IcaroRibeiro said: Dulfite said: I don't get the hope and excitement for Switch 1 hitting that number. For it to do that, and break records, means they won't release a full next-gen device until multiple years from now, a good 7-9 years after Switch 1 came out. I owned a Wii U and own a Switch. The Switch simply feels like a smaller, more portable Wii U. I owned numerous Wii U titles and have seen/owned some of them on Switch and they look basically the same. Whatever power difference the Switch has over Wii U is not really noticeable to people who aren't tech-obsessed (so don't come at me with meaningless specs because most people that care about that. They just care about the eyeball test). The power difference Wii U had over Wii was INSANE and the games looked absolutely stunning compared to Wii, and not just in graphics, but the scope, draw distance, etc. I want to be excited like I was for Wii U games coming off the Wii, but the longer we have Switch 1 the longer we have Wii U-level games, for 12+ years we will have had that level games for the sad few of us that owned Wii U's. I know many on here are experiencing HD Nintendo games for the first time because you didn't own a Wii U, but those of us that owned Wii U's have already gotten used to this level of visuals/power/depth. I want to be blown away again, and no game on the Switch has done that compared to the Wii U, but many, many games on the Wii U did that compared to the Wii. I'm not a graphics-obsessed person, and this may come off that way. I don't expect or even want Series X level graphics out of Switch 2. I just want to be, at all times, playing just one generation of graphics behind, not two (like the Switch is and will potentially be for the next 3+ years). At this rate, we are going to have Series X2 and PS5 Pro out before Switch 2, making the gap even more absurd. Making the Switch 2 even more exciting to me is the possible inclusion of DLSS, which would really future proof that device and enable it to have a really long life-span, but Switch 1 doesn't have that technology. I guess it's less about excitement and more about accepting reality as it is

Well sure, I don't have issues with people coming to terms with it. I've come to terms my hopes are crushed for a Switch 2 in 2023 (or 2024 for that matter now). But there are plenty of people that are just so excited about sales figures because of fanboyism that they are okay with waiting so much longer to be wowed again by a new system. I just want the 6 year cycle to come back. I want to be stunned every 6 years, not every 7-9 years (Sony/Microsoft) or every 12 years (Nintendo).

There is more to a hardware jump besides higher resolutions and frame rates. Nintendo could opt to use the silicon budget on maximizing power efficiency, thereby ensuring the console operates silently at all times and has a longer battery life. Or is lighter weight. Or a combination of both. Nvidia DLSS can also greatly enhance performance with minimal input on the developer’s side.

I tend to agree with others that want Nintendo to get a move on sooner rather than later. The benefits of newer hardware seem direct and obvious, the benefits of waiting for the switch to be on year 9 before launching a successor seem really much less clear in comparison

