By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - The Road to 160m+ for Nintendo Switch

javi741 on 03 May 2023
Soundwave said:
javi741 said:

The difference between the PS4 and the Switch is that the PS4 had a legitimate competitor it needed to keep up with, which is Xbox. PS4 was selling fine but Sony didn't want to have their marketshare slip away by allowing Microsoft to get a headstart for the 9th generation. Sony didn't want to risk looking like the platform with inferior games & graphics compared to Xbox and PC just cause they wanted to stick with the PS4. The primary reason the console manufacturers release successors is not because it's necessarily more profitable to upgrade, but to keep up with their competitors in terms of the quality and performance of software produced to maintain interest in the brand.

I'm sure most companies would prefer to stick to making software for older hardware with a large install base indefinitely since they won't need to spend millions of dollars and years of work to create a new console and create a large install base from scratch, and launching a new console always brings unknown risks. 

However, console companies don't do that cause their competitors are always trying to one-up them when it comes to game quality and performance and they don't want to allow their marketshare slip due to looking outdated. This is why the PS5 released even though the PS4 was doing well because they didn't wanna allow Xbox or PC to steal their marketshare just cause Sony refused to upgrade.

Nintendo is not in Sony's situation, they have a monopoly in their own hybrid console sector they created. The release of the PS5 and Series X didnt stop people from buying the Switch like crazy, and there's no legit competitor in the handheld space and nothing looks like it could come close to competing with the Switch. This also Nintendo's 2nd biggest install base they've ever had and easily the most profitable when it comes to software sales, so I'm sure Nintendo would be ok to keep the Switch alive and their primary system for several years as long as the software sales are there, which will be due to Switch's large install base.

Yea hardware sales are dropping for the Switch but Nintendo makes most of their profit on software, so smaller hardware sales won't be a major detriment to their business as long as the software sales are there. Nintendo has no competitors to keep up with for them to release a successor anytime soon. They'd likely for now rather take advantage of the Switch's large install base and remain profitable off the software sales instead of risking releasing a new platform that's far from guaranteed to be as successful.This is what Nintendo did with the 1989 Gameboy, although it was super underpowered even going into the late-90s. Nintendo still didn't release a successor cause they had a huge monopoly on the handheld market and would've rather just stick to their current hardware.

Yes I get that consoles and manufacturing chips takes years and needs to be done years in advanced before they release the console, but that doesn't mean that just cause Nintendo is finishing up their system behind the scenes that they have to release it as soon as its finished. I'm sure Nintendo already has a good idea of what the successor will be like at this time, but they could easily just sit on the idea indefinitely until they feel it's right to release the successor.

Well a few things, software sales for the Switch are dropping too, it's not just hardware sales that are falling. 

The other thing I think that doesn't get talked about is that userbase isn't like some rock solid population that doesn't wane either. There may well be people who bought a Switch say 6 years ago who are kinda done with the system and moving on to spending more of their money on say that new PS5 they purchased or any number of other entertainment options. So even if you have say a "userbase of 120 million" ... it doesn't actually mean you effectively have that if you stretch a system's product cycle way past 6-7 years. You start to lose people at the top for example or maybe they will buy a Zelda event level game but take a pass on being active in buying software throughout the year. 

Nintendo has to pay for hardware, the hardware can't just be completed and then they can sit on it indefinitely and not pay Nvidia, I'm sure Nvidia expects to be paid. You'd also have to book your window with TSMC or Samsung or whoever to get supply lines, and if you just cancel those there is likely a penalty because you're fucking them over by telling you'd have product there and then pulling out. Production space is extremely valuable. 

I don't think it's as simple as you think it is. 

Beyond that, even for people who want to cling to 2025 or whatever ... OK, but game development now takes 2 1/2-3 years ... that means as of 2022 (which we're already well past) just to make a 2025 launch, Nintendo would have to start phasing down development of Switch 1 software to focus on Switch 2 software to have anything ready even for 2025. 

