Analyst: Switch Successor to Release in 2024, No Switch Pro in Development - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 02 April 2022 / 6,565 Views
Analyst at Ampere Analysis Piers Harding-Rolls in a prediction posted on GamesIndustry doesn't expect Nintendo to release a Nintendo Switch Pro and instead to release a successor to the Switch in late 2024.
"I'm currently expecting the console market year-on-year performance to be quite flat in 2022 as Switch sales decline and we come off what has been an amazing couple of years for console gaming," said Harding-Rolls.
"Even so, Nintendo Switch family of devices will once again be the best-selling consoles in 2022 at around 21 million sold to consumers, aided by the release of Switch OLED.
"I'm not expecting a Switch Pro in 2022. We have a next-gen Nintendo console in our forecasts for late 2024, so I'm not convinced a 'Pro' model is going to appear at all."
He also expects the PS5 to outsell the Xbox Series X|S worldwide and for them to sell a combined 28 million units in 2022.
"PS5 will outsell Xbox Series X|S on a global basis," he said. "The predicted combined sales to gamers are around 28 million. PS5 and Xbox Series X will remain supply constrained, but I expect availability to improve slowly over the year and to be in a better place as we arrive at the holiday season."
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel dedicated to gaming Let's Plays and tutorials. You can contact the author at wdangelo@vgchartz.com or on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
I'd be okay with this. and since it's not Michael Pachter, it might actually be right!
For all intents and purposes... The Switch 2 will likely act like a "Switch Pro" if it maintains native backwards compatibility with the current software.
It just means the games that utilize a dynamic resolution or unlocked framerate will receive free improvements day 1 and developers can release "enhancement" patches if they see fit.
2024 looks to be the general consensus on "what makes sense" to release a Switch successor.
The technology already exists to make it happen, a-la Atlan, Orin or Xavier with LPDDR5/LDDPR5x with 100-200GB/s of bandwidth, perfect for 1080P-1440P.
TSMC's, Samsung and Global Foundries 10's of billions of dollars in improved manufacturing capacity should start to alleviate allot of supply issues too. Win win.
I have the Switch OLED, haven't played a game on it yet, nothing to entice me at the moment...
But definitely sunk some serious hours into my Switch V1 and Switch V2 consoles with Zelda and Metroid.
You are looking at things a little rigidly.
LPDDR4 can offer 1,500GB/s of bandwidth if you take it wide enough.
I also did provide a general "base" of around 100GB-200GB/s. - Which is a wide ballpark to aim for... And I didn't just mention LPDDR5. - There is LPDDR5x which takes things up even higher... By about another 33-50% over LPDDR5 in-fact.
Also keep in mind that LPDDR5 has much lower power usage than LPDDR4, so it's more viable to take it wider at the same power level.
Then you have the GPU side with improvements to Delta Colour Compression, Tiled based resources/rendering, culling and more that can bolster available bandwidth.
And keep in mind my history on this topic... I tend to be correct more often than not.
You don't have anything to play on switch OLED? I highly doubt you even have one, I have a switch and I cant keep up with all the great games.
The switch 2 will not be a switch pro, that's not how Nintendo works. They will probably make it backwards compatible, but I'm sure they will change/innovate stuff for the new games, probably something like the 3ds with 3d, something VR related, or dual screen mode, somehow they will think of something.
I have every single major console that is current... Playstation 5, Xbox Series X, Xbox Series S, Switch V2, Switch OLED. - And I have proven this before in Discord and in the forums before.
Not that I need to justify anything to you, but if you are going to try to call me a liar, then you need to make sure you do your research.
Obviously the "Switch 2" will not be a "Switch Pro" - If you had bothered to read my post, I didn't mean it in a literal sense.
Nintendo have absolutely made "iterative" consoles before, and there is nothing wrong with that.
So you're telling me you have a switch and nothing to play? So you just dont like videogames that much then. I doubt you played all the good switch exclusives. Have you finished monster hunter rise, pokemon shining pearl, luigi mansion 3, shin megami 5, monster hunter stories 2, astral chain, super mario 3d stars, house of fata morgana, ace attorney remaster and more? All that before you purchased an Oled version, yet you had time for all the ps5 and xbox games too, you must have a lot of free time, do you have a job?
I don't just have "a Switch". - I have two.
I have probably 150+ games in total on Nintendo's venerable platform.
But they are either older, inferior port, completed or not interested in playing them.
Last Switch game I played was Metroid Dread, but that was short and is now sitting in the shelf.
