Topic: Nintendo Switch 2

I would be very cautious about taking 'analysts' who are clearly speaking to the investor demographic too seriously. Investors tend to care very little about objective reality, and more about the "point spread": whether a product or company does more or less than the mythical "expectation". Minor variances that are mostly random and have little real world impact, thus get overhyped because they can drive changes in stock purchasing patterns. . . and investors make bank on changes, no matter how small or which direction.

I still remain hopeful of something meatier.

I find it interesting that Nintendo did not pre-announce Boost Mode. I can only really think of two likely explanations for that:

Either they didn't have sufficient confidence that they could pull it off at the standard they demanded of themselves (less likely), or it's just another use of the drip-feed marketing strategy (more likely).

Assuming it was drip-feed, it's reasonable to speculate there may be further features in the pipeline but not yet announced and, given they've gone as far as to produce and sell replica Virtual Boy hardware recently, I'd say it's reasonable to conclude that VR is still in Nintendo's mind and could be revisited this generation. Probably still in the casual way that it was done with Switch 1, but with (hopefully) a greater software offering than we got last time, justified by the increased power and resolution of the Switch 2 tablet.

In all fairness, Black Friday and the holiday season is typically a critically important time of the year. That's when the industry typically makes most of its money. So an underwhelming holiday season is a cause for concern. Now is it the end of the world and Nintendo is doomed? Well no, not really. But there are causes for concern.

Part of the issue is that this Black Friday was also bizarre for Nintendo because it didn't have that big holiday game to drive sales, which also feeds into the "no big games" narrative. This is one reason everyone says the Switch 2's first year is worse than the Switch. The Switch had a megaton holiday game in Mario Odyssey for Holiday 2017. What did the Switch 2 have? There was Pokemon Legends Z-A, but that was a cross-gen game that sold more on Switch 1. Other than that it was relying on more niche sellers like Prime 4, Kirby Air Riders, and Age of Imprisonment. So it doesn't surprise me that the Switch 2 underperformed during the holiday when there wasn't that big mainstream exclusive to appeal to the masses and showed why they needed a Switch 2 specifically instead of sticking with Switch 1. This may be a bit of a hot take but honestly the Summer 2025 and Spring 2026 lineups have been better in terms of selling the Switch 2, Summer 2025 had some bigger exclusives in the form of MKW and Bananza and this Spring has more in the way of exclusives with games like Mario Tennis Fever, Yoshi, and of course Pokopia being a surprise hit. So if the Switch 2 ends up living in bizarro world where the holiday season is actually its worst so far rather than its best, I actually wouldn't be surprised. The holiday lineup was weirdly weak.

Anyway, as far as the Switch 2's prospects going forward, the perception of "not enough big games" has definitely still persisted and they need another big game or two to really dispel it for good I think. We desperately need that big Direct to lay out the second half of the year and announce those big games. Otherwise, I do think a slowdown is coming. The diehards have likely already bought the Switch 2. It's the casuals that need to be convinced now, and yes, they're going to be the kind of people that want the big megaton IPs. Complain all you want about them not stepping out of their comfort zone but those IPs just plain sell and it seems like there's little that can be done to screw up sales. But at the same time, when those IPs are on top of their game, they're peak and they'd definitely convince people that they need a Switch 2. There's just no getting around it, we need more of these IPs to show up with a new, full scale entry exclusive to Switch 2.

@Haruki_NLI
I myself noticed several incogruencies in that article. No way they expected to ship 6m units for non-holiday quarters. That sounds absurd, and Nintendo would have to be verified morons to expect such numbers. Like you said, that would mean 23m+ in under 10 months. And why would they expect that for Jan-Mar when it never even hit that in the quarter before the holiday?

The system is averaging around 2.5m per quarter (non-launch, non-holiday, before Pokopia) in the US, basically same as PS5 give or take. They're saying output is being reduced by 2m per quarter all because of the US? When it only pulls in 2.5m per quarter total in the US, and is compensated by strong JP sales? It makes no sense.

It also mentioned Metroid Prime 4 not hitting 1m but Nintendo already confirmed it did within the first month, which actually ranks it as the fastest selling Metroid to date. So we know that was incorrect reporting, and that's not an anomaly. Most of this guy's reporting has been questionable going back many years.

Idk. At the end of the day, let the numbers do the talking I say. 19m in just under 10m is their upwardly revised target. If they reach it (and I suspect they will, in fact I expect 20m+), there's nothing else to be said, really.