Now that ToTK has wrapped, really all of Nintendo's major studios should be working on Switch 2 content. Like today, now, I'm not talking about 1 year into the future. Really by this point they should be well into development for Switch 2 software like more than a year into development for things like the next Mario Kart. 

Software sales are only down 4% this fiscal year compared to last fiscal year, that's so miniscule to the point where it's not even worth bringing up to show that there's declining interest in the brand, the 4% drop could've easily been erased had Nintendo released one more solid game. A 4% drop in software sales shouldn't at all indicate people are losing interest in the brand.

There hasn't been any indication yet that people who purchased the Switch 6 years ago are starting to lose interest or move on from the Switch. If that were the case we'd see more than a 4% decline in software sales at this point.

The idea that people will get tired of the Switch just cause it's outdated is greatly exaggerated, TOTK looking similiar graphically to BOTW isn't stopping people from being massively hyped for the game. Many people actually believe TOTK will outsell BOTW in lifetime sales, it doesn't seem like people are losing interest in the Switch at all if that's the case. Nintendo this past quarter just released their fastest selling game in their history with Pokemon S&V. 

Many gamers are content with owning the same system for 10+ years at times and still paying their yearly sequels to COD games that haven't changed much graphically on the same platform. Yes eventually gamers will want a better graphical experience, but it's not the end of the world if the option isn't there as long as the games are there. We see Microsoft and Sony upgrade their systems to keep up with the competition, Nintendo doesn't have competition right now so they aren't as much of a rush to release their successor as quickly. Declining hardware sales won't hurt the core of their business which is software sales.

Nintendo is not immediately shift their studios straight to Switch 2 permanently, even if if were to be releasing in 2024(But I'm thinking 2025 or later). Nintendo will likely want to keep the Switch around for several more years as a safety net in case the Switch 2 doesn't do as well. So major studios will likely continue to work on the Switch and the Switch 2 for right now,



Around the Network
Soundwave on 04 May 2023
javi741 said:
Soundwave said:

Well a few things, software sales for the Switch are dropping too, it's not just hardware sales that are falling. 

The other thing I think that doesn't get talked about is that userbase isn't like some rock solid population that doesn't wane either. There may well be people who bought a Switch say 6 years ago who are kinda done with the system and moving on to spending more of their money on say that new PS5 they purchased or any number of other entertainment options. So even if you have say a "userbase of 120 million" ... it doesn't actually mean you effectively have that if you stretch a system's product cycle way past 6-7 years. You start to lose people at the top for example or maybe they will buy a Zelda event level game but take a pass on being active in buying software throughout the year. 

Nintendo has to pay for hardware, the hardware can't just be completed and then they can sit on it indefinitely and not pay Nvidia, I'm sure Nvidia expects to be paid. You'd also have to book your window with TSMC or Samsung or whoever to get supply lines, and if you just cancel those there is likely a penalty because you're fucking them over by telling you'd have product there and then pulling out. Production space is extremely valuable. 

I don't think it's as simple as you think it is. 

Beyond that, even for people who want to cling to 2025 or whatever ... OK, but game development now takes 2 1/2-3 years ... that means as of 2022 (which we're already well past) just to make a 2025 launch, Nintendo would have to start phasing down development of Switch 1 software to focus on Switch 2 software to have anything ready even for 2025. 

Now that ToTK has wrapped, really all of Nintendo's major studios should be working on Switch 2 content. Like today, now, I'm not talking about 1 year into the future. Really by this point they should be well into development for Switch 2 software like more than a year into development for things like the next Mario Kart. 

Software sales are only down 4% this fiscal year compared to last fiscal year, that's so miniscule to the point where it's not even worth bringing up to show that there's declining interest in the brand, the 4% drop could've easily been erased had Nintendo released one more solid game. A 4% drop in software sales shouldn't at all indicate people are losing interest in the brand.

There hasn't been any indication yet that people who purchased the Switch 6 years ago are starting to lose interest or move on from the Switch. If that were the case we'd see more than a 4% decline in software sales at this point.

