Topic: Switch 2 Speculation

[NWR_insanolord]

What we're seeing with Microsoft right now and I imagine is what we'll see from Nintendo going forward is the blurring of the line between a revision and a successor console. The Xbox Series X is fully backward compatible with the Xbox One library, and regardless of what Nintendo ends up calling this new model, I expect the same level of compatibility. Switch Pro vs. Switch 2 is a largely semantic difference.

[Stratos]

I would be fine if they just stuck with the name and replaced the SKUs over time. Release a new model every other year or so and let people upgrade who want the latest. The scaling capabilities of the Switch could allow this to occur seamlessly until they pull a Microsoft and release an "X" version that then cuts off the older models from newer high-end games. People understand this with Apple and Android products. Some newer software only runs on a newer OS/phone model.

Those old systems would go out into the market (potentially to siblings and friends of the original owner who don't own a system) and this could create more Switch users over time to buy more software.

[Kairon]

I would be fine if they just stuck with the name and replaced the SKUs over time. Release a new model every other year or so and let people upgrade who want the latest. The scaling capabilities of the Switch could allow this to occur seamlessly until they pull a Microsoft and release an "X" version that then cuts off the older models from newer high-end games. People understand this with Apple and Android products. Some newer software only runs on a newer OS/phone model.

Those old systems would go out into the market (potentially to siblings and friends of the original owner who don't own a system) and this could create more Switch users over time to buy more software.

Agreed. That was my assumption about how things would proceed once the Switch launched. However it looks like the timelines are a little more drawn out than I expected due either to waiting for the consumer tech to become affordable enough, or just Nintendo not wanting to move too fast when what's on market right now is still selling out reliably.

[Ian Sane]

I would be fine if they just stuck with the name and replaced the SKUs over time. Release a new model every other year or so and let people upgrade who want the latest. The scaling capabilities of the Switch could allow this to occur seamlessly until they pull a Microsoft and release an "X" version that then cuts off the older models from newer high-end games. People understand this with Apple and Android products. Some newer software only runs on a newer OS/phone model.

Those old systems would go out into the market (potentially to siblings and friends of the original owner who don't own a system) and this could create more Switch users over time to buy more software.

I feel if you do this there effectively aren't consoles anymore.  There is just a series of software platforms.  Consoles were supposed to be the easy approach to videogames - you buy the system and everything released for that system works 100% with the same experience for everybody.  It has blurred with the PS4 Pro, Xbox One X, DSi, and New 3DS.  This setup where at one point new games run poorly on your system or not at all and you're pushed towards buying a new model but without any clear distinction between generations introduces the hassles of PC gaming that made it less accessible.

I feel this makes Nintendo and Sony direct competitors with Apple.  If their platform lacks the distinctiveness of a console then I don't see how the general public makes the distinction.  Apple has games too, plus other software that is not game related.  Nintendo's game focus may make them the choice for gaming or it could have the negative effect of their platform just coming across as lacking features since it probably won't have the extra bells and whistles.  The less of a console these things are the less reason there is for all of these similar computers to co-exist in the market.

I think Nintendo would do best if they stuck with the console approach in contrast with everyone else so that they're the straightforward games company, designing hardware specifically for games and using the console model that is easy to understand, particularly for families who don't want to have to buy their kids a new console every two years for minor improvements.  Nintendo did the New 3DS to try to get people to double-dip, which isn't very nice, but they do not demonstrate any particular need to improve hardware to tweak frame rates.  They've exclusively used outdated hardware for 14 years now.  Updating the hardware every five or six years like normal fits their approach to game design.

[Spak-Spang]

I agree with Ian.  I don't want to update a new console every 3 years.  I want to know my investment is safe for at least 4 years...I want to know that games will be playable on the console and I don't need to upgrade.  Gaming is expensive and paying a premium for a console and a console game makes me want to ensure it is going to last.  I don't care about graphics eventually being outdated, but I do care if after 2 years of having a console the next Mario game will require another big investment.

[nickmitch]

Wasn't sure if I should drop this here or dig up the rumor thread, but

Nintendo said to be boosting Switch production by 20% while telling developers to make their games 4K ready.

[ThePerm]

Nintendo usually goes between 2 strategies. Either they release hardware that is simply a superior version of their previous hardware or they "do market disruption through withered technologies"

One thing that was lacking on the Switch that the 3ds and the Wii had was an array of cameras. We're at the point where we could have really good cameras on the next switch, much like what you would get in your cellphone. Nintendo has the capability of doing really crazy AR stuff.

Given Nintendo history. I imagine the Switch 2 will be more powerful than Switch, but it will be hard to say if it will try to stand on the same ground as the upcoming next gen systems. Those are high hopes. However, Nvidia might reward the system for helping to boost their company so much since the Switch launch. Nvidia has some great engineers and I imagine the price structure is more up to Nvidia's whims than material and labor costs.

As Ian said "I feel this makes Nintendo and Sony direct competitors with Apple."

This has to some extant always been the case. Apple has games on their phone. So, technically it's all war. I imagine the next switch will have a bunch of stupid free social apps like phones have. Nintendo actually invented a lot of those things with the Wii. The Wii came out and had a bunch of weird channels on it. When I use any device now, the system UI resembles a lot what was on the Wii and the PS3.

There is a point in technology where the Switch 2 will probably be very competitive to phones. I predict more cameras on the Switch 2 and with those a lot of what makes phones special is going to go away. The Switch 2 will seem attractive to people who want an iPhone but don't want to spend 700 dollars on one. If they include VoIP with their next video chat app then it could make phones look antiquated.

[nickmitch]

One thing that was lacking on the Switch that the 3ds and the Wii had was an array of cameras. We're at the point where we could have really good cameras on the next switch, much like what you would get in your cellphone. Nintendo has the capability of doing really crazy AR stuff.

We can see Nintendo showing off their AR skills with Mario Kart Live, which is nice that they're getting back into it.  But I worry Nintendo is too cheap to leverage AR in a console.  The 3DS had some pretty low quality cameras.  I remember taking some fun photos with it, but not wanting to share after a while because of the low resolution.  To compete with phones, they'll really have to step it up in that regard.