In response to that Bloomberg article, here's some actual hard data. It's outpacing every system launch 9 months in, with the exception of the GBA. In no way is the Switch 2 underperforming in the US.

I do wonder at what point Bloomberg looks at Mochizuki. It's bordering on market manipulation at points, since Bloomberg speaks to the stock market. Both Sony and Nintendo have had to publicly refute his claims over the years and all of them, funnily enough, didn't come to pass anyway.

@Haruki_NLI
They probably love it. Just look at all the traffic that article generated for their website.

They know what they're doing. They want clicks, and that dude always generates clicks because he's always making bold claims nobody else seems to have the scoop on (usually because it's not true).

@IceClimbers
At the end of the day, hard numbers are the only currency that spends. Everything else is speculation and conjecture concerning how those hard numbers may change due to various factors.

If Nintendo expected to ship 6m units for Q4 of their FY, then they're idiots. How could it possibly do that much in the slowest quarter of the year? And why aren't projections being revised downward if that were true? You're telling me they're shipping 2m less this quarter than expected, but aren't changing their forecast? Stop it.

Even if it were true they were doing 4m this quarter, it doesn't sound sensational without framing it in the context of "expecting 6m". That to me is what I take issue with. Whether the 4 is true or not, who can say. But expecting 6 is ridiculous.

Yea, what @JaxonH said.

We're actually living in a post-truth era. The facts don't matter anymore. Feelings do.

And just look at all the feelings this article has generated lol

I've spent the past year not wanting Nintendo to be rewarded for their more questionable decisions but finding the majority of the assumptions about sales problems to be absurd. The fact that obvious grifters showed up last year on Youtube to be mad at Nintendo has done a lot to vindicate my feelings on infuriating it is. (the same way I hate people who hate live action Disney movies for stupid reasons, because I hate them more for better reasons).

Unrelated mostly but remember that all time stupid article that assumed Mario Kart 8 was gonna be the worst selling Mario Kart because of Wii U's low numbers, not realizing that some people...might buy a Wii U for Mario Kart? That was funny, especially during the brief moment of time where it seemed like Mario Kart could be enough to turn Wii U around.

I have a bold prediction, a wild and speculative assertion... I think we might get a LEGO Zelda game for holiday 2026.

Think about it. Nintendo likes to release some kind of Zelda game each year, many of which are spinoffs. And LEGO games are extremely popular. Just as Nintendo collaborated with Koei Tecmo for Hyrule Warriors, something tells me Nintendo and TT Games will be collaborating for a brand new LEGO Zelda game.

Staple LEGO series gameplay designed around the classic Zelda formula. Find new upgrades, explore new areas and dungeons. Shield and parry system with sword combos, bow and arrow with gyro aiming. All the expected humor of a good LEGO title, with Ganondorf, Link, Zelda and a variety of other lesser characters.

Idk why, but the more I think about it the more I'm convinced this will be one of the big surprise announcements for end of year. And if not, surely it must be in the works for down the line, no?

@JaxonH

Now I actually want something like that, lol 🤣

@JaxonH I could see that happening, though I've heard LEGO is trying to move away from TT games, with the new Batman game potentially being the final TT Lego game, so it would probably be with a different developer if this was to happen.

@JaxonH
Another thing i wanted to point out in regards to a lot of people complaining about having to wear something in order to game or watch a movie, aka > even future light 100g VR glasses for ex. I always wear headphones & throw on my prescription eye glasses whenever I play NS1 on my TV. So...Ya, I'm used to it. I can tolerate the headphones for maybe 2 1/2 hours max, which imo is the perfect amount of time for a gaming session, for me personally, before my eyes start to feel goopy and i want to break away from the TV and do something else entirely.

Wearing eye glasses though, while annoying to wear and Constantly clean, is still less offensive than like a pair of Sennheiser over head cans. VR headsets still currently being the most cumbersome since they're currently around 500g - 560g with Q3 & PSVR2. But when you're THAT immersed and having that good of a time, you almost forget about the weight and the fact that there's this thing on your head.

At least Steam frame will be 75g lighter than Quest 3. Clocking in at around 425g with a far better back to front balancing act in terms of weight distribution. It's still a headset though and it aint' light like the Pheonex or Quest 4 will be for 2027, at just under 110g in the form of thick wrap around glasses. Over head cans/headphones in VR still isn't recommended due to the cans themselves shifting while moving your head around. I think top tier high end low latency 2.4g wireless ear buds with a USB-C dongle is the best solution.