The idea that people will get tired of the Switch just cause it's outdated is greatly exaggerated, TOTK looking similiar graphically to BOTW isn't stopping people from being massively hyped for the game. Many people actually believe TOTK will outsell BOTW in lifetime sales, it doesn't seem like people are losing interest in the Switch at all if that's the case. Nintendo this past quarter just released their fastest selling game in their history with Pokemon S&V. 

Many gamers are content with owning the same system for 10+ years at times and still paying their yearly sequels to COD games that haven't changed much graphically on the same platform. Yes eventually gamers will want a better graphical experience, but it's not the end of the world if the option isn't there as long as the games are there. We see Microsoft and Sony upgrade their systems to keep up with the competition, Nintendo doesn't have competition right now so they aren't as much of a rush to release their successor as quickly. Declining hardware sales won't hurt the core of their business which is software sales.

Nintendo is not immediately shift their studios straight to Switch 2 permanently, even if if were to be releasing in 2024(But I'm thinking 2025 or later). Nintendo will likely want to keep the Switch around for several more years as a safety net in case the Switch 2 doesn't do as well. So major studios will likely continue to work on the Switch and the Switch 2 for right now,

If Switch 2 doesn't do so well, the aging, old-ass Switch by that point is not going to do shit either, so I would probably submit that Switch 2 is a massive priority for Nintendo right now and for quite some time. If you're Nintendo's president that has to be your no.1 priority behind the scenes right now. 

If Switch 2 is a dud ... it's such a massive blow to Nintendo and will completely and forever throw into doubt their ability to ever follow up a success. 0/3 successfully following up Wii, DS, and Switch ... you might as well just throw your hands up and admit as a management group you cannot handle success. 

But this they should know full well ... they've known this since 2020, 2021 too, it's not breaking news. 

If Nintendo cannot do the Switch 2 right and/or needs like 9 years to get it out and MS doing MS things ... at what point do you just start to say Sony is the only competent management group in this business, because they seem to have very few problems like this, 5 Playstation models 4/5 have launched very well in reasonable amounts of time too. 

Mr. Furukawa better be eating, sleeping, shitting Switch 2 right now, they need a president that is on the ball right now. A lazy attitude of "we'll just fart out Switch 2 when Switch 1 has wound down most of its momentum" I don't think is a great attitude, you gotta be sharp and laser focused when launching hardware in this biz. You get sloppy and soft or laid back or arrogant and it will haunt you, when you really look at failed consoles those attributes seem to be common denominators in failure. 

The decisions made in the Switch 2's development process in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, the software that for it that's under development in 2021, 2022, 2023 will probably have consequences for Nintendo that extend into the next decade frankly (2030+). If they nail those decisions and time lines they'll be in good, if they start doing dumb things behind the scenes right now, it will very easily go the other way and be a headache for years and years. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 04 May 2023

Wyrdness on 04 May 2023
Soundwave said:

You could say the same for the PS4 before the PS5 was announced ... it was selling just fine too. 

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding by a lot of people on how hardware design and delivery works too. 

Nintendo doesn't just sit around waiting for sales to decline to a certain point and then pick up the phone and call Nvidia and say "OK now, we need a new system, have it delivered to us in 12 months please". 

Like that's an impossible way for it to work. Beyond design time issues, beyond the obvious fact that it takes 2 1/2-3 years to have software ready, there's manufacturing issues too, you don't just show up to TSMC on a Sunday and say "well we decided now to have a new system, can you whip us up something" as if you're ordering a pizza at your uncle's corner store or fresh baked cookies from the supermarket. 

Supply lines are tight, these deals have to be set in place years in advance, not even "well 12 months in advance should be good enough". The decision on when to launch Switch successor likely was made 2-3 years ago already and deals are set in place. It can be changed a little bit but not in the way I think people here imagine. 

