There is the distinct possibility Nintendo may stradle the line between successor/Pro model in the early days of the Switch 2 too, meaning it can function basically as both.

Really from Nintendo's POV, Switch 2 *is* a Switch 1 also (as backwards compatibility is almost a given), so they lose nothing if someone buys a Switch 2 instead of a Switch 1, it's better for them if consumers buy a Switch 2 because it will allow that consumer to buy games for the next 6-7 years of Nintendo's software pipeline, which is obviously the name of the game.

It's only really a distinction people on boards like this make (ooooh Switch 2 is gonna kill Switch 1 .... but from Nintendo's POV it doesn't really work that way, it's like saying iPhone 14 is going to kill the iPhone 13 ... but since they share the same software ecosystem, this is not really any kind of "net loss" for Apple if you buy the 14 instead of the 13, they win either way, getting a 14 is a bigger win for them because they want the newest model to sell the best).

There also probably is an argument to be made that releasing a successor while brand momentum is still quite high is a good thing and not a bad thing. I mean if the 3DS or Wii U launched a year or two earlier, they both probably would have sold a fair amount more (or if Nintendo had just released the Wii U without the dumb controller gimmick and just called it a Wii HD in 2009 or 2010 when the Wii brand had greater brand momentum it likely wouldn't have been such a struggle to sell it).

I don't see why Prime 4 should be a Switch 2 title. Metroid is not a system seller and would be better off being released on a massive install base first.

I don't see it releasing in 2024 at all tbh maybe an announcement late in the year but the earliest is March 2025 imo, this time round I think a 3D Mario will launch with the system as the is no chance Zelda would be ready by then with MK9 shortly after and a selection of catch up third party titles that didn't release on the Switch for example Elden Ring GOTY, REmake titles etc... I think Metroid Prime 4 is now a Switch 2 game at this point and could be one of the holiday titles with a possibility of the next Xenoblade in the holidays like before.

I don't see why Prime 4 should be a Switch 2 title. Metroid is not a system seller and would be better off being released on a massive install base first.

i see them either announcing it Q1 of next year for a holiday release or maybe a little later for a march 2025 release. i doubt nintendo would want to ride a declining wave of hardware sales for much longer. better to "quit" while you're ahead.

when i mentioned zelda, i meant another developer working on it like how grezzo(?) worked on link's awakening. 

i agree about metroid prime 4 which leads me into...

i think nintendo wants to blow metroid up like how zelda blew up with BotW. i feel like they'll treat it as a graphical showcase for the switch 2 and that may be part of the reason the project was moved from the switch to next-gen, in order to facilitate better graphics. it's very possible they can make metroid a much bigger series if they want to.

This is how I view it and why I think we will see a bunch of cross-gen titles over the first couple years. Nintendo can call it Super Switch and sort of be ambiguous about whether it’s a successor or an upgrade.

If it’s a big success than of course it is and always was meant to be the successor and development eventually shifts exclusively to it.

If for some reason it doesn’t take off as they had hoped than they pivot to treating it like a premium revision (Gameboy Color/New 3DS) and get to work on a different successor.

They have a monopoly on one side of the market in portables they can ride the wave for much longer than usual because the is no viable alternative.

it's not a matter of them having a monopoly or not, it's a matter of business decisions based on revenue. the switch will continue to fall in sales, barring they cut the price or release another revision. though, even with a revision, this late in it's life, nothing will boost it for long enough to keep it afloat.

nintendo as a company is now relying on one revenue stream and can't stagger home and portable console releases to make up for decreases in their FY results bc of one console creeping up in age. if anything, they may attempt to keep switch as a "third pillar" like they did with the GBA.

You misunderstand Nintendo's situation not having two platforms increased their income as they only need to focus on one product that caters to two parallel markets this is another reason why they can wait they also make revenue off online subscriptions something they didn't have before and makes their income less reliant on sales at this point the won't be any third pillar. A monopoly matters because that provides a good market share before any product has launched it effectively turns the market into leverage in business decisions as even if the next platform isn't as successful as Switch the chances of it selling below 70m are slim because the portable market has no other viable place to go, you're right when looking at the short term but the monopoly itself offers options that give them more freedom to not be as pressed by short term matters in order to boost the long term.

I don't think there is really going to be a "plan B" part though ... "Super Switch" is the Switch successor and that's all there is to it. You either buy it or you don't get to play Nintendo's future titles, simple as that. 

They'll just initially also take advantage of a cross-gen phase, the bottom line is really for Nintendo it's more beneficial for them to get someone to say "well I was thinking of buying a Switch OLED, but I might as well just pay $50 more for a Super Switch instead". 

That consumer now will be in the market for their software for the next 6+ years not just their existing software library. 

So really, the Switch brand being hot is not really the deterrent to release new hardware that I think some people think it is. If you were willing to pay $350 for a Switch OLED, it may if anything embolden Nintendo to bring out a $399.99 Super Switch sooner than later because why not get those people buying a Switch OLED to buy a Super Switch at $399.99 instead? It would be a clear win for Nintendo as they get you locked in to their software ecosystem not only as it exists now but for the next 6-7+ years. It's a win for the consumer too, if you were about to drop 350 on a Switch OLED, but instead you were given the option of Super Switch for $399 ... I mean you're way better off getting the Super Switch. 

Sony basically came to this conclusion too ... they could have sold PS4 for another 3-4 years easy, but they don't really benefit from that, they want people to buy a PS5 instead. Once you get to a certain point, aged hardware just doesn't have as much benefit to you and you're better off as a hardware maker getting your next-gen userbase up and growing faster. Especially in this day and age, with digital libraries and storefronts, it's not like you are "killing" the old system anyway, the new system is both the old system and new system combined, that delineation is outdated.