Topic: Next Nintendo Direct?

@LinkxPeach The Gen V sequels/remakes are going to most likely be for this year's release though. Gamefreak doesn't just adopt new hardware the first year it comes out.

Also, again where are you getting the idea Gen 10 is getting sequels? We haven't even seen Gen 10 itself yet.

I think you're making the classic mistake of reading into "precedents" way too much. Yes it's true that Pokemon was the last holdouts on GBA/DS/3DS. But it's also true that these were all, in some sense, "third versions" of games which is a concept they've largely dropped on the Switch in favour of DLC

Secondly, do we even know what it means to be a "Switch 2" game at this point? People are instantly falling back on norms here and assuming that the release of "Switch 2" means Switch is dead and games are either for Switch or "Switch 2". But we also know, with some confidence, that the SoC this will be using is VERY similar to the Switch. So why are we assuming the line will be so clear?

We even have a Pokemon game precedent for this. Pokemon Gold and Silver released after the GBC. A year after in Japan, 2 years after everywhere else. They were the main reason I got a GBC because they were the main reason I played my GB generally. They were GBC games..... but they were GB compatible

I expect that SOME games in this transition will be similar. Single release that's compatible with both but not as a standard Switch game with BC on the 2. More of a standard Switch game that has the ability to use some Switch 2 features/power when played on Switch 2. Metroid Prime 4? Probably one of them. I expect Pokemon probably goes down the same path

@skywake I respectfully disagree. Gamefreak is a company that doesn't like to take risks, especially in regards to new console game dev. They usually tend to stay on platforms where they can cater to an already massive installbase. I do think the next games will be playable on the next console, but I don't think they'll be made with it in mind.

I also expect the new console to be like the 3DS was to the DS. I doubt Nintendo is just going to release a more powerful version of the switch with games that can run on both the normal switch and the switch 2. Of course I can't tell the future, so we'll have to see.. but I don't think the Switch 2 is going to be like the Gameboy Color.

@VoidofLight
Gamefreak is a company that puts profits over quality. The reason they've usually been slow in terms of supporting new hardware is because a quick sequel is quicker and cheaper. Especially when the new platform has a dramatically different architecture and level of graphical fidelity. This transition will NOT be the same, it'll be much easier for GF. Actually, lets go over these previous transitions:

GB -> GBC: 2X the CPU clock speed, double the VRAM, 4X working RAM
GB(C) -> GBA: Change in architecture from Z80 to ARM
GBA -> DS: Second CPU (ARM Big-Little architecture), the OS core is basically a GBA but with double the clock. Main core is significantly faster. Something like 40X the RAM
DS -> 3DS: Added a GPU, again ~35X the RAM. Raw clock for main core is ~4X higher but is also now a dual core and an ARM 11 rather than ARM9. The clock comparison is always silly, it's particularly silly here
3DS -> Switch: Clock comparisons are even more silly here, we're talking something like 100x more power. Again, something like 30X more RAM. Significantly higher screen resolution

Home Consoles (won't go back as far):
N64 -> GC: MIPS/SGI to PPC/ATi (Radeon), entirely incompatible
GC -> Wii: Basically the same, a tad more RAM and a ~2X clock bump (less on the GPU)
Wii -> Wii U: Keeping the same architecture again but.... something like 15X the raw power
Wii U -> Switch: Another ~2X jump, small-ish, Wii-like. But this time we've dropped PPC/Radeon for ARM/NV (aka Tegra). Also we entirely changed the storage media so backwards compatibility was never an option even if it was the same architecture

Switch -> "Switch 2" (speculation):
We can say with a very high level of confidence that they're going Tegra again. So right there if we're doing comparisons it's going to be like one of GC -> Wii, Wii -> Wii U, GB -> GBC. Also we can be fairly confident this thing will be portable and relatively affordable, it won't be a $1000US product. We're looking at a 5X jump in power at the absolute most (and probably more like a 3X jump). That rules out all of the portable comparisons except GB -> GBC and on the home console side leaves us with GC -> Wii and Wii U -> Switch. And we know already it won't be like Wii U -> Switch

So no, you're wrong here. If this transition is like anything, and especially for developers, it's going to be like the transition from GB -> GBC or GC -> Wii. I don't think there's much of a reason to believe that GF will be holding onto the original hardware in order to get something out for 2024. There's no reason to, they already have software that's "good enough" for Switch 2, they're called Switch games. I expect they'll tick the "build for Switch 2" button and cash in on early adopters. If there's an option for cross-gen compatibility? Man, they'll take that also

Frankly, what I expect is that GF sits out 2024 for Pokemon. Maybe they drop some enhancement patch for making S/V enhanced for the new hardware. Maybe they do some spinoff. But I don't think they do a new Pokemon game this year. I expect (well, hope is probably the better word) that they take a pause and re-group for a bit

@skywake Again, we'll see on Pokemon day what Gamefreak has planned. I don't see them skipping 2024, especially given that a prominent leaker is basically hinting that there's a game this year. Gamefreak never tends to just up and skip years, especially not when profit can be made.