Also I don't think Nintendo wants to be sitting on a platform for years that is progressively selling less and less every year. They don't have two hardware lines anymore, you don't want to be in a decline phase of your business for multiple years if you don't really have to be. 

PS4 is not comparable to Switch for a start as pointed out by Javi Sony has to directly react to MS regardless of position in the market Nintendo right now doesn't need to really react to anyone secondly PS4 operates only in one market while Switch operates in two one of which it has a near monopoly in which Nintendo can leverage.

No shit Nintendo doesn't sit around they were already doing R&D when Switch launched as they were when WiiU launched, they already have concepts and prototypes of their next platforms to react to their own situation like they did with the WiiU and here's the twist they keep coming up with new ones as time goes on until the time comes when they have to make a move and pick out the most suitable option of their R&D results to become their new platform going forward at the time.



Soundwave on 04 May 2023
Wyrdness said:
Soundwave said:

You could say the same for the PS4 before the PS5 was announced ... it was selling just fine too. 

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding by a lot of people on how hardware design and delivery works too. 

Nintendo doesn't just sit around waiting for sales to decline to a certain point and then pick up the phone and call Nvidia and say "OK now, we need a new system, have it delivered to us in 12 months please". 

Like that's an impossible way for it to work. Beyond design time issues, beyond the obvious fact that it takes 2 1/2-3 years to have software ready, there's manufacturing issues too, you don't just show up to TSMC on a Sunday and say "well we decided now to have a new system, can you whip us up something" as if you're ordering a pizza at your uncle's corner store or fresh baked cookies from the supermarket. 

Supply lines are tight, these deals have to be set in place years in advance, not even "well 12 months in advance should be good enough". The decision on when to launch Switch successor likely was made 2-3 years ago already and deals are set in place. It can be changed a little bit but not in the way I think people here imagine. 

Also I don't think Nintendo wants to be sitting on a platform for years that is progressively selling less and less every year. They don't have two hardware lines anymore, you don't want to be in a decline phase of your business for multiple years if you don't really have to be. 

PS4 is not comparable to Switch for a start as pointed out by Javi Sony has to directly react to MS regardless of position in the market Nintendo right now doesn't need to really react to anyone secondly PS4 operates only in one market while Switch operates in two one of which it has a near monopoly in which Nintendo can leverage.

No shit Nintendo doesn't sit around they were already doing R&D when Switch launched as they were when WiiU launched, they already have concepts and prototypes of their next platforms to react to their own situation like they did with the WiiU and here's the twist they keep coming up with new ones as time goes on until the time comes when they have to make a move and pick out the most suitable option of their R&D results to become their new platform going forward at the time.

I'm talking about the chip R&D which is done by Nvidia, I don't think Nvidia really cares what Nintendo does or doesn't do with controllers or things like that, the chip is the issue, because

1.) Once the chip is complete likely you have to pay some amount for it (unless Nvidia became charity without telling anyone) for the years of work Nvidia did to develop the chip (which is likely the Tegra 239, we already know what the chip is from leaks from Nvidia). Beyond that, Nintendo likely has to pay Nvidia a certain amount on a yearly basis (royalty fees) too, it's likely not a one sum lump payment. 

2.) Even if you have the chip, I don't think people understand that's only a fraction of the whole issue. Even if you have the competed system ... yeah OK ... and who's going to manufacture it? This is kind of a big deal, you can't just show up to TSMC's front door and say "hey we got this 5nm new Nvidia chip, can you whip us up some?". Production lines for high end chip are limited with many companies wanting access for a range of devices (smartphones, tablets, laptops, desktop GPUs, etc. etc. etc. etc.). Those deals have to likely be booked years in advance too and if you just bail out on the deal you're likely subject to penalties because you've screwed TSMC or Samsung out of money they could have made had they booked that production for another vendor. 

This stuff is not as simple as "ho hum, we're just working away on our new hardware like a after school club and it'll be ready when ever we want" ... you have to have an idea years in advance when you're going to need said hardware and you have to have deals worked out that the hardware can even be manufactured in mass quantities (millions upon millions). Especially with modern hardware, yes even Nintendo's, this is a lot more complex when you're talking about hardware that is well beyond like a PS2/GameCube/Wii level. 

