Topic: Where does Nintendo go after the Switch?

I think Nintendo should continue the Switch line, the same way they had Game Boy, GB Pocket, color, Advance... and DS, DS Lite, DSi, 3DS, 2DS. I'd like to see a new Switch. Personally I'd love it to be called "Switch Advance" in homage to the GBA. It'd be all around an updated and refined Switch. I think it would need 2 SD card slots, native Bluetooth headphone support, improved online functionality and, two versions: a budget version and a premium version. The budget version being a Switch Lite Advance and a premium version having all around better build quality, a nicer screen, and such. The Lite Advance however should have TV functionality but not come with a dock. They should find a way to move the TV output functionality to the dock itself. That way they could save space in the Switch itself, and reduce the cost of both versions. (though I admit I know nothing of the tech itself and maybe there is some fundamental reason this cannot be done). Also, I think it would be interesting if they had a way for the Switch to support 5G. Maybe with an optional dongle or something.

@rockodoodle Personally I have thought about that too. When I've tried returning to my Wii U post Switch, I've really hated the feel of the gamepad, the terrible battery life and the dim screen and wished Nintendo had released an app for Switch that let it function as a Gamepad. Which is more or less what you described right? I've also imagined a new Switch dock with a disk drive and backwards compatibility support for Wii and Wii U games, and even other docks that support older cartridge based titles. But it always comes off clunky.

I really don't think Nintendo should try and jump back in to the Sony-MS console war. Both Sony and MS have large, established fanbases that are looking for that kind of content while Nintendo gamers have shifted in a different more independent direction. It would be hard for Nintendo to win that war. I think it would be better for Nintendo to continue the hybrid line - providing a product that has it's own powerful first party IPs and allows gaming in a different manner from MS or Sony.

@sixrings The Switch is easily the best platform for gaming I've ever enjoyed. I play games on my Switch more than PS4 and PC combined twice over. It's not that graphics do not matter - they just aren't even in the top 3 most important factors. For me it is: 1. the gameplay, 2. story/setting/world building, 3. Convenience factor. Then things like music, graphics and peripheral/gimmick support are secondary.

But technology improves over time. This is a given. Eventually there will be another device after the Switch. It could be like what I described above, or something else entirely, but obviously Nintendo will eventually release something new.

But hey, if graphics are all that matter for you or if not all, but the most important thing, live your life however you want. There's nothing and no one stopping you from doing that.

@StuTwo If a company could release a real competitor to Steam, Nintendo might be the one to do it. But Steam is just so overwhelmingly powerful on PC gaming. Even Microsoft releases most of the big games on Steam! And they make Windows! The thing is, there would be nothing but Nintendo first party games releasing on eShop. The vast majority of players would stick with Steam for everything else. So overall I just don't think that would be a good move.

@Mountain_Man I do think a digital only device is inevitable. But I don't think Nintendo really needs to drop cartridge support even if they move away from making new games physically - I've seen people working on the Switch and the game card slot itself is relatively simple and doesn't take that much space - it's the cards that cost money more than the card readers. So In a future device the slot could be retained purely for that compatibility.

But another thing might be possible. Currently you can redeem Nintendo coins from Nintendo games games - once per cartridge and only on one account. So Nintendo can track individual games. Nintendo could make it work where you can install a game once from each cartridge - other people could still play it, but would not be able to install from it. Yes, you run into the issue of people buying games, installing them, and then selling them - but that only hurts resale value of games. This system would not be implemented until a "transitional phase" where Nintendo is supporting game cards, but no longer producing them. They could even go the route of releasing an add on for a future digital only device solely for people to install their physical collections.

But before a digital only device would be practical, a future Switch would need more storage capacity. Personally, I think the best way to do this would be to have 2 or even 3 SD card slots.

By the time they launch, components will come down in cost. They might be able to have a bundle at $400, console only $299 and certain versions of the Switch for $99. And it looks like the Switch is going to come close to the Wi- something that so many will have anyway.

@rockodoodle Yeah, but I still wouldn’t want to need a certain controller to play a certain game.

U have a Switch now, no? In some cases the second screen makes things so much easier. Or could be used in party games.

@rockodoodle I have a Switch, but let’s say I trade it in to get the next console. Then I won’t have a Switch. Unless, it comes with the next gen, like the Wii U, it’s not good imo.

I do think the console released in 2023/2024 will be backward compatible, though, as Wii U and 3DS were.

@rallydefault I'd not mentioned releasing games on XBox or Playstation. I think those are two very different things to releasing on PC. Largely because of the royalty costs that the platform holders would charge.

More so than the loss of royalty payments from third parties releasing on Nintendo hardware (though this can be significant) it's the royalty costs that Nintendo themselves would have to pay on their games that has always blown the water out of any argument for Nintendo to go third party. It's still worth Nintendo's money to develop and market their own hardware so they don't have to pay a 20% levy on every game they sell. But that levy isn't there on PC...

That said - I do broadly agree with you about how messy it could potentially become, the potential to lose control of the user experience etc. I still think all of the challenges you've outlined are things that could be overcome but they wouldn't fit naturally with the way that Nintendo has traditionally done things.

@Mountain_Man I agree - there are major technical challenges that I'm casually glancing over. I do think those challenges aren't what they would have been 10 years ago and I think the technical side of the equation is in many ways less risky than it was but it's still a far messier reality for development than they currently have to deal with.