Those who actually work (I do fire and rescue) can afford more than one console and game... You should try it some time... The work thing that is.
I hope this is true. At first I sort of wanted a "Switch Pro", but skipping that and launching Switch's successor during fall of 2024 would be perfect. Fits with Nintendo's narrative of Switch getting a longer life and gives them plenty of time to plan a strong launch for the new console while allowing the current Switch to shine one last time in 2023 with games like Prime 4, Odyssey 2 and another new Pokemon.
Knowing Game Freak the Switch will get a Pokemon game in 2024 or 2025 and not the Switch 2. lol.
Examples: Pokemon Crystal launched a few months before the GBA.
Pokemon Emerald launched a few months before the DS
Pokemon B/W 2 launched over a year after the 3DS.
Pokemon US/UM launched over half a year after the Switch.
I agree that's certainly possible. I hope it's 2023 though because it would help boost sales for what could be the Switch's last big year. I believe that's the last year we will see any big games release from in-house Nintendo studios; probably Odyssey 2 (an already established engine) & maybe Pikmin 4 (rumored to have been in development for a while). Many Nintendo teams are likely developing on the new hardware as we speak if 2024 is planned (hopefully fall) and would explain MK9 in active development, since it would be the paramount launch title for Switch's successor (though it could still be cross-gen).
I think in the 1st year of the Switch 2 most of Nintendo's games will be cross gen. Some exclusive, but mostly cross gen. Then in year 2 they will mostly be on Switch 2 with a few cross gen.
Its impossible to be 2023, you do realize 2023 is only 1 year away? There is no way Nintendo would release a new console so early when their current console is selling in the millions per month. It would be a ridiculously bad business move.
Um, maybe read that comment again? I'm referring to a new Pokemon game's release for the Switch in 2023, not a new system. I clearly said that fall of 2024 is the date I expect for Switch's successor.
As I always said and I keep repeating here, there will be no pro and I have no idea why people thing there could be a pro.
Don't know if you realize but if it launches March 2024 that makes it 7 years, which is common life for consoles. Maybe not as common with Nintendo but only because the wiiU was a failure, and so was the gamecube.
Wii had a 6 year life, but only because the last years it dropped in sales dramatically, but the switch wont have this problem.
Yes, I realize. And the Famicom lasted just over 7 years before its successor, so my fall 2024 prediction makes sense.
Most likely Spring 2024, Nintendo will look at the switch which launched at the spring and realize it was a good business decision, you sell at launch to the biggest fans and preorders, which guarantees huge sales, and then create hype during the summer, and then by the fall there will be huge interest in preparation for the holidays as parents will be more aware of the console.
If they would launch in the fall, it would have the big launch sales mostly for the fans, there wouldn't be enough stock for more than that. And then January February parents wouldn't be interested because the holidays were gone.
Summer is tricky because people are more focused on going out, the beach and summer holidays. There will be less people isolation, if any at all by 2024.
I guess the other alternative is its projected that they won’t have enough hardware shipped or a strong pipeline of games ready to go until after March 2024. So they go for October or November 2024 instead.
Switch being successful gives them the room to shift plans back by half a year if they think it’s for the best.
A Switch Pro has indeed looked unlikely since the OLED, but I'm hoping their next system will at least be backwards compatible so that we will in a way get a "more powerful Switch".
Super Switch incoming 2024. Do it Nintendo.
Since this is Nintendo and they like to bring things out of left-field, we can't presume their next-gen hardware will merely be a Switch 2.
Consider that despite the huge market success of the GBA, they never brought out a more powerful GBA, they brought out the DS instead.
Also consider that despite the huge market success of the DS line-up, they allowed it to wither on the vine after the Switch came out.
Despite the huge success of the Wii, they tinkered with the formula with the Wii U to their detriment.
So will their next hardware be something that's both architecturally and philosophically similar, as we saw with the NES/Famicom transitioning to the SNES/SFC? That's the obvious choice, but Nintendo doesn't always take the obvious choice! :) One incentive that Nintendo has to (ahem) switch things up is that it allows them to re-sell games on the new system. Look at the success they've had with Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Harder to re-sell you upgraded versions of old games if the old game runs on the new hardware anyway, as a straight-up Switch 2 with backwards compatibility would offer. But it'll be hard for Nintendo to avoid offering backwards compatibility, now that Sony and (especially) Microsoft have established that as the standard.