RolStoppable said: Dulfite said: Using this logic, you should have never wanted a generation after the NES. Every generation jump has made development harder, take longer, and cost more money. Yet companies keep doing it because that's where the money is. Nintendo isn't pumping $100-200 million in each of their AAA first party games like Sony does, nor would they be even if Switch 2 is as powerful as a Series X. Just because you have a more powerful console doesn't mean you push it to the brink of overheating and exploding. I don't want Nintendo to do that either, but I want big leaps regardless, and you won't get that releasing games on the same power level for over a decade. Botw 2, Mario Odyssey 2, Xenoblade Chronicles 3, none of these games will impress as much as their predecessors because they will all feel so similiar looking. If these were Switch 2 games they would blow the living water out of their predecessors and wow us all. PC gets upgrades all the time, PlayStation and Xbox get significant power boosts mid generation and massive leaps every generation. It isn't wrong for me to want at least a big leap every gen from Nintendo. The jump from PS4 to PS4 Pro was bigger than the jump from Wii U to Switch and that's just a mid gen upgrade, that's a sick joke. I'm not even asking for a Pro level device every mid gen, I'm just asking for a Wii to Wii U level jump every generation, especially if it's going to last 7+ years. If I had known Switch 1 was going to last this long prior to being replaced, then I'd rather Nintendo have made a Xbox One X level device and sold it for $600+ back in 2017. A $300 device from 2017 shouldn't be expected to have such a long life span, from this consumer's point of view. I highlighted the logic in my previous post. There are quite a lot of people who agree that Xbox 360/PS3/Wii U level of hardware was the final step for gameplay improvements and even then it was limited first and foremost to the open world genre, because most other genres weren't benefiting anymore from leaps in processing power. A non-open world example where it still mattered is Dead Rising with its large amount of enemies on screen at once. I can tell you that Breath of the Wild's success isn't grounded in its graphics, rather it's the open world nature and how the physics engine opens up many different ways to deal with enemies. Super Mario Odyssey wasn't loved for its graphics either, its appeal lies in wide levels with things to do at every corner. Xenoblade Chronicles 2's graphics were controversial at release, because the developers used some techniques that didn't pan out well. Or in other words, if you asked people why they like all these games, the point "graphics" would rarely be mentioned because most people either don't care, or they care and recognized the weaknesses right away at release. It's pretty tough to wow people with graphics when the people in question don't care to begin with and focus their analyses on the gameplay. People care way more about how games are played, how good the gameplay is and how many games there are on the console, that's why the Wii U flopped despite a generational leap in graphics. You are free to want what you want, but you have to recognize that you belong to a tiny minority. Especially with that point of view you express in your final two sentences. On one hand you've repeatedly expressed that profits are the most important criterion for companies, but on the other hand you have these selfish wishes that would be bordering on financial suicide. That's when you drift off into irrationality.

Can one not have desires that knowingly have conflict with what one knows is the wisest path forward? Nintendo should do whatever is the most profitable path forward (not just for the present, but laying the groundwork for the future). If that means sticking with Switch 1 for the next 100 years, then so be it.

But as a consumer, I want to be wowed with each iteration of a new game, and generally speaking, Nintendo only does one game per generation from AAA sub-series (there are exceptions like Galaxy 2 or Majora's Mask). Going from Ocarina of Time to Majora's Mask was not a wow moment. Going from MM's to Twilight Princess was not a wow moment. Going from Twilight Princess to WWHD and BOTW was a wow moment. Going from Botw 1 to Botw 2 is not going to be  a wow moment. It will be cool to see the world again, and narratively hopefully it is fascinating, but I won't have that same breathtaking experience I had with the first one because I've played on this engine before, seen what the grass looks like already, know what the water looks like, etc.

You can apply this to so many series. Super Metroid to Metroid Prime 1 was a stunning leap forward. Metroid Prime 2 and 3 were basically just MP1 but a little shinier. If I am in the minority, or the super minority, then it is what it is, but I like to be blown away by every new iteration of a game, not having to wait 2-3 iterations to get to the next leap forward. If they truly want to just stick with Switch 1 for 8 or 9 years, then I'd rather have F-Zero, Mother sequel, a new 2-d Mario game, a new 3d Donkey Kong game, an actual good attempt at a new Star Fox game, and new games for dozens of other abandoned series or sub-series than I would Botw 2 or Super Mario Odyssey 2. Sequels should come on new systems, that's what I expect from Nintendo. I don't want their games to be like Call of Duty where you get multiple games from the same sub-series on each generation. That may not make business sense, but it is what I wish.

I personally would love if Nintendo keeps Switch going into 2025 and breaks 160m. Cuz that means a bunch more big games are planned for the Switch. I am very ready to continue using my Switch for years to come, and honestly it doesn't remotely feel like Switch is getting to its later years yet - I'm still wondering when so many games are going to come out. Nintendo says Switch is in the middle of its lifecycle, I've had my Switch for 4.5 years and honestly feel like I could easily go another 4.5 years with it if that means they bring out all the games that I want on the system.

Switch is probaby the first system I've ever owned that just doesn't feel like it is getting old. Its hardware design is still as awesome as it was when it came out, it's got a great library and plenty of more huge games to come, and it is a portable with no competition so it isn't trying to compete with the latest console graphics so there isn't that feeling of like "oh it's falling behind compared to newer systems". I still think they'll likely launch Switch 2 sometime in 2024, but I'd be perfectly happy playing this thing until 2026. Usually around five years you can tell the user base starts thinking about the next system and looking forward to it, but it doesn't feel that way with the Switch, because everyone is just looking forward to all the huge/awesome games coming out for it in the future - Kirby, Splatoon, Mario+Rabbids, BotW2, MP4, and many more we are expecting.