There's a lot that goes into hardware chipsets, especially modern level 3D hardware (anything beyond like a PS2/Wii level) and for Switch systems and its successor even doubly so, a Switch 2 chip is going to have to be a fairly modern (thus expensive and harder to secure) production node, probably 5nm because it has to have decent battery life in a portable state. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 04 May 2023

kazuyamishima on 04 May 2023
Wyrdness said:
Soundwave said:

You could say the same for the PS4 before the PS5 was announced ... it was selling just fine too. 

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding by a lot of people on how hardware design and delivery works too. 

Nintendo doesn't just sit around waiting for sales to decline to a certain point and then pick up the phone and call Nvidia and say "OK now, we need a new system, have it delivered to us in 12 months please". 

Like that's an impossible way for it to work. Beyond design time issues, beyond the obvious fact that it takes 2 1/2-3 years to have software ready, there's manufacturing issues too, you don't just show up to TSMC on a Sunday and say "well we decided now to have a new system, can you whip us up something" as if you're ordering a pizza at your uncle's corner store or fresh baked cookies from the supermarket. 

Supply lines are tight, these deals have to be set in place years in advance, not even "well 12 months in advance should be good enough". The decision on when to launch Switch successor likely was made 2-3 years ago already and deals are set in place. It can be changed a little bit but not in the way I think people here imagine. 

Also I don't think Nintendo wants to be sitting on a platform for years that is progressively selling less and less every year. They don't have two hardware lines anymore, you don't want to be in a decline phase of your business for multiple years if you don't really have to be. 

PS4 is not comparable to Switch for a start as pointed out by Javi Sony has to directly react to MS regardless of position in the market Nintendo right now doesn't need to really react to anyone secondly PS4 operates only in one market while Switch operates in two one of which it has a near monopoly in which Nintendo can leverage.

No shit Nintendo doesn't sit around they were already doing R&D when Switch launched as they were when WiiU launched, they already have concepts and prototypes of their next platforms to react to their own situation like they did with the WiiU and here's the twist they keep coming up with new ones as time goes on until the time comes when they have to make a move and pick out the most suitable option of their R&D results to become their new platform going forward at the time.

Results from last gen and the current gen, and even the PS2 gen, suggest that Sony doesn’t need to, unless they really screwed up like they did with the PS3. 



Around the Network
Wyrdness on 04 May 2023
Soundwave said:

I'm talking about the chip R&D which is done by Nvidia, I don't think Nvidia really cares what Nintendo does or doesn't do with controllers or things like that, the chip is the issue, because

1.) Once the chip is complete likely you have to pay some amount for it (unless Nvidia became charity without telling anyone) for the years of work Nvidia did to develop the chip (which is likely the Tegra 239, we already know what the chip is from leaks from Nvidia). Beyond that, Nintendo likely has to pay Nvidia a certain amount on a yearly basis (royalty fees) too, it's likely not a one sum lump payment. 

2.) Even if you have the chip, I don't think people understand that's only a fraction of the whole issue. Even if you have the competed system ... yeah OK ... and who's going to manufacture it? This is kind of a big deal, you can't just show up to TSMC's front door and say "hey we got this 5nm new Nvidia chip, can you whip us up some?". Production lines for high end chip are limited with many companies wanting access for a range of devices (smartphones, tablets, laptops, desktop GPUs, etc. etc. etc. etc.). Those deals have to likely be booked years in advance too and if you just bail out on the deal you're likely subject to penalties because you've screwed TSMC or Samsung out of money they could have made had they booked that production for another vendor. 

This stuff is not as simple as "ho hum, we're just working away on our new hardware like a after school club and it'll be ready when ever we want" ... you have to have an idea years in advance when you're going to need said hardware and you have to have deals worked out that the hardware can even be manufactured in mass quantities (millions upon millions). Especially with modern hardware, yes even Nintendo's, this is a lot more complex when you're talking about hardware that is well beyond like a PS2/GameCube/Wii level. 