Ultimately I don't think we have the numbers or the in depth understanding of how Nintendo is organised internally to know if it's something that could ever really work for them or not. It's an interesting thought experiment though to the question of "what should Nintendo do next". If the only answer is "Switch but more powerful and more third party AAA games" or "go third party and release games on PS5" then I don't think the conversation is very interesting.

@StuTwo
I think what we saw in the headlines today even with just Nintendo's pullback from the mobile market shows how it's easier and makes more sense for them to focus on their own hardware and, like you say, their own unique experiences they can control. There are just so many of their greatest games that require Nintendo's own creative control inputs that it would be an accessory nightmare to get things running on other devices, even if you only targeted PC (though if they were to go third-party with their games, I think it would be insane of them to not just go across the board).

@rallydefault I think one of the big things about the Switch is that Nintendo has largely turned away from their long-standing wish to be different controls wise. There’s no mandatory motion (or touch) control, no larger than normal A button with kidney bean buttons, no missing shoulder button. Even the analogue stick placement is conventional now.

The few games that DO require unconventional controls like Labo and Ring Fit... aren’t on the eShop. Hey - Nintendo even released a new Switch that cant play some of them.

I’d suggest that this is part of the reason for the success of the Switch. It makes it easier for today’s Nintendo games to migrate in the future if desired.

I think pulling back from the mobile market is a broader reflection of the failure of Apple & Google to create a well curated marketplace. I don’t think gaming on PC has the same issues and a Nintendo eShop front on PC would be anchored by Nintendo’s own high quality first party games.

I also think it’s something that Nintendo could (& would) approach with caution. Perhaps a NSO NES and SNES style app for PC first or a very limited eShop with just a few modern but older games to trial liability (Sony seems to be doing this to an extent with HZD).

It could work and a strong business case could be made.

I don’t think full third party will ever make sense for Nintendo. The royalties would kill their profits.

Nintendo has been quite unpredictable who knows where they go next. We all ready know the Wii U was a flop and the Switch is doing well. I think Nintendo just needs to stick with what works for them.

I’m using my crystal ball to predict the future 🔮-I see a Switch Pro with backward compatibility in 2024 just like the Wii U or 3DS. Then they’ll release a new era in 2030. I also see the Switch Pro being announced in a Nintendo Direct in 2022.

And I'm not entirely sure why. It was a good console, and the tablet controller allowed for really interesting possibilities, but nobody other than Nintendo really took advantage of it, and most developers just made straight ports that either ignored the tablet entirely, or relegated it to something mundane like displaying a map or inventory management.

> And I'm not entirely sure why.

Oh boy. Where to start? It was called the Wii U, a name NOBODY understood. Parents thought it was a peripheral. Even the game press didn't know Nintendo actually announced a new console, when they announced the new console at E3. It had a REALLY bad launch line up. Miyamoto announced 'revolutionary new projects' which were games that actually didn't release until well after the launch of the Switch. The third party support was abysmal, only a week after launch.

Everything went wrong with the Wii U.

The Switch didn't have this problem, simply because the marketing told everyone that this was the console you wanted to play Zelda Breath of the Wild on. It also had Super Mario Oddysey and Xenoblade Chronicles 2 in it's launch year.

Honestly if they just release an updated Switch in a couple years with better internals as tech advances id be 100% fine with that! Its a great concept that works wonderfully, I for one would be disappointed if they moved away from the hybrid form factor

Honestly, after getting used to being able to play on the go anywhere I want, as well as having my Nintendo Switch docked to a tv, I don't really think I want a completely new type of system. Unless of course, it keeps the functionality that the Nintendo Switch has, and just does it better, with more power, with more features. I am getting spoiled I guess, but I think it would bad to destroy the new way to play that Nintendo created with the Nintendo Switch. You never know Nintendo though, they love to innovate.

I hope it’s just simply a Switch 2, to be perfectly honest. The current Switch, to me, is just such an absolute thrill that all they would have to do to get me to buy a new one is just make the obvious improvements you’d expect (better screen, better battery, faster processor, etc.). I don’t even care if they keep the design the same. It’s by far my favorite console of all time.

next one is going to be called nintendo switch u.

@brambalk
Yea, Wii U had probably the worst launch lineup of any console except maybe the PS4 (Knack! ha). It looked like a Fisher Price toy and the tablet felt chunky and plasticky like a Fisher Price toy.

I still love mine and go back to it sometimes for the Zelda remasters and to play Wii games, but it was clearly a machine caught in time: Nintendo knew what they wanted to do (the Switch), but the tech just wasn't there yet. So you were left with a console that was underpowered AND couldn't quite deliver on its gimmick ("mobile" gaming). I lived in a small apartment at the time and the tablet signal reached almost to my bedroom so that was cool for me, but for most people that probably wasn't the case.

The Wii u was definitely not the worst gaming console ever but yeah it had alot of problems. I didn't really mind that developers often ignored the gamepad. Heck i wanted to ignore it and just play on my TV most of the time. The name was just awful and the range thing used to piss me off. I'm like neato a portable home console! Then I'd get three feet from the unit and WTF? Lost connection? What the hell is this?

It had some really great games though and i got quite alot of fun out of it! I'm not sorry i bought it.

The Wii U could have been a high-powered, non-portable DS, but it didn't work out that way.

I personally loved the Wii u. It was a Zelda machine and the bc with the Wii and virtual console was fantastic. It had massive gaps but I also had a backlog to finish. I still use my Wii u more than the switch.