I guess for graphics obsessed people who didn't like the Switch even when it came out they are very focused on Switch dying early and getting a more powerful system out. Of course they still won't be happy when the Switch 2 comes out if it is the same kind of system because it'll still be a portable which means less powerful than what a new console would be.

And for the graphics focused people who desperately want a new Switch now, they should realize that the later Switch 2 comes out, the better because that means it will be more powerful. Also with more power and DLSS tech to scale up resolutions nicely on the cheap, a later Switch will do a better job of getting AAA playstation/xboxSeries multiplat games than Switch did of ps4/xboxOne games.

aTokenYeti said: There is more to a hardware jump besides higher resolutions and frame rates. Nintendo could opt to use the silicon budget on maximizing power efficiency, thereby ensuring the console operates silently at all times and has a longer battery life. Or is lighter weight. Or a combination of both. Nvidia DLSS can also greatly enhance performance with minimal input on the developer’s side. I tend to agree with others that want Nintendo to get a move on sooner rather than later. The benefits of newer hardware seem direct and obvious, the benefits of waiting for the switch to be on year 9 before launching a successor seem really much less clear in comparison

Nintendo obviously aren't going to wait 9 years we're just not going to get the 5 to 6 some want as NS being a hybrid follows a different run to its active life than prior platforms, if you want an idea of what's going to happen look at the 3DS and Switch relationship the former was still some what active as the latter was taking off and NS was launched in the 3DS' seventh year two years before it finished its nine year run. That's what Nintendo means by middle of its life meaning the new tech coming out now is likely what is going through R&D for the next platform in the seventh year or so.

Dulfite said: RolStoppable said: I highlighted the logic in my previous post. There are quite a lot of people who agree that Xbox 360/PS3/Wii U level of hardware was the final step for gameplay improvements and even then it was limited first and foremost to the open world genre, because most other genres weren't benefiting anymore from leaps in processing power. A non-open world example where it still mattered is Dead Rising with its large amount of enemies on screen at once. I can tell you that Breath of the Wild's success isn't grounded in its graphics, rather it's the open world nature and how the physics engine opens up many different ways to deal with enemies. Super Mario Odyssey wasn't loved for its graphics either, its appeal lies in wide levels with things to do at every corner. Xenoblade Chronicles 2's graphics were controversial at release, because the developers used some techniques that didn't pan out well. Or in other words, if you asked people why they like all these games, the point "graphics" would rarely be mentioned because most people either don't care, or they care and recognized the weaknesses right away at release. It's pretty tough to wow people with graphics when the people in question don't care to begin with and focus their analyses on the gameplay. People care way more about how games are played, how good the gameplay is and how many games there are on the console, that's why the Wii U flopped despite a generational leap in graphics. You are free to want what you want, but you have to recognize that you belong to a tiny minority. Especially with that point of view you express in your final two sentences. On one hand you've repeatedly expressed that profits are the most important criterion for companies, but on the other hand you have these selfish wishes that would be bordering on financial suicide. That's when you drift off into irrationality. Can one not have desires that knowingly have conflict with what one knows is the wisest path forward? Nintendo should do whatever is the most profitable path forward (not just for the present, but laying the groundwork for the future). If that means sticking with Switch 1 for the next 100 years, then so be it. But as a consumer, I want to be wowed with each iteration of a new game, and generally speaking, Nintendo only does one game per generation from AAA sub-series (there are exceptions like Galaxy 2 or Majora's Mask). Going from Ocarina of Time to Majora's Mask was not a wow moment. Going from MM's to Twilight Princess was not a wow moment. Going from Twilight Princess to WWHD and BOTW was a wow moment. Going from Botw 1 to Botw 2 is not going to be  a wow moment. It will be cool to see the world again, and narratively hopefully it is fascinating, but I won't have that same breathtaking experience I had with the first one because I've played on this engine before, seen what the grass looks like already, know what the water looks like, etc. You can apply this to so many series. Super Metroid to Metroid Prime 1 was a stunning leap forward. Metroid Prime 2 and 3 were basically just MP1 but a little shinier. If I am in the minority, or the super minority, then it is what it is, but I like to be blown away by every new iteration of a game, not having to wait 2-3 iterations to get to the next leap forward. If they truly want to just stick with Switch 1 for 8 or 9 years, then I'd rather have F-Zero, Mother sequel, a new 2-d Mario game, a new 3d Donkey Kong game, an actual good attempt at a new Star Fox game, and new games for dozens of other abandoned series or sub-series than I would Botw 2 or Super Mario Odyssey 2. Sequels should come on new systems, that's what I expect from Nintendo. I don't want their games to be like Call of Duty where you get multiple games from the same sub-series on each generation. That may not make business sense, but it is what I wish.