If only VR tracked 5.2/7.2 surround sound speaker systems existed. Currently the most comfortable way to game imo, is still with a controller, on a 65" QD-OLED, and a great 5.2 Speaker System, and not having to wear prescription eye glasses(I really need lasik)

@Nep-Nep-Freak
Ikr? I'm not a huge LEGO game fan, but I did enjoy LEGO Star Wars Skywalker Saga quite a bit, I thought LEGO Horizon was pretty fun (though shallow), and LEGO Batman looks incredible.

LEGO games typically suffer from lack of mechanical depth, but Zelda was never that mechanically deep- it's engagement stemmed from the classic loop with puzzle solving (BotW/TotK were exceptions to that established formula and did offer more mechanical depth).

I think a LEGO Legend of Zelda title based on the well-known formula of older Zelda titles would be a smash hit, and potentially a fan favorite. If they worked with Nintendo to ensure solid dungeon design, clever puzzles, snappy and intuitive gameplay with top-rate humor and an engaging hook, I could see such a game selling 10m+ over its lifespan.

It's a perfect marriage of IP. This needs to happen.

@UpsideDownRowlet
Wonder why that is? Well, whichever studio they use, as long as Nintendo oversees it I think it would turn out fantastic.

@JaxonH I'm pretty sure it had something to do with TT games having a bad track record with employee treatment recently (particularly with the troubled development of Skywalker Saga), which LEGO probably didn't want associated with its brand image.

https://www.pcgamer.com/lego-star-wars-the-skywalker-saga-dev...

I'm not super knowledgeable about this matter though, so there could be more to this story.

@NeonPizza
Ya, no arguing there is a market for VR and certainly will always be people like you who appreciate it.

I just form my opinions on what I see in the market historically, and I'm convinced most will never buy into VR beyond a one-time curiosity. Not saying it isn't fun or immersive or that being light weight would feel too heavy or anything, merely that a simple 2D screen without any needed body accessories will always be the mainstay.

Like, you don't play handheld which highlights individual preference. But handheld gaming has been leading the market since its inception with the Game & Watch. Be it the GameBoy, GBA, the DS or 3DS, Switch, Switch 2, it's consistently proven to be something people want. Even mobile gaming on a phone which lacks traditional controls, a huge stumbling block, has become larger than any other sector.

There's also the fact VR is very limiting in terms of experiences, since it's centered around self-immersion. One example is games like Zelda BotW, Monster Hunter, Elden Ring, and countless others, where getting hit can knock you down and the character rolls. That doesn't really work in VR. The game has to be modified and changed to work around its limitations of realism. Platformers don't really work well unless its a diorama, which is cool and all but it's basically just 3D at that point. 2D platformers become VR sunglasses with a theater screen. Games have have to be built ground up for VR, so that lack of native compatibility in terms of design also really holds it back.

All that said, I'm sure it'll stick around on PC/mobile so, it's not like it's ever going away. Much like PC handhelds, it'll maintain a small niche market where the ones who love it absolute love it, but everyone else disinterested.

Sorry, don't mean to rain on your parade. I really do hope the best for its future. It's not like I'm against VR. Just sharing my honest assessment.

What we need are glasses-free 3D 4KTVs. Where the capability is baked in out of the box, even if it's never used at first, and is only compatible with the select number of 3D Blu-Rays.

But over time, if all TV's adopted this, eventually the market would mostly have access to the technology. Then gaming companies could release games in 3D again, where anyone without a 3DTV could play normally, but those with a 3DTV could toggle on the 3D mode.

Unfortunately, there's no incentive for TV companies to adopt and include such a technology, especially when there's a dead market for it atm.

I don't see Nintendo doing Lego games because they'd have to release it on PS much like how Sony had to release Lego Horizon Adventures on Switch.

I think the 2026 Zelda game would be A Link Between Worlds remaster for Switch 1, 3DS seems safe for remaster opportunities meanwhile GCN NSO exists and DS NSO is probably next year considering the current NSO new console additions pattern.

