on a consistent basis with re-releases of Wii U games anymore, so those new games will be even more essential going forward. BotW2 is the only first-party title that we know of and that isn't a port of a Wii U game that has the potential to be a blockbuster release. The rest are unlikely to be big hits (as interested as I am in Metroid Prime 4, that's never been a huge franchise commercially). And don't "The megatons are coming, just you wait" me. Sure, they could have something big waiting in the wings, but past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior, and I'm not expecting mountains of huge titles in the Switch's future unless something happens in the near future to convince me otherwise.

Nintendo's biggest and best titles for any given system released this century have been relatively front-loaded within that system's life, even for their more successful systems. The DS only had a few successful top-tier games released after 2008. The Wii didn't get many big games after it turned four, with the biggest titles by far from Nov. 2010 onward being Donkey Kong Country Returns and Skyward Sword. The 3DS had only a few top-tier new games released from 2015 onward. It would honestly surprise the hell out of me if the Switch got new entries in most of Nintendo's big series. The biggest thing I could see for the Switch is a Sword & Shield sequel or a remake of an older Pokemon game, seeing as the biggest late-life first-party games for their handhelds have been Pokemon games.

As for MH Rise, that's a third-party game. Third-party titles are not the lifeblood of the Switch. In fact, it's been a very long time since third-party titles were anywhere close to being as important as first-party games on a Nintendo system. Considering how big Monster Hunter is in Japan, Rise will probably be the best-selling third-party game on the Switch by far, but it would be one of the rare third-party games on the system that's a multi-million-seller. That's a list games so small you can literally hold them in one hand. On average, people buy Nintendo systems primarily to play Nintendo games. The rare third-party hit doesn't change that.

@Bolded. Really, dude? Don't act like my points weren't relevant.

Not counting Wii U games that were themselves re-releases of older Nintendo games, SM3DW is the last major Wii U port they have to fill in the gaps. Pointing that out is relevant to the discussion. Bringing back those old games for people that might have missed them the first time around may have been a good strategy, helping pad out the Switch's library and fill in gaps between actual new titles, but it was one they couldn't rely on forever (and none of them were obvious system-sellers in and of themselves, except Mario Kart 8 DX in Japan, and even that didn't move a ton of excess hardware). What Wii U games are they going to have later in the year and in 2022 & 2023 to fill in the gaps between actual new titles? I somehow don't think games like Nintendo Land and Game & Wario are going to cut it.

Pointing out that Rise is third-party is also relevant, because third-party games are as a rule not going to be helping the Switch. Monster Hunter and Dragon Quest are the exceptions to the rule. They're big-name franchises in Japan and tend to move a decent amount of hardware in the short term in that country regardless of what platform they are on (and since this is an NPD thread, note that neither franchise is a system-seller in the U.S.). But a single third-party title being a likely system-seller for the Switch doesn't change the fact that the Switch, like every other Nintendo platform over the past 20-25 years, has been utterly dependent on Nintendo's first-party efforts. The list of best-selling games on Nintendo platforms over the past 20 years is thoroughly inundated with Nintendo titles, with third-party titles barely making a dent in the list. The top 25 first-party titles on the Switch make up about half of all software sales on the platform (excluding download-only titles).

And pointing out that Nintendo doesn't have any huge new titles lined up besides BotW2 is relevant as well, even if as of late they haven't announced some titles until a few months before launch. You can't simply assume they have a lot of huge titles waiting in the wings based on a hunch. They may have a bunch of games over the next two years they'll announce in the same way, and it's entirely possible that none of the them will be something huge like Mario Kart 9 or Mario Odyssey 2. It's impossible to prove one way or another the existence of hypothetical future games, so in these sorts of situations I believe the default position should be the null hypothesis, i.e., "nonexistent until announced." And given Nintendo's history, the more reasonable assumption is that they don't have a lot left in the way of blockbuster-tier titles for the system. I don't believe they do because they haven't given me a reason to think otherwise. They may have a few cards they haven't played, but I doubt the next four years will be anywhere near as packed with big titles as the previous four years.