@VoidofLight
Sure, I guess we'll see. My point is more that I think you're being a tad too rigid in what you're expecting to happen. I don't think there's any specific "pattern" that we should assume they're going to follow. Pokemon in general has been treated pretty differently for this generation of hardware because this generation of hardware has been pretty different for Pokemon

The same goes for this next hardware transition. With the exception of the GBC, GF has always been pretty late to transition to new hardware. But at the same time every portable hardware transition outside of the GB->GBC was a jump in spec of an order of magnitude. 3DS -> Switch being two orders of magnitude. The transition is going to be pretty light this time around, so it'll be significantly easier for developers. Which is why I don't think GF is going to hold out in the same way they have in the past. There's less reason to wait out, they're already developing for Switch so they're basically ready for Switch 2 development already

If they were to follow the precedents exactly? What we'd probably see is a third version or immediate sequel for Scarlet/Violet on Switch and not "Switch 2". I think the DLC model has killed the possibility of a third version or sequel. So the next pattern would be a remake, which would mean X/Y, which is what you're saying. But again, this generation we've had Lets Go and Legends: Arceus so I think all precedents are thrown out the window there also. And again, I don't think Switch 2 is off the table by any stretch

Honestly, again I hope that they just skip 2024 entirely. But if they do release something I'm not particularly keen on saying I expect one thing or another. And I certainly don't believe that it'll not be "Switch 2". I think something that's not Pokemon that's on Switch 2 at launch is more likely than X/Y remakes on Switch only

Usually, every 3 years Nintendo make a new Pokemon Gen sequel.

@skywake We wouldn't be getting X and Y remakes. It would probably be Black and White remakes... and even then, Gamefreak themselves said that ever since gen 5 they've attempted to do something new with their games and what people expected. Gen 5 got sequels, Gen 6 got remakes, Gen 7 got two third versions which were technically also somewhat sequel-like, Gen 8 got DLC, remakes, and Legends Arceus, and Gen 9 is getting DLC and probably basic Gen 5 remakes with either a Gen 5 sequel that takes place 12 years after B2W2, or a Legends style game. Probably a Johto game as well in 2025 or so, given Johto and Unova are both being referred to heavily.

It would probably be easier for Gamefreak to make the jump to the next console given the factors you mentioned, yeah. It just depends on if they deem it worth doing early on in the console's life or not though. I remember a big part of why Gamefreak took a bit to move to Switch for mainline pokemon was partially due to how they had little faith in the console's sales numbers at the time. They didn't see much of a userbase yet to justify their move, so they kept to the 3DS until releasing Let's GO. My thinking is just that they'll probably stick to releasing a game that was made for the Switch but can be played on the Switch 2. The game will probably perform better or look better on the Switch 2 than it does on the Switch. If we are getting two games, one in 2024 and one in 2025, we'll probably get Black and White remakes on Switch and possibly sequels on the Switch 2, if they do end up moving to the next console any time soon.

@LinkxPeach Its Gamefreak. Gamefreak is the developer of the Pokemon series, not Nintendo. Also while every three years is generally the time-frame generations in the series have, I feel like Gamefreak would probably break that cycle in order to get a generation out on the anniversary year of the series. They tend to celebrate their big anniversaries, and I feel like they'd wish to do the same again in 2026. Even with the three year cycle in mind, that doesn't mean we'll get sequels to Gen 10 either when Gen 10 ends up happening. They could do sequels, but they could also do DLC for gen 10, or even go back to third versions. They could even pull an X and Y where gen 10 is cut short for some unknown reason. Honestly, we don't truly even know if gen 10 will be 2025 or 2026. People thought Pokemon Legends Arceus was going to be the 2022 game, and then Gen 9 happened the same year. There's no telling what Gamefreak is going to do at this point.

Nintendo released Gen IV-V games on the Nintendo DS, and Gen VI-VII games on the Nintendo 3DS. Nintendo also released Gen VIII-IX games on the Nintendo Switch. Which is why Gen X sequels will be released on the Nintendo Switch 2. What does SoC stands for? What does BC stands for?