There's a lot that goes into hardware chipsets, especially modern level 3D hardware (anything beyond like a PS2/Wii level) and for Switch systems and its successor even doubly so, a Switch 2 chip is going to have to be a fairly modern (thus expensive and harder to secure) production node, probably 5nm because it has to have decent battery life in a portable state. 

You're posting this as if it's news to anyone here, Nintendo and other platform holders have decades of experience knowing this and how to efficiently set up for shifts in their situation this is how the Switch came out two years after Nintendo realized the WiiU was done. The 2025 predictions and such you see people doing are with the knowledge of what you posted, A platform holder can identify a potential new tech now and work with in the framework of what you posted e.g. this tech is good lets work with this and aim for a release window two years from now etc... especially when they have the luxury to do so Nintendo themselves did this in the GB's 14 year run learning the ins and outs the hard way. This is apparent in how rumours from months ago suggested a particular type of chip which when discussed on this site someone highlighted how the new tech would be expensive now to use but it was then pointed out that in a possible 2025 release window such tech would be very much viable.

The irony of what you posted is that it counters the people calling for new stronger tech to be released sooner than those who think they can wait.



Wyrdness on 04 May 2023
kazuyamishima said:

Results from last gen and the current gen, and even the PS2 gen, suggest that Sony doesn’t need to, unless they really screwed up like they did with the PS3. 

The reality says otherwise PS3 came out because of this very fact, MS announced in the Xbox's third year the 360 is come which forced both Sony and Nintendo to respond. The reason being is when you're a direct competitor you cannot allow the competition a significant head start even when you're market leader as you allow them to gain ground on you, PS2 wrecked the competition but it's successor was given a battle of the ages, had they not responded the gen could have been much worse it's similar to the Megadrive/Genesis situation where even though SNES went on to outsell it Sega made a massive amount of ground on their competitor which is problematic going forward for Nintendo if they had built on it properly and Sega were well positioned to had they not self sabotaged themselves.



AJNShelton on 04 May 2023
Wman1996 said:

When is the last time Nintendo has been this silent about their second half of the year when we're already a third of the year into the year? If this is a common occurrence for them, please correct me.

2018 and 2020

For some who don't recall, we started 2018 with the release of Bayonetta 1+2 early February, and then pretty much nothing. We had a Nintendo direct in March saying "Smash 2018" but nothing else. And until E3 Nintendo Direct, we had no news on what would come for the rest of the year (and it was pretty much only Pokémon and Smash).

In 2020, of course due to Covid, post Animal Crossing and Xenoblade remake, no news on what would release the rest of the year (with the Switch Pro rumours starting to pop up everywhere until peaking during summer 2021). We got Age of Calamity out of nowhere by November.



Soundwave on 04 May 2023
Wyrdness said:
Soundwave said:

I'm talking about the chip R&D which is done by Nvidia, I don't think Nvidia really cares what Nintendo does or doesn't do with controllers or things like that, the chip is the issue, because

1.) Once the chip is complete likely you have to pay some amount for it (unless Nvidia became charity without telling anyone) for the years of work Nvidia did to develop the chip (which is likely the Tegra 239, we already know what the chip is from leaks from Nvidia). Beyond that, Nintendo likely has to pay Nvidia a certain amount on a yearly basis (royalty fees) too, it's likely not a one sum lump payment. 

2.) Even if you have the chip, I don't think people understand that's only a fraction of the whole issue. Even if you have the competed system ... yeah OK ... and who's going to manufacture it? This is kind of a big deal, you can't just show up to TSMC's front door and say "hey we got this 5nm new Nvidia chip, can you whip us up some?". Production lines for high end chip are limited with many companies wanting access for a range of devices (smartphones, tablets, laptops, desktop GPUs, etc. etc. etc. etc.). Those deals have to likely be booked years in advance too and if you just bail out on the deal you're likely subject to penalties because you've screwed TSMC or Samsung out of money they could have made had they booked that production for another vendor. 