If they do come out with a Switch 2, then I recommend they copy Microsoft's approach: a lower-cost SKU (akin to the Series S) that gives the same performance of the current Switch when docked, but gives it to you in handheld mode. That way they can have an inexpensive next-gen handheld with massive Day 1 software support that takes strong advantage of the hardware; and a more powerful next-gen handheld (akin to the Series X) that offers even stronger hardware still (but at a higher price).
I can't speak for @JackHandy, but I was looking at the philosophy and the hardware architecture, not the numbering system.
Until the Wii, all their home consoles were pretty typical fare. Changing hardware architectures occasionally, tinkering with the controller, changing media with the GCN, but all part of the same stream of thought.
The Wii changed that, as it was their first dedicated home console that didn't try to keep technological pace with the competition, and also made radical changes to the human/machine interface, and they were hugely successful with it. The DS was also a big philosophical change, from the GB/GBC/GBA and a huge hit. Ditching dedicated home consoles entirely with the Switch was a bold decision as well. The only time they did big change sand it didn't pay off was the Wii U. And it could be argued that with the N64 one of the reasons it underperformed was that they DIDN'T make enough changes (especially by sticking with cartridges for one generation too many). So they're 3-for-4 when it comes to having success with systems offering relatively radical changes, so it's far from a sure thing that they won't try it again with their next system!
And this is why sony is so successful, name is important, when you buy a ps5 you know its the next console after the ps4, you know its the new generation. When you buy a wiiU you have no idea what it is. When you buy a xbox series, you have no idea if its an upgraded One, people were maybe expecting xbox Two, and xbox one makes no sense because its actually the third xbox. Then again I understand why microsoft did this, if they named xbox 3, it would sound behind ps 4, because 4 is higher than 3, so it was a tough decision to name the console as you dont want it to sound behind your competition.
With the switch they could name it switch 2, due to how popular switch is, the name is already imprinted in the peoples minds, if they come up with a weird name, people will not associated to Nintendo.
I agree with you about the naming convention being an advantage.
I recommend that Microsoft retcon the One S and One X to be their first line-up of X|S consoles. Then make the series X|S their second line-up of X|S consoles. Then if they do a mid-gen refresh call them the Series X 3 and Series S 3. Perhaps stylize them as X³ and S³. The next-gen systems could then be the "X 4" and "S 4". At that point the "Series" name actually starts to make sense.
That way they won't always be a number behind Sony, which Microsoft seems sensitive to. They'll eventually catch, and even surpass, Sony's numbering system thanks to mid-gen refreshes (to the degree that they continue doing that, which isn't a sure thing each generation, but will almost certainly happen at least some of the time).
Have a read of your comment, you put in the market one x, one s, series x, series s, series x 3, series s 3. Most people in the shop would have no idea what to get, they would get so confused and get a ps5 because at least you know what is a ps5.
That the same bad marketing that Apple did with the iphone 11 which was actually lower resolution and worse screen (LCD instead of OLED, and no 3d touch) than their iphone 10, also aluminium instead of steel, so people see 11 and think its a better phone, and then they realized it was actually not.
This already happened with Xbox with people buying a One X thinking they were buying a series X.
Me and you we know the differences, no question about it, as we keep up with tech news, but the general public, you know, 95% of the market, do not follow these news. You should have seen the discussions I was having with my friend when he bought the iphone 12 and I explained why my XS was still a better device, he just couldn't believe it because it makes no sense.
These companies have to come up with a name that is clearly the step up, next gen, surely they have money to hire some marketing experts.
With that said in my opinion, each manufacturer should just make 1 console and that's it. There was no need for the series s, its only 200dollars less but you lose half the power, half the storage, disc drive etc No one would buy a series S if the X was in stock, it makes no sense.
Same with ps5, with only 100 dollars difference you get a disc drive, and what is 100 dollars these days, that's cheaper than 2 games. And then you miss out on sales, backwards compatibility, borrowing games, renting games, selling games on second hand, etc. Again no one would buy the digital only if the disc version was in stock.
That would be like buying an iphone 8 with 64gb when for 200 dollars more you could get an X with 256gb, if the difference was only 200 dollars people would just get the better one.
It just confuses customers, and in the end a lot of people will be disappointed because they will regret not getting the best version.
In these days when phones are over 1000 dollars and people upgrade them yearly, a 500 console that lasts 7 years is very acceptable.
I don't think there'd be much confusion with someone that a Series S3 would be better than a Series S, or that a Series X3 would be better than a Series X.
