For crying out loud, the Switch stock issues are a deliberate marketing ploy
ok let's
try not to have the tinfoil hat on a bit too tightly, yeah? cause obviously there's no such thing as high consumer demand that Nintendo didn't see coming, especially after the failure of the Wii U, which is interesting considering you never considered this point throughout your
entire argument.
I find it interesting that people don't really understand how Nintendo operate despite having seen this so many times. Why would they announce a new handheld system when they're trying to currently market the hell out of the Switch?
So if they're currently marketing the hell out of the Switch (and will seem to do so for the foreseeable future), how the flippity hell are they going to introduce a new handheld at
any point in the future, considering doing so would detract from their console sales? Why get a Wii U when the 3DS is a superior game console in literally every way
including being SIGNIFICANTLY more portable? Have you even noticed the way Nintendo has even marketed the Switch so far? They market its portability above all else. The question then becomes "why would I purchase a new handheld system that does the same shit as the Switch when I can just get a Switch".
How well the Switch is doing or not doing has no bearing whatsoever on whether the 3DS gets a successor - the interest in a successor will determine that. That will not lessen thanks to the Switch. But announcing it now if its in the works would be pure stupidity, as it will draw attention away from the Switch, which is not even a year old yet and needs an established install base before they can move onto something else. That is likely, in part, why they haven't discontinued the 3DS line yet too. But the bottom line is that Nintendo are going to want their products to meet as many hands as possible, and they will not do this through one system alone.
... ???
How well the Switch is doing is obviously indicative of people's interest
in the Switch itself. If you think about it in the business sense, why would they develop a shiny new handheld at any point in time when the Switch has generated interest and excitement not seen since Nintendo introduced the original Wii? At that point, you just take advantage of people's increased interest on the console market; not divide your consumer base and make them choose one or another, that's ridiculous. Why do you think Sony's handheld market has bombed in the West??
And acting like a dedicated handheld system cannot exist alongside the Switch? That's nonsense. The Switch does NOT plug that gap in the handheld market that would be left by the 3DS' discontinuation, hybrid bollocks or no, and if that had been the case Nintendo would have marketed the Switch as a replacement for the 3DS from the get-go, which they are not doing. The intention to support the 3DS alongside the Switch is there (although I will freely admit that Nintendo may be saying that to just drive 2DS XL sales; they're certainly not above such scummy tactics) and logically, if they can support the 3DS alongside the Switch, they could support a different handheld in the future. Once the Switch has an established install base and a library of titles behind it, I would fully expect them to do just that. But introducing two new systems in such a short space of time is extremely risky...and costly for consumers, too.
Sure a dedicated handheld system can exist alongside the Switch; it'll likely be the 3DS. Let's not forget that Pokemon, while certainly a 3DS flagship title, isn't the only title on the 3DS....
One more key thing, too - money. That's all Nintendo care about, and the more systems they have out there, the more money they're going to make.
This is only because their handhelds have historically been significantly cheaper than their consoles, making them an actual viable cost-worthy alternative for Nintendo's consoles for consumers. I mean, "supporting the 3DS from 2018 and beyond" can mean anything; they can just crap out new 2DS models every so often like they have been just to keep interest alive in their handhelds, but it'd be rather counterproductive to, again, make an entire new generation of handhelds that (lets be honest with ourselves, here) would rival the Switch in price, and Nintendo would gain nothing from it except divided interest and revenue loss.
Keep in mind that Nintendo
lost $49 million when the Wii U crumbled to absolute dust. I dunno, maybe this is just me, but I'm fairly certain that they're keen on not making that mistake again by doing everything in their power to maintain interest in the Switch, which includes not introducing a new handheld.
Also, lets keep in mind that Nintendo could actually stand to
lose money and find themselves in a rather disadvantageous position by introducing a separate handheld like that doesn't differentiate itself enough from the existing (N)3DS line. It'd be a smarter business tactic to capitalize on the existing (N)3DS consumer market rather than force people to buy a new handheld entirely just for the sake of supporting the Switch.
While you do have a point in regards to consumer interest, so far I've seen no data that people prefer a 3DS successor compared to the Switch. If this was the case, you'd expect the Switch to tank as a strong message to Nintendo that obviously the console market is not their strongest point as of recent and they should focus more on their handhelds, but obviously that is not the reality that we live in.
And the install base for the 3DS is gigantic. There is definitely more than enough interest in handheld gaming because the 3DS is STILL selling units, despite all this whining that the hardware is ancient and it's time to "move on" and whatever else people bitter and impatient to be done with it are saying. Maybe there won't be a successor, but acting like the Switch would be sufficient is both illogical from a business perspective and would be so unlike Nintendo that, to me, it seems foolish to discount the possibility entirely. They're already disproving this by continuing to support the 3DS and releasing garbage like the NES and SNES Classic. Nintendo are not Sony and Microsoft - they will not pin all of their hopes on a single device no matter how well it sells. They haven't done that since before the Gameboy was released.