All this VR talk has me thinking - I remember a long time ago, this must be around 2005 or 2006, there was a rumor that Nintendo was making a console the had a 3D projector for games (the system was a projector) - similar to something Microsoft was working on years ago. If I'm remembering correctly, it had to do with a special screen to enable it. Again, it was only a rumor but I always thought that sounded so cool. Who needs a 3D TV when your console is doing it for you.
Flash forward to the Wii, there was a guy who set up Wii Motes by the TV and put a sensor bar type peripheral on his head. The Wii was able to do head tracking and follow him around as he moved around his room. Another example that I thought not only looked incredible (at the time) but also thought that games would go that direction - incorporate some movement and perspective changes based on where you move in your space. He had a basic obstable course set up, and as he moved forward or back in his room, he could dodge the obstacles. It was neat.
I think there could be a future for VR, but I also think there are some possibilities that could be VR like, without using a headset. My only experience with the VR is the Quest 2 + RE 4, and it's really cool. But I can only handle 30 mins at a time before I need to stop. Modern headsets give a vastly improved experience - maybe I could handle more time using one.
I do wonder if in the future there will be more of a focus on immersive experiences in your home - holographic type gaming. Probably not - but where this thread has gone, it's gotten me thinking and remembering some of the old theories that were floating around in the early internet days . I'm still waiting for the SW2 to have the ability to connect wirelessly to the dock, and provide WiiU type gameplay (because I skipped that system). I guess I have the Virtual Boy to tide me over for now

@JaxonH
Well said! And yes, If only glasses-free S3D 65" QD-OLED TV's existed that exapand on the 'New' 3DS's S3D technology. Pair that with a NS2 & PS5 Pro(PSSR2), and I'm guessing we'd get 1080p per eye split in half from 4K, best case scenario. It would simulate the feeling of looking through a window into the game world, with nearly true to life 3D depth perception and 3D pop out effects. But would it be capable of simulating the exact same feeling that VR is currently capable of? Not quite. How can it when it's just a stationary fixed rectangle that acts as a 'window'(But also including pop out 3D) into the game world? where as VR plunks you IN the game world regardless of what perspective it throws your way, with life sized characters and environments that can appear inches away from your face?

The problem is, is that due to the current field of view limitations, every single VR game you play makes you feel like you're looking through a scubadiver mask. As it restricts all corners of your periperhal vision until you turn your head in that exact direction. Won't be the case in the future once the tech gets better overtime, but for now it's still a thing and a slight barrier, even at 110d FOV. Other PCVR headsets that push towards 120d wind up sacrifiing the binocular overlap(Meaning, the 3D depth perception). So you can't have the best of both worlds just yet.

Also, there's a BOTW PCVR Mod, but unfortunately it's currently in first person with motion controls tacked on. That to me completely obliterates or tarnishes the games style & presentation. If they updated it and released it in 3rd person VR with your head acting as the camera behind a life sized link just feet away from you with the same exact traditional control scheme as the NS1/2 Pro Controller it would play just as perfectly and seemlessly like on a TV.

Also, getting hit in a '3rd person' VR title , that produces or causes a roll back effect with your character doesn't have any negative impact on the experience unless it's in first person which I'm guessing is what you were referring to. Then you could very well run in to trouble, unless the devs choose a more stylastic approach and quickly change the perspective to 3rd person which Capcom did with RE4 Remake for PSVR2. Seeing Leon in 3rd person jump/crash through windows, climb latters(etc) were some of the most spectacular moments in that game too. I couldn't believe when the devs of Astro Bot(PS5) said it wouldn't work in VR. Another VR dev called them on their BS and said ANY 3D platformer can be VR-ified, even if it wasn't specifcally designed to be. Your head becomes the camera, it's throw in 3rd person VR, everything becomes life sized in S3D/VR. Sure, camera angles, cues, and set pieces won't be as iconic or stylish because they weren't original set up with VR in mind, but they'd work regardless.

But ya, 3rd person VR titles, top down VR, or Diorahama styled in the same vein as Moss will have zero issues with that. I 100%'d Astro Bot: RM for PSVR1 years ago. Putting aside the low pixelated resolution, screen door effect and occasional reprojection(Caused by 60fps in VR) it was phenomenal as a PS2-esque styled platformer with tacked on DualShock VR Motion controls.

Also, Steam Frame supposedly can force Stereoscopic 3D into any flat steam game you play on it. Obiously reinforcing the effect won't be as good as being developed with the real thing in mind, but it's something at least. But you still have to wear a headset in order to enjoy it.

Given how long it already takes to make games... just imagine if most of the market shifted to VR/AR.