You have a really weird definition of wow moments.

Majora’s Mask to Twilight Princess was not a wow moment but Twilight Princess to Wind Waker HD was?

NES (1983) -> SNES (1990); 7 years.
SNES (1990) -> N64 (1996); 6 years.
N64 (1996) -> GCN (2001); 5 years.
GCN (2001) -> Wii (2006); 5 years.
Wii (2006) -> Wii U (2012); 6 years
Wii U (11/2012) -> NS (03/2017); 4.33 years.
Average cycle: 5.555 years.

Then if we go to their handhelds:
GB (1989) -> GBC (1998); 9 years.
GBC (11/1998) -> GBA (06/2001); 2.5 years.
GBA (06/2001) -> DS (11/2004); 3.5 years.
DS (11/2004) -> 3DS (03/2011); 6.33 years.
3DS (2011) -> NS (2017); 6 years.
Average cycle: 5.466 years
(If you view the Game Boy Color as part of the original Game Boy and think the Game Boy Advance was the true successor, then the average cycle goes up to 6.8325 years.)

So accounting for the clusterfuck that is the Game Boy family, since those launches were all over the place, the average cycle between systems is somewhere within the 5-7 year range.

Nintendo has already stated numerous times they want to break the past pattern (longer cycle) of their previous consoles with the Switch. So that would put it past the 7 year mark, which would be March 2024. So it's looking more and more like Holiday 2024 is the earliest it will launch, they may even stretch it to March 2025 depending on how the software lineup and development looks like.

zorg1000 said: Dulfite said: Can one not have desires that knowingly have conflict with what one knows is the wisest path forward? Nintendo should do whatever is the most profitable path forward (not just for the present, but laying the groundwork for the future). If that means sticking with Switch 1 for the next 100 years, then so be it. But as a consumer, I want to be wowed with each iteration of a new game, and generally speaking, Nintendo only does one game per generation from AAA sub-series (there are exceptions like Galaxy 2 or Majora's Mask). Going from Ocarina of Time to Majora's Mask was not a wow moment. Going from MM's to Twilight Princess was not a wow moment. Going from Twilight Princess to WWHD and BOTW was a wow moment. Going from Botw 1 to Botw 2 is not going to be  a wow moment. It will be cool to see the world again, and narratively hopefully it is fascinating, but I won't have that same breathtaking experience I had with the first one because I've played on this engine before, seen what the grass looks like already, know what the water looks like, etc. You can apply this to so many series. Super Metroid to Metroid Prime 1 was a stunning leap forward. Metroid Prime 2 and 3 were basically just MP1 but a little shinier. If I am in the minority, or the super minority, then it is what it is, but I like to be blown away by every new iteration of a game, not having to wait 2-3 iterations to get to the next leap forward. If they truly want to just stick with Switch 1 for 8 or 9 years, then I'd rather have F-Zero, Mother sequel, a new 2-d Mario game, a new 3d Donkey Kong game, an actual good attempt at a new Star Fox game, and new games for dozens of other abandoned series or sub-series than I would Botw 2 or Super Mario Odyssey 2. Sequels should come on new systems, that's what I expect from Nintendo. I don't want their games to be like Call of Duty where you get multiple games from the same sub-series on each generation. That may not make business sense, but it is what I wish. You have a really weird definition of wow moments. Majora’s Mask to Twilight Princess was not a wow moment but Twilight Princess to Wind Waker HD was?

to 

TP Wii is definetly better than MM 64, but WWHD Wii U absolutely destroys TP Wii.