However, I think you make a strong point that it might be confusing to someone that a Series S3 might not be as strong as a Series X (if indeed it's not). And no question there is some confusing between Xbox Ones and Xbox Series consoles for casual purchasers.
My suggestion was just a way to make the best of a bad situation, is all, naming convention-wise. :) However, once you establish that the "S" is the smaller/cheaper/more efficient one, and that the "X" is the more eXtremely powerful one, then iterative increases in the number behind the "S" or the "X" would then become very easy for consumers to follow. If they keep with that trend, then it'll become simple enough. Or simpler than what they've had up until now, at any rate. :)
In that case it would be better to name it Xbox S3 and Xbox X3. And leave out the series.
Yes if they keep with the trend it could become simple. In 20 years. But they don’t keep a trend. They went from 360 to 1 to X and S and now to series.
Without the space (S3 and X3), I would agree.
With a space (Xbox Series S 3, and Xbox Series X 3) then it's the third in the S Series, and the third in the X Series.
To your second point...
I strongly disagree with your comment about all-digital editions of consoles. If I were in the market for a PS5, I would absolutely prefer the Digital. It's smaller, less expensive, and more attractive. I've been all-digital since late in the PS360-era, so about a decade now. I have no interest in physical media, it's too much of a hassle. I never again want to have organize games, dust cases, open a case only to discover the wrong game is in there, open a case only to discover no game is in there, have someone damage a disc rendering the game unplayable, etc. You speak only of the advantages of physical media, but there are advantages and disadvantages.
You mention renting physical media, and I don't think many people even HAVE that as an option anymore, I'm not sure there's any store near me that rent video game discs. I think a growing number of people are in that boat.
Borrowing games presumes I know someone who has the same system, has a game I want to try, is willing to be without it for a time, and it's convenient for me to meet up with them on a timeframe that's mutually agreeable. I've not typically had that line up for me in the past. YMMV, I suppose. If I want to borrow/rent the game, I'll check it out through a streaming/subscription service, and if it's not available that way then I'll either buy it or live without. There are way more games of interest to me than I have time for gaming, so I'm constantly playing triage with my gaming time already anyway.
So I'd much rather save $100 than pay for an optical drive I may never use. I don't think I ever used the optical drive on my Xbox One X. Not even once. Maybe it doesn't even work? I wouldn't know! :D
So having a regular and an all-digital edition makes perfect sense to me, since some would prefer the one, and some would prefer the other.
Ps5 digital is not smaller.
Xbox is smaller but only because it’s closer to the power of the one X. A last generation console. That’s like saying if I were in a market for a new console I’d get a ps4 pro instead of a ps5. It’s cheaper, smaller. But why would I do that.
Even if you never use the drive your family might want to watch a Blu-ray movie or something, you never know. It’s better to have and not need rather than not have and need one day.
With that said. If you launch 2 versions of the console, do like Sony. A cheaper digital but worth the same power and storage space.
The series S is too much of a downgrade to even be worth the savings.
PS5 Digital is thinner in some of the centre area, so it used up fewer litres of total volume. That's a valid measure of smaller.
Getting a Series S is nothing like getting a PS4 Pro, because PS4 Pro is a different architecture than PS5 and that older PS4 Pro architecture will be phased out by developers sooner. Series S is the same architecture as Series X, so you write the game once and then optimize for two levels of fidelity. That's a simpler process for developers than a cross-gen title, where you have to manage two separate code-bases. And the Series S will see significant software support further into the future.
You're assuming someone lives with a family, or that the family has any interest in physical media. This is an era of Netflix, Disney+, Spotify, etc., so a growing number of families no longer purchase physical media at all. Like I say, I have owned a One X since the year it launched and never once used its optical drive, nor had I ever used the optical drive on my One S before that, I don't know if the optical drives even function in either of them. So why should I pay $130 CAD (plus sales taxes, which would work out to $114.20 USD) more for something that I'm already proven to not have needed for years on end? Why should a family, for that matter, if they've already adopted streaming media for the whole family? That's illogical.
If you own a 1080p or 1440p set, the Series S is not a significant downgrade over the Series X. Besides, half the time I'm streaming a game to my Series S running off (you guessed it) a Series X in the cloud.
I think the Series S is certainly a much better option than producing more PS4s, as Sony is doing partly citing the chip shortage, but also citing the need to have a budget option. The Series S retails for the same as a PS4, and in exchange for losing its optical drive gains a lot more power and will enjoy significant software support for longer.