No one made the point that Nintendo is going to kill the 3DS; it's just that Pokemon likely won't be on it anymore. That doesn't mean Nintendo can't come up with new IPs or work with devs to continue developing titles for the 3DS, so I don't really understand the meaning of that entire paragraph or what it's supposed to really refute.
As for Pokemon - it's a system seller. One of their biggest. Announcing a new handheld system right now will lead people to the inevitable conclusion that this will be the new home for Pokemon - although I can't see why, as every other franchise they have has a 2D and 3D iteration - and will drive interest in it down in the long term, which will be bad for sales, and bad for the Switch, which they are still marketing the hell out of. Announce a new handheld now, consumers will put off buying a Switch, under the assumption that the new handheld will be cheaper and, in all likelihood, backwards compatible with their existing library of titles. That's a fairly safe assumption to make because Nintendo handhelds have ALWAYS been backwards compatible. For a while their consoles were as well. Announcing it now is a bad decision. But ruling it out for a future event because they haven't announced it now? Jumping the gun, I think.
Announcing it
any point would be a bad decision for reasons you've already stated. "Why should I waste my money on the Switch when there's a perfectly viable, cheaper candidate that has better quality titles on it
and is more portable?" Even down the line when the Switch becomes a more established console with a larger library is no excuse for Nintendo to sit on their laurels and start utilizing resources for a new handheld generation when they could be using those
same resources to further capitalize gains on the Switch, which they have utterly failed doing with the Wii U.
Either way, let's not mistake this announcement or the Switch's current performance as an indicator that it will be Nintendo's only system in the future, and the sole home of Pokemon titles, because there is nowhere near enough information to support that, and looking at it historically Nintendo have always had two systems on the market, and there is no reason for that to change. They OWN the handheld market. The 3DS cannot last forever, unfortunately - especially if it will no longer have Pokemon titles on it - and splitting the install base by supporting the New 3DS only going forward will piss a lot of people off and confuse others. Let's see what 2018 and 2019 bring. If we haven't had a successor announced by the end of 2019, I'll believe one isn't coming. Until then...who knows.
Nintendo has always had two systems in the market, and they were able to do well with those two systems simply because there was enough of a difference and it was advantageous and more economically friendly (to the best of my knowledge) to have two systems on the market and develop new games for both. Unless you count the Gamecube, up until now their consoles have never been portable and were always meant for home entertainment, which is why people bought into their handheld lines in the
first place (aside from cost). Now that you have a console that's marketed towards portability, what's the incentive for consumers to purchase a new handheld that does
exactly the same thing?
Saying the Switch is a replacement for the 3DS might be a bit of a stretch considering the 3DS is still doing rather well of course, but there's no real gain for making an alternative system that does nearly the exact same thing as the Switch which costs nearly as much (because it will). That would be counterproductive and Nintendo would only shoot themselves in the foot because of it.
Also, yes, these things cost too much and it is phenomenally unfair to the consumer. Especially considering Nintendo games rarely if ever drop in price, and sometimes even INCREASE in price as time goes on. They've mitigated that somewhat with the 3DS with the Nintendo Selects line of games, but even on online websites there isn't a huge difference between the RRP of a Nintendo game and the price they charge for one. That Nintendo are showing increasing susceptibility to exploitative schemes like season passes and outrageously priced downloadable content - and then there's locking things behind Amiibo figures; don't even get me started on that - is only more worrying for the future. People have a right to complain about prices.
Price is another reason why I doubt that Nintendo would create a new generation of handhelds. Again, it's likely that a new generation of handhelds would cost just about as much as the Switch itself, so why bother utilizing resources and money when Nintendo isn't going to see much gain from it relative to what they're charging consumers? The Switch itself is evident that Nintendo isn't going to keep their consoles around the $250 price forever like they've traditionally have with the Wii and the Wii U, so who's to say that they won't charge $300 for a similarly advanced handheld? If you want to talk about pricing the next generation handheld, you want to do so while keeping in mind the success of your console market at the same time and not bomb that as well.
This isn't to say that the next generation of handhelds is an impossibility. Unless I've missed something in this thread,
no one is arguing that. It'd just be significantly disadvantageous compared to already supporting the (N)3DS market. Otherwise, Nintendo is going to have a tough time selling to existing N3DS/Switch owners to purchase an entirely new handheld which doesn't offer them much of what they don't already have.