This stuff is not as simple as "ho hum, we're just working away on our new hardware like a after school club and it'll be ready when ever we want" ... you have to have an idea years in advance when you're going to need said hardware and you have to have deals worked out that the hardware can even be manufactured in mass quantities (millions upon millions). Especially with modern hardware, yes even Nintendo's, this is a lot more complex when you're talking about hardware that is well beyond like a PS2/GameCube/Wii level. 

There's a lot that goes into hardware chipsets, especially modern level 3D hardware (anything beyond like a PS2/Wii level) and for Switch systems and its successor even doubly so, a Switch 2 chip is going to have to be a fairly modern (thus expensive and harder to secure) production node, probably 5nm because it has to have decent battery life in a portable state. 

You're posting this as if it's news to anyone here, Nintendo and other platform holders have decades of experience knowing this and how to efficiently set up for shifts in their situation this is how the Switch came out two years after Nintendo realized the WiiU was done. The 2025 predictions and such you see people doing are with the knowledge of what you posted, A platform holder can identify a potential new tech now and work with in the framework of what you posted e.g. this tech is good lets work with this and aim for a release window two years from now etc... especially when they have the luxury to do so Nintendo themselves did this in the GB's 14 year run learning the ins and outs the hard way. This is apparent in how rumours from months ago suggested a particular type of chip which when discussed on this site someone highlighted how the new tech would be expensive now to use but it was then pointed out that in a possible 2025 release window such tech would be very much viable.

The irony of what you posted is that it counters the people calling for new stronger tech to be released sooner than those who think they can wait.

I don't think a lot of comments here take any of that into account to be honest. People still act like it's 1998 and you can turn around hardware when ever you feel like. 

That's not how modern chipsets and modern nodes (which Nintendo is basically forced to use because of the portable nature of the Switch ... you can't get good performance from a chip using an ancient design node anymore, this isn't the DS era any longer). 

There's a host of problems with "well just sit around and wait for your sales to decline and then and only then release a new console", there's a bunch of things that make that idea a lot more complex with today's hardware. 

The suggestion too that Nintendo can just wait and chose a different chip now ... like this is also head scratching ... from where? Nvidia doesn't make Tegra chips willy nilly, there's not many vendors for these chips, Nintendo is basically the only major company that uses the Tegra X1. The chip for the Nintendo successor is very likely the Tegra T239 based on the leaks (including leaks direct from Nvidia) we have. It's already been made, it exists now. 

If Nintendo wants to now say "well we'll just wait for an even betterer chip", firstly, they're probably on the hook paying for the Tegra 239 and then will have to pay for the "newer" chip ... like yeah you can say "well that's just common sense" after the fact, but lol, I don't think many people consider any of this stuff when posting here. 

If I paint your house blue and at the end of the process you say "well I'm not really into blue anymore, and I didn't even really need my house painted now, come back next week and paint it green" ... I mean OK, but you sure as fuck are going to pay me full price for the time/paint I already spent painting your house blue, and then on top of that you're paying full price again to have it painted green. Not my problem you can't make up your mind, there's no discount you get for that.

This is nothing like the Game Boy at all it's basically the exact opposite of the Game Boy because Nintendo is using chips now that are basically made mainly for them. The Tegra chips, which are relatively cutting edge, and at this point have to basically be made on demand for Nintendo mostly (because no other major vendor uses these chips) on a modern node in 2023/2024 is a completely different ball game. Nintendo's basically stuck using Tegra/Nvidia too because you can't have backwards compatibility without it, so Nvidia has a lot of leverage now. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 04 May 2023

javi741 on 04 May 2023
Soundwave said:
javi741 said:

Software sales are only down 4% this fiscal year compared to last fiscal year, that's so miniscule to the point where it's not even worth bringing up to show that there's declining interest in the brand, the 4% drop could've easily been erased had Nintendo released one more solid game. A 4% drop in software sales shouldn't at all indicate people are losing interest in the brand.