An advantage to the Series S approach over the PS5 Digital is that the Series S appears to be able to be manufactured not only less expensively but in larger volume than the PS5 Digital. I don't see it as market fragmentation, as all the games use the same code base, they're just optimized for a different level of fidelity. Sony is asking more of developers by keeping cross-gen going longer, Microsoft is asking less of developers by moving consumers and developers to the current architecture more quickly.
IMO, your arguments are based on your priorities and how you use your systems, and do not reflect the fact that other people have different priorities and/or use their systems differently than you.
Yes, I was talking naming only. Obviously the NES was the NES 2, but they chose not to call it that for whatever reason. So I don't think there's much chance the Switch 2 will exist.
I also think there's more than a betting chance that it won't even be similar, since that's been their MO since Wii. You have to go all the way back to Gamecube to find a time when they released a home console that simply tried to build off the success of the prior one. I THINK they will this time, but their resent past says they won't. We'll see.
True that you have to go back to the GameCube to find that in one of their home consoles, but in fairness all their home consoles were iterative improvements from NES, to SNES, to N64, to GCN (the hardware changed, but the philosophy didn't, at least not substantively). Only the Wii, and then the Wii U, broke that mold with their home consoles. But those were the most recent two, so that might be instructive.
With their handhelds they did three generations of Game Boy (GB, to GBC, to GBA, plus variants of each). Then they did four generations of DS (DS, to DSi, to 3DS, to New 3DS, plus variants of each). And now the Switch.
So if you think about the Switch as a home console, you might expect them to do something out of left field. But if you think about it as a handheld, you might expect them to do a more powerful iteration of what they've already released. And since the Switch is a little bit of each, only time will tell. Nintendo doesn't always act logically or predictably. :)
Good point about it being perceived as a handheld verses a home console. You're right, I was thinking of it as a home console, but that's (in my opinion) not really what it is at all. It's sort of clear to me now that they pretty much pulled the wool over or eyes and left the home console market with the Switch. Because really, it's a handheld console with a dock, not a home console that you can take with you. You can't take a home console on the road and still have it be a home console. At that point, by strict definition alone, it's a handheld.
So yes, I suppose you're right. Although, I was pretty sure they were going to buck recent history anyway. The Switch formula is just to popular to mess with.
I think you're right that they're most likely to release an iteration rather than a revolution. But I'm just not willing to ASSUME so, since this is Nintendo. :)
As for it being a home console vs. a handheld, the existence of the Switch Lite (that lacks even the option for a dock) definitely suggests that Nintendo sees it as a handheld first, and a home console second (if at all), IMO.
So yes, I think you've typified it well. Nintendo all but exited the home console market, without hardly anyone noticing. :)
The next console will be portable. Because that’s the one big advantage they have in the gaming market. No one cares for motion controla anymore. VR is too difficult to create cheaply and most people are not interested. If they do a traditional console like the ps5 and Xbox they wouldn’t succeed as proven by n64 and GameCube.
The switch will be like the gameboy, a very successful portable that Nintendo will ride the name, not for 2 generations, more like 3 generations.
I agree with you that a Switch iteration is the most likely next-gen option. But since this is Nintendo, and they don't always act logically or predictably, I'm simply not willing to assume it! :)
But they have already been doing that. WiiU to switch. It’s an evolution of the portable and home console on one. The name might be different which would be a bad decision. Then again I’m sure they will name it switch. Look at wiiU. They tried to ride the name because it was so successful the previous gen.
I don't think the Wii U was a portable console, since you couldn't take it outside the home. I think it was a home console with extra versatility about where you use it in the home.
Now the Switch, and the Sega Genesis Nomad before it, is a true handheld platform with the added ability to dock it to a TV. In contrast, a Wii U isn't very useful for playing on the bus ride to work.
They seem to be repeating the success of Wii. In the case of Wii U, they tried to make it something completely different and it failed--something tells me that we might see an unexpectedly safe console from them next time. Another thing is Nintendo was forced to change because the novelty of motion controls had worn off, but there's no way the Switch form factor will go out of style just by nature of its design. As well as the Switch has worked, I don't see them taking big risks again. Unless they have some unexpected, off-the-wall, revolutionary idea, I think more of the same, but better, would do just fine.
You’re mistaken. The wiiU is closer to their switch vision. Very different from a wii.
The wiiU was like a switch 0.5. That was always their vision for the future. A home console and portable in one.