RolStoppable said: PAOerfulone said: (...) Nintendo has already stated numerous times they want to break the past pattern (longer cycle) of their previous consoles with the Switch. So that would put it past the 7 year mark, which would be March 2024. So it's looking more and more like Holiday 2024 is the earliest it will launch, they may even stretch it to March 2025 depending on how the software lineup and development looks like. Nintendo should replicate the Game Boy route. Substantial mid-gen upgrade to prolong the lifecycle with no mandated support of all SKUs for any given give. We've already had the topic of more processing power doesn't bring new gameplay anymore. It's also clear that Nintendo doesn't need to have more powerful hardware to get AAA third party games, because most of the AAA publishers in question don't want to release their games on a Nintendo console anyway. In that sense, this is really the right time to question the fundamental premise of console lifecycles. The huge drawback of any new cycle is always that the installed base has to be built from 0 again, but iterative upgrades could be a feasible option to let the same platform press on and on and on. The reason why it worked for the Game Boy is that there was no serious competitor in sight in the late 1990s. Bandai's Wonderswan and the Neo Geo Pocket were never going to have global presences. And nowadays there's even less competition than those, so it could work again and maybe for even more than one such upgrade. Nintendo may be seriously considering this idea and that's why their roadmap had Switch's successor with a release year of 20XX. This would also be the optimistic scenario for Switch lifetime sales as opposed to the example I've posted earlier in this thread.

If they go this route I'd be happy. They can say it's part of the Switch generation all they want, won't mean it's true. The Gameboy Color was a more powerful device with hundreds of high budget exclusive games on it that the original Gameboy could not play. Not shovelware like DSI had compared to DS Lite/DS, or an incredibly small amount of higher budget exclusive games like New 3ds had over 3ds, but a TON of exclusives. So if Nintendo makes something powerful enough to have hundreds of exclusives on it that Switch 1 literally can't run, then I don't care if they call it Switch Pro, or New Switch, and I don't care if they want to call it part of the Switch 1 generation, it will be next gen in my eyes based on the exclusive AA to AAA budget games and I will be happy that we have a new generation just like GBC was a new generation in the eyes of most consumers compared to GB.

RolStoppable said: Japan: ~25m Americas: ~50m Europe: ~35m Others: ~15m Farsala said: 125m LTD? vs. Current Japan 8.76m (35%) Americas: 14.84m  (30%) Europe: 9.6m (27%) Other: 3.69m (25%) "A lot of Switch's sales curve is unprecedented, so pulling off something that isn't the norm should be expected to be more likely than not by now. That being said, Nintendo's Game Boy platform achieved more than 50% of its lifetime total after the 20th quarter, so if Switch sold 1/3 of its lifetime total after the 20th quarter, it wouldn't even be something new for Nintendo. The PS2 managed to do it too, so there's more than one example." And that's where it ended. This was a discussion from the time when Switch had reached 36.87m in shipments.

Don't worry. As you may already know, my original prediction for the Switch was 3DS+ Wii U, just from the simple premise of combined development. It is clear in those posts that I believed at the time it would outleg the Wii and perhaps outsell it, but that 125m would be difficult.

My most recent predictions are in November 2020/2021, which surpass the 125m mark. I do think it is nice to have optimistic people on these forums, for I tend to be a bit pessimistic when it comes to sales of consoles.

@bold, While it has happened, it happened in different ways. Old consoles attained significant legs due to launching very late in smaller countries. I have always maintained that newer consoles can't have the same legs as those older consoles for this reason.

Another main reason is due to the console manufacturer wanting to move on quickly to their next console.

The third main reason is due to regional strength. As a person who lives in Japan, I just don't believe Japan has what it takes to put out significant sales anymore. Japan is however very much in love with revisions, so your revision strategy might work.