Poll of the Day > Sound like the next Nintendo console arrives 2nd half 2024.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/sources-nintendo-switch-2-targets-2024-with-next-gen-console/

Just call it Switch 2 for the sake of the topic, that sounds about right. Good games are still rolling out for the Switch, but it'll have had a long and successful life by this time next year. I'd bet a November release. They also are making sure they have enough in stock.

Makes me think Metroid Prime 4 will be a Switch 2 launch game. We've heard of seen nothing of it for years now.

Call it Super Switch

FinalFantasyIV posted...

Call it Super Switch

That might work. That said, the Wii U suffered because of a confusing name, and Super Switch might make people think it's just an OLED switch version or something. Seems the rule is, if you use the same name, just add a number to it, which Nintendo has never done. I.e., Switch 2.

The Nintendo Toggle.

That sucks Id rather wait a few more years But whatever Guess Ill save up

And I hope its BC I feel like I still wouldnt rebuy games I have for switch for the Switch 2 if its not BC Id just have to carry them both around

I wish other console developers would just stick to a numbering convention like Sony's Playstation. It's straightforward and easy to understand.

Nintendo usually does well with their names except for Wii U, but Xbox has been abysmal. I think Nintendo could be in a good position to start numbering their systems if they stick with the portable/TV connected system gimmick, i.e. Switch 2, Switch 3, so forth.
Xbox just sucks with it.

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

Seems the rule is, if you use the same name, just add a number to it, which Nintendo has never done. I.e., Switch 2.

There was DS --> 3DS, albeit with unconventional number placement.

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

That said, the Wii U suffered because of a confusing name, and Super Switch might make people think it's just an OLED switch version or something.

Nintendo actually uses theme naming more often than not. Consider:

NES --> SNES
Gameboy --> Gameboy Colour/Virtual Boy --> Gameboy Advance (and the only reason they didn't keep the Gameboy name for the DS was because there was internal concern that it might flop; the plan was to pretend that the DS was its own experimental thing, rather than a Gameboy successor, at least until the DS proved itself).
DS --> 3DS
Wii --> WiiU

The N64, the Gamecube, and the Switch are the only consoles Nintendo has ever made that didn't share a theme name with another console (and the N64 only tenuously belongs in that group, given that the NES and SNES were respectively shortened to Nintendo and Super Nintendo by western audiences).

lol, it wasn't lack of stock that led to PS5 and Xbox SeX being unavailable. It was scalpers buying up tons of them in sweeps.
Pressure retailers to limit quantity to 1 and make it harder to spam-buy. But yeah, capitalism....so that won't happen.

New console is long overdue, should've launched it as the only console w/ TotK to get people to transition to it immediately.
As long as it's more powerful than PS4 when docked and BC w/ switch games, and...isn't a pain in the ass to code for by 3rd parties...., it'll succeed if they actually offer some good exclusives in the first year.
I still maintain Wii U could've turned things around if they didn't abandon the fucking console and delay BotW a year for Switch. In a reality where a Wii U was the only way to play BotW and it's in 2016, Wii U would sell.

darkknight109 posted...

There was DS --> 3DS, albeit with unconventional number placement.

I wouldn't say that was "just adding a number to it" in the sense of numbering a sequence, but was instead just tacking on a descriptor that happened to be a number. DS-->3DS was conceptually no different from Gameboy-->Gameboy Colour.

The 3DS also suffered from some of the same marketing problems as the WiiU did, with a sizable number of less-informed customers thinking that it was just a new iteration of the DS with a 3D feature and not actually a new system altogether (much like many people thought the WiiU was just a tablet add-on for the Wii).

streamofthesky posted...

I still maintain Wii U could've turned things around if they didn't abandon the f***ing console and delay BotW a year for Switch. In a reality where a Wii U was the only way to play BotW and it's in 2016, Wii U would sell.

BotW would have sold a non-negligible number of WiiUs, but I don't think there was any chance of really turning the system around, and pushing BotW forward to help the Switch gain a solid foothold right out of the gate was likely the smartest move overall.

weird... I only have like 2 switch games

adjl posted...

BotW would have sold a non-negligible number of WiiUs, but I don't think there was any chance of really turning the system around, and pushing BotW forward to help the Switch gain a solid foothold right out of the gate was likely the smartest move overall.

When the Switch launched, it had almost nothing for a library, even compared to most console launches. BotW basically single-handedly sold the console.
Wii U was already getting sales and had a solid library. The idea that people would buy a full price Switch just for BotW but not a marked down Wii U w/ at least a few other games you'd want in order to play it makes no sense.
But yeah, whatever. Nintendo basically gave up on the console by 2015, so it was never going to be given a chance. Re-selling all the Wii U shit a 2nd time by porting it to the Switch was more profitable.

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

Makes me think Metroid Prime 4 will be a Switch 2 launch game. We've heard of seen nothing of it for years now.

Man that is some fucking cope, I'd be surprised if they'd even started.

Anyway, what's the gimmick? I hope it has propellers and can fly.

ArchonKnight posted...

I wish other console developers would just stick to a numbering convention like Sony's Playstation. It's straightforward and easy to understand.

Nintendo usually does well with their names except for Wii U, but Xbox has been abysmal. I think Nintendo