I think you're overstating the portability of the Wii U. Its portability was more like streaming your Xbox One in the livingroom to your PC in the den. The Wii U was trying to be a home console, with limited streaming to the screen on the gamepad. The Switch is a handheld, with the option to dock to the TV.
I think the Wii U idea was to offer tablets to users, and was created in the early days of the iPad when tablets were crazy expensive. Between the commencement of Wii U development and release day, inexpensive tablets had flooded the market and that was part of why the Wii U failed IMO. Had tablets stayed as expensive as the original iPad, I think the Wii U would have been a smashing success actually.
The idea of a handheld and a home console in one went back at least as far as the Sega Genesis Nomad, which was a fully portable Sega Genesis that could also be output to a TV screen. I don't see the Wii U as being particularly married to that idea, since it wasn't designed to be used effectively outside of a home network.
It'd be nice if they did release both a hybrid and a Lite model of Switch at launch, giving those who want a portable-only a cheaper option right from the start. It probably won't be called Switch 2 but I think that is what is will functionally be - a straight up successor, with full backwards compatibility. No reason to drastically move away from basically their most successful thing ever (as 3DS was a direct successor to the DS). Only thing I could see them adding is VR functionality as VR is starting to become more popular now, but I'm not sure of the specifics of how they'd build that in as that should probably be a separate device for best quality.
It'd be interesting if for the Switch 2 they built out a complete family: Hybrid, Lite, upgraded hybrid, Home, and VR. Maybe launch with the hybrid, next year bring out the Lite, 3rd year VR, 4th year Home, 5th year upgraded Hybrid.
DS was released early to counter the PSP, but Nintendo doesn't have this problem anymore, there is no competition at all in the portable market now, so they can ride the Switch for years if they wanted.
I agree that after the wii, the wiiu was an odd choice. They wanted to imitate the 3ds with 2 screens. But motion controls was the big thing, they could have made a much better motion control with better graphics, but I think motion controls was losing its appeal back then, people were losing interest, maybe that was why.
Hopefully Nintendo decides to make the Switch into a persistent ecosystem, i.e. able to play all prior generation Switch games going forward.
I wish they didn’t but unfortunately they will.
My dream would be a powerful home console with the pro controller. 4k 60fps Mário and Zelda would be a dream. I really do never play portable. I have a 100 inch screen, the 6inch screen is far too small.
Chasing power didn't work out too well for them before.
Wow, an analyst that says something sensible.
28m combined for PS5/XBS? If so i'd expect 16-17m PS5 and 11-12m XBS. This would be an improvement for Xbox because Xbone never sold more than 9m in a single year according to vgchartz data
I totally agree with that. March '24 could still be an option for a potential successor launch.
For those keeping track, this would mean 3 years competing in gen 8, vs 4 years competing in gen 9...meaning the Switch's primary competition for its life cycle is the PS5 and XSX, contrary to what some would rather believe.
Either way the Switch is gen 9. This is Nintendo's gen 9 device, and Sony/MS dragging gen 8 out with mid gen refreshes (which the WiiU did not do) does not change that. 3rd parties can port what they want, as they are 3rd party and Nintendo has no control over them. For the majority of the Switch's life cycle, it is competing with other gen 9 consoles unless a Switch 2 comes before Q2 2023.
Your logic of WiiU being on the market longer is flawed at best as well. The release of the Switch 2 wpuod have been pushed back as well, and still competed primarily against the PS5 and Series X (more so in fact).
Thats all that has ever mattered. No one disputed that the Wii was a gen 7 console despite the PS360 being literally a generation of tech ahead. It was literally a Gamecube tech wise, but was based on motion controls. Power has NEVER been part of the discussion. The motion controls and the fact that it was Nintendo's next console was all that mattered, and the Wii missed out on most PS360 games as well.
The WiiU is Nintendo's gen 8 console, and the Switch is more cable than that device. So when compared to Nintendo's gen 8 console (which is more relevant than PS or XBox), it is a step up in tech as well. The way it functions as a hybrid was what it brought to the table as the first gen 9 device in the market we know today. PS and XBox offer more power has their next gen upgrades, but that does not make them any more of a gen 9 machine than the Switch (again, look at gen 7).
Some people have been so desperate to keep Switch sales away from the other gen 9 consoles that they have even gone so far as to call the Switch a mid gen refresh like the Pro or 1X. The problem here is that it isn't, not even close. It is an entirely new machine with its own games that cannot run on a WiiU. It is more than "how much it sells", it is literally Nintendo's next generation after the WiiU. Had Sony and MS not extended the life of their gen 8 machines woth the Pro and X1, they would have been right behind Nintendo with their new devices.