@LinkxPeach SoC = system-on-a-chip. Basically the chip/circuit stuff. Pretty sure BC referred to back-compatibility here.

@VoidofLight
Yep, my mistake, B/W not X/Y. In my head for some reason I never really think of the second batch of games on the DS as another generation of games. I just kinda.... mentally skip over B/W & B2/W2. Gen 1 started it, Gen 2 expanded, Gen 3 added natures/abilities, Gen 4 split physical/special ___________ Gen 6 went 3D

But yeah, fundamentally my point is more that you can't read into precedents, patterns and PR. They're just going to do what makes sense for the situation they find themselves in. And from a development perspective? This is going to be the softest console transition on Nintendo hardware outside of the transitions to Wii and GBC. And unlike those transitions we're in an era of account systems, online stores, patches and DLC

@LinkxPeach
As @FishyS said, SoC is "System on a Chip". In older devices or more modular devices you'll have separate chips for different functions. An SoC is basically a collection of all of those functions on one chip. i.e. the Tegra X1 SoC in the Switch contains two ARM CPUs, an NVidia GPU, a Video decoder and memory controller. The rumoured SoC for "Switch 2" is similar bud also adds AI acceleration and, supposedly, file decompression acceleration

In terms of that pattern of two generations before the next hardware. I mean sure, that's a pattern. But I don't think it's a deliberate decision, it's more of a side effect of timing. They've released a new generation of game every 3-4 years so because we've had three portable consoles in a row that lasted around 6-7 years we've had three portables in a row that had two generations of Pokemon. Gen 10 will almost surely be on Switch 2 because, well, we're probably a couple of years before Gen 10 is likely to land and by then Switch 2 will be out

.......... as @VoidofLight said but, not sure where you're getting "Gen 10 sequels" from. But sure, some stop-gap or DLS post Gen 10? That'll probably happen a year or two after Gen 10. Almost surely also on Switch 2. But we're not there yet

@skywake That is true, I feel like the only actual jump this gen (outside of a potential gimmick for the console) is mostly going to be power. Gamefreak has already began future-proofing for HD console development during SV's development (they mentioned that they were building an asset library so that they could keep reusing assets in future development of games). I forgot that Nintendo's online accounts are most likely going to carry over onto the next system as well, which might be a first step for being able to bring over digital purchases.. hopefully.

Also yeah, Gen 5 is kind of in a weird place since it didn't do anything massive for the formula as a whole. It was basically just a refining moment for what Gen 4 built in a way. The slight beginning of them playing around with 3D effects (at least, outside of how Gen 4 played with 3D in Platinum), and basically making a soft reboot of the series with a dex that's effectively a carbon copy of the one they built for generation 1 of pokemon. Even then though, it holds a special place in my heart.. as it was basically the first Pokemon game that I actually understood what I was doing in. I guess its why I'm a bit more keen in seeing if we're getting anything this year, since I want to know if the Indigo Disk DLC is building up towards anything related to Gen 5 or not.

I'm guessing LinkxPeach is just referring to Gen X with the term 'Gen X sequels' - i.e. sequel just being the next step in the series, which will be known as Gen X.

Or maybe Game Freak will get creative and release Gen 10 sequels before gen 10 is even released. 🤔 There has been a lot of time traveling in recent Pokemon games.

@skywake I think if 2024 was a break for mainline Pokemon, they would've released Indigo Disk in 2024 so there isn't a break. Have it release alongside Switch 2 along with a Switch 2 enhancement patch for Scarlet/Violet as a whole.

But instead the Scarlet/Violet DLC (both parts) were rushed out in 2023 with even worse performance than the base game which gives the impression of getting it out of the way to make room for the 2024 Pokemon game being announced on February 27th (Pokemon Day) and released on November 15th (3rd Friday of November) as tradition.

The problem is that continuing to produce Switches while only releasing the occasional token Kirby spinoff and another ten editions of Just Dance would still mean splitting the market and all of the major games would be for a console with a much, much lower install base. With the Switch, a new E ticket game sells 15,000,000 copies without breaking a sweat (and probably a lot more than that).

Yeah, the Wii U should've been launched in 2010 (only 4 years after the Wii came out) with Skyward Sword as its launch title. I'm sure that would've done it. The Wii U flopped largely because most people didn't need/want a Wii with slightly better graphics. And it was released too early because the Wii should've had another good year or two (which would've been more profitable). The same thing is the case with the Switch. "Switch but with infinitesimally better graphics" isn't something most people need/want, and the Switch has at least another good year or two in it.