There hasn't been any indication yet that people who purchased the Switch 6 years ago are starting to lose interest or move on from the Switch. If that were the case we'd see more than a 4% decline in software sales at this point.

The idea that people will get tired of the Switch just cause it's outdated is greatly exaggerated, TOTK looking similiar graphically to BOTW isn't stopping people from being massively hyped for the game. Many people actually believe TOTK will outsell BOTW in lifetime sales, it doesn't seem like people are losing interest in the Switch at all if that's the case. Nintendo this past quarter just released their fastest selling game in their history with Pokemon S&V. 

Many gamers are content with owning the same system for 10+ years at times and still paying their yearly sequels to COD games that haven't changed much graphically on the same platform. Yes eventually gamers will want a better graphical experience, but it's not the end of the world if the option isn't there as long as the games are there. We see Microsoft and Sony upgrade their systems to keep up with the competition, Nintendo doesn't have competition right now so they aren't as much of a rush to release their successor as quickly. Declining hardware sales won't hurt the core of their business which is software sales.

Nintendo is not immediately shift their studios straight to Switch 2 permanently, even if if were to be releasing in 2024(But I'm thinking 2025 or later). Nintendo will likely want to keep the Switch around for several more years as a safety net in case the Switch 2 doesn't do as well. So major studios will likely continue to work on the Switch and the Switch 2 for right now,

If Switch 2 doesn't do so well, the aging, old-ass Switch by that point is not going to do shit either, so I would probably submit that Switch 2 is a massive priority for Nintendo right now and for quite some time. If you're Nintendo's president that has to be your no.1 priority behind the scenes right now. 

If Switch 2 is a dud ... it's such a massive blow to Nintendo and will completely and forever throw into doubt their ability to ever follow up a success. 0/3 successfully following up Wii, DS, and Switch ... you might as well just throw your hands up and admit as a management group you cannot handle success. 

But this they should know full well ... they've known this since 2020, 2021 too, it's not breaking news. 

If Nintendo cannot do the Switch 2 right and/or needs like 9 years to get it out and MS doing MS things ... at what point do you just start to say Sony is the only competent management group in this business, because they seem to have very few problems like this, 5 Playstation models 4/5 have launched very well in reasonable amounts of time too. 

Mr. Furukawa better be eating, sleeping, shitting Switch 2 right now, they need a president that is on the ball right now. A lazy attitude of "we'll just fart out Switch 2 when Switch 1 has wound down most of its momentum" I don't think is a great attitude, you gotta be sharp and laser focused when launching hardware in this biz. You get sloppy and soft or laid back or arrogant and it will haunt you, when you really look at failed consoles those attributes seem to be common denominators in failure. 

The decisions made in the Switch 2's development process in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, the software that for it that's under development in 2021, 2022, 2023 will probably have consequences for Nintendo that extend into the next decade frankly (2030+). If they nail those decisions and time lines they'll be in good, if they start doing dumb things behind the scenes right now, it will very easily go the other way and be a headache for years and years. 

If the Switch 2 doesn't do well it'll be worse then if they just stuck with the Switch. Because if the Switch 2 doesn't do well then the install base won't be there for software to sell as well and recoup all the money they spent on creating the Switch 2 or the games. Meanwhile, if they stuck to the Switch 1 with consistent software releases, the games will sell much better with a higher install base and they won't need to worry about spending money on developing a new system or the risk that comes with it.

You seem to be acting like people are denying that Nintendo is focusing on the Switch 2 right now, but we aren't. Everyone knows that new console development begins as soon as the latest console is released. I'm sure Nintendo's been working on the Switch 2 for quite sometime now and potentially some games for it too. That doesn't mean the Switch 2 is right around the corner at all. Console companies are always working on the next system, but it doesn't mean they have to release it anytime soon if they don't want to.