It was competing with ps4 and xbox one for almost 4 years. Came out in march 2017 and was competing with with ps4 and xbox till November 2020. If switch 2 comes out in march 2024 that would be less than 3 and half years completing with ps5 and xbox series
Only time will tell, but all signs point to it coming out 2024 at the earliest. The door for people trying to seperate Switch sales from PS5/Series sales is closing fast. For all we know, it could even come out in 2025.
I was just correcting you and going with what the article says about 2024 release. You said switch competing with ps4 and xbox one for 3 years but it was actually closer to 4 years. Ps4 and xbox one didn't drag out shit it had a 7 year life cycle which is shorter than switch life cycle
The PS4 and X1 were stated to be planned to have shorter life cycles around 5-6 years originally by Sony themselves. Then then dragged it out to 7 (holiday 2013 to holiday 2020).
https://gameranx.com/updates/id/19053/article/sony-suggests-ps4-to-have-shorter-life-cycle-than-ps3/
Sony suggested that but it wasn't confirmed. He never said it would be 5-6 years life cycle. It was the EA boss who said 5-6 years. Ps2 life cycle was 8 years. Xbox 360 was 8 years. Ps3 was 7 years so it's normal for a console to have a 7 year life cycle. It's not normal for a console to last only 4 years and that was the wii u. Again I was just correcting you about how long the switch competed with the ps4 and xbox one and that switch could be competing with ps5 and xbox series for less than 3 and half years if what the article says is true(2024 release date). But who knows it could release in 2025 or even 2023
Dreamcast was 6th gen console and it came out years before ps and GameCube
So what's your point? I was just correcting him about how long the switch competed with ps4 and xbox one and that they had to replace the wii u earlier than expected because it was a failure
Most of Nintendo's consoles lasted about 5 years, except the Wii which was six. The WiiU was not ended that early, and one year does not change what generation of Nintendo console the Switch is. Like I said, Nintendo never had a mid gen refresh to extend their generation like PS and MS did so they ended up close to their normal console lifecycle with the WiiU.
The wii u was ended early because it was one of gaming's biggest flops. Why do you think the switch is still going on after 5 years? All of playstation home consoles lasted at least 7 years because they were all successful with ps3 being lowest at 85m sold
Nintendo has never followed the same life cycle length as Sony. Should be common knowledge by now, but the only Nintendo console to be on the market for more than 5 years before the new one came was the Wii at 6 years.
Yes the WiiU was a failure, but it still lasted 4 years before its successor arrived. Only one year away from NINTENDO'S status quo, which is all that matters when defining NINTENDO'S gen 9 device.
When your console is still selling great in its 4th and 5th year you don't need to release a new console any time soon. Thats what happened to all the playstation home consoles and now the switch. All previous Nintendo home consoles weren't selling great in their 5th and 6th year that's why Nintendo consoles life cycle is usually 5 or 6 year compare to Playstation 7 or 8 year life cycle. Switch will be the only Nintendo console to last at least 7 years because it is by far their most successful home console ever
And none of that has anything to do with console generations.
I never said it got to do with console generation did I? Wii u was a failure so it had a 4 year life cycle. Switch huge success so 7-8 year life cycle. Am I right? You thought switch only competed with ps4 and xbox one for 3 years but it was actually closer to 4 years. You think switch could be competing with ps5 and xbox series longer than it did with the ps4 and xbox one but there's also a chance it won't.
Tell you what, in the very unlikely chance that it isn't competing against PS5/XSX for more than 50% of its life, I will use a crow avatar for a month if I am proven wrong. If I am right, you must wear the crow badge. Do you take this bet?
Also, I am not saying that there was not a chance it won't, I said that if a full Switch 2 comes in 2024 (holiday) it would have been on the market competing with gen 9 more than gen 8. I used the year number for the sake of simplicity, but I should have known someone might have gotten offended by that for some reason. Next time I guess I will have to spell it out for some people.
LOL you must be very angry wanting to bet but I don't even know what's a crow avatar is not that I even care. Read your first post again. You were talking like it was a fact that switch would be competing with ps5 and xbox series longer but I was just saying there is a chance it wouldn't. No need to be upset about it and wanting to bet when I never said that what you said wouldn't happen.
I am really not angry at all, bets are for fun. And I did not act like it was factually going to happen, I clearly said "this would mean", key word being "would" as to imply that if this came to fruition. I think you are the one that needs to reread my original comment my friend.
Yes releasing in 2024 WOULD mean switch competing gen 9 for longer than 3 years. I think that was the problem, you thought switch competed with ps4 and xbox one for only 3 years so based on the article you were talking like it was a fact that switch would be competing with xbox series and ps5 for longer. I was just correcting you about the switch competing with gen 8 for 3 years when it was actually closer to 4 years.
I already explained this, I was basing on the year alone for the sake of simplicity assuming I would not need spell it out for some people. Clearly I was wrong about that, hence this pointless comment thread. But hey, if this makes you feel like you made a difference more power to you I guess.
Yep I sure made it more clearer. And why do you think Nintendo would release switch 2 in 2024 or later? Didn't you say nintendo console life cycle is usually 5 years? 2024 release would mean 7 year life cycle for the switch compare to wii u 4 year life cycle. Is it because the switch is huge success and the wii u was a failure?
Its because the Switch is a hybrid, so the much longer lifecycle of their handhelds must be taken into consideration as well. The WiiU was a traditional home console for Nintendo, so it makes sense that it would follow suit with their other home consoles, unless it got a mid gen refresh like PS4 and X1 did. At best, without a mid gen refresh, the WiiU would have had an extra year or two had it been a bit more successful. However nothing drastic enough to claim that it makes Switch another gen 8 due to its failure (though it did end early).
The Switch being a hybrid and filling two roles is in Uncharted territory, so we will have to see how it plays out.
So switch isn't really competing with ps5 and xbox series because it is a handheld. Got it
It fills both roles as a hybrid and is the successor to to the WiiU and 3DS. It is Nintendo's primary gaming device, and therefore completes with the PS5 and XSX/S (Sony and MS primary devices). Not a hard concept to grasp, but I understand why some people might pull mental gymnastics to try and say otherwise, given its success you keep mentioning.
So the switch life cycle is longer than 6 years because it is a handheld? Why do Nintendo handhelds life cycle last longer than their home consoles? Is it because their handhelds always dominated?
Why are you acting like I said sales domination doesn't affect the life cycle? At this point I feel like you are twisting things to mess with me.
But ok, I will bite. All of those handhelds, as well as the PS4 and X1, have one thing in common. They all had refreshes of some sort to extend their life cycle. The WiiU had no such refresh, and therefore would likely not have lasted more than 5-6 years like Nintendo's other consoles without one regardless of how successful it was. All we need to do is look at the 6 year cycle of the Wii as evidence of this. This is why I say the WiiU, while cut off early, was not that far from Nintendo's typical cycle without a refresh.
Now one could argue that the sales led to these refreshes, but that doesn't change that the refresh itself was what extended the life cycle of the devices.
I don't think there will be a Switch pro anymore. Nintendo choose for OLED. We might see a Lite with OLED screen this year, easy money. Also I don't think Nintendo will rush a new Switch to the market when they can sell 20 to 25 million units a year and there are massive shortages for newer chips. So they might delay a Switch 2 to 2025 or even 2026 and dethrone the DS and PS2. Unlike PlayStation Nintendo doesn't really have a direct competitor, so as long as their is enough demand they don't need to bring out a new console.
Exactly as I predicted, I just commented here yesterday that the switch has 2 more years on the market which might be enough to overtake DS and ps2 and become the best selling gaming device ever (next to PC).
Can you imagine what will be possible with the switch 2? Just imagine a chip like the M1 from Apple, in 2 years you'll be able to get better than PS4 pro graphics on a portable console balanced for battery life. That will be incredible. Even tough I'd prefer if Nintendo made a dedicated home console with better graphics than the ps5/xbox. They could still make a portable that could run the same games at lower graphical fidelity. Or they could build a dock that improves graphics like resolution and fps.
So I should just buy a used switch it seems
So March 2024 it seems since Spring worked pretty good for them in 2017.
They will not going to do any price cut which will be possibly the first system to ever do it.
As for the combined numbers for PS5/Xbox Series. They seem a little bit low, but time will tell.
If they do another spring launch, 2023 would be just over a year to get all their ducks in a row despite the supply shortages. And an autumn launch for 2023 might not be a lot easier, due to component/shipping hassles potentially persisting industry-wide that long. Spring 2024 might be the soonest their manufacturing partners can promise a robust launch. I'm guessing here, of course!