The only "smoke" is internet rumours, "there's bigger chips now", and the relative lack of major games scheduled for release in 2024 and beyond. The former two points were repeated ad nauseum during the Switch Pro era (which you were completely wrong about, by the way). The latter point is a possibility, but it will automatically go away when a new E ticket game is revealed at the next Nintendo direct. Meanwhile, the Switch still sells at full-price (new console reveals are always preceded by a price drop), Switch games continue to sell extremely well, console generations are going to only get longer from here on out (since graphics aren't actually improving anymore at this point), and a new console isn't necessary.

Only some of them actually count as new a hardware generation though. A different coloured N64 or a Switch with longer battery life don't count. At minimum the new system has to have many exclusives and do something the previous console didn't. Nintendo recognizes the NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube, Wii, Wii U, Switch, Game Boy, Game Boy Advance, DS, and 3DS as distinct hardware generations.

https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/finance/hard_soft/index.html

Yup, you right. Gamefreak had a four-year cycle between Gen III, and Gen IV. If Gamefreak was to make Gen 10 sequels, they would make DLC packs for that generation. As for Gen VI, they’d probably make third versions after they released Gen V Remakes.

@Euler
You're very good at ignoring entirely people's posts and just making another post so you can hear your own voice. Again, just look at the sales trend for the Wii back in the day. That curve isn't a result of the Wii U launching and cannibalising its sales. For one thing the rapid decline happened before the Wii U was even announced and secondly the Wii U didn't really take any sales....

There was a drop in sales of 7mill units between 2008 and 2010 for the Wii. Another 6mill decline between 2010 and 2011. That wasn't the Wii U being announced, the average consumer isn't really aware of console announcements, that wasn't people migrating to the PS4/XBOne. Those sales went to the 360 and PS3, those consoles had peak sales in 2010/2011. The Wii U was out, if anything, too late to compete with the hardware it was designed to compete against

Anecdotal point, I remember in late 2011 being at the shops with my brother and he was asking about what console to buy my niece for Christmas. They had a Wii which they got in 2007 but my Niece had grown out of it a bit and by then they'd upgraded from a small CRT to like a 46" Plasma TV. I didn't give him an answer. I told him that 2011 was kinda a rough time to upgrade, Nintendo was going to have something new next year and we were probably only a couple of years away from the PS4 and "Xbox 720". My Niece got an XBox 360 for Christmas

So again, they were too late to release what a lot of people actually brought the Wii U as. The Wii U was, more or less, a HD Wii for the people who actually brought into it. By the time the Wii U released and with the additional cost of the screen the 360/PS3 were significantly better value. As a HD Wii, the Wii U in 2013 was a tough sell, it was a good $100AU more than the competition and wasn't getting stuff like GTAV. Unless you were particularly into Nintendo's IP you weren't buying it. If it had been a 1-2 years earlier without the screen and at a lower price? It probably does better. For what people brought it for it was way too late and way too expensive

But again, for what it was trying to do? It was too early. The off-TV stuff was great but streaming low latency is inherently compromised. They had to squash the resolution down to 480p both to keep the cost down but also to keep the performance, both to stream and to render, acceptable. Also, fundamentally, while people like me LOVED off-TV play I think most people want a portable that's not limited to compressed 480p that can only be played in a few rooms of the house. I loved the Wii U but.... the hardware wasn't quite ready for prime time. They gambled on what was basically a beta-test of the unified console concept that they perfected on Switch. That gamble could have landed, in theory, but people could smell it was a beta-test and were having none of it

So to repeat again so when you skip this point again it's even more apparent. The Wii U was TOO LATE to compete as a HD version of the Wii. To most consumers who looked at or even brought the Wii U, a HD Wii was what they were buying. But that ship had sailed, Nintendo missed their window. People were already moving on to the 360/PS3 from the Wii before the Wii U was even announced. When it hit shelves the 360/PS3 were at their peak, Wii U was $100AU more with less games and a not-quite-portable screen

A cheaper Wii HD with no screen launching in 2010/11 with Skyward Sword HD and updated motion controls? That competes with Kinect and PSMove as people migrate to HDTVs. Better than the Wii U competed with GTAV and The Last of Us. And we all know that the Switch further down the road competes pretty well against the PS4. So again, the Wii U was too late for what it was and too early for what it was trying to be. There really isn't much of a case to argue otherwise, thems just the facts. So really, what is your argument here? That the Wii U launched at precisely the right time? Come on.....

What does, “DLS” stands for? Gen X probably will be released in 2026 as VoidofLight stated for the Pokémon 30th Anniversary for the Nintendo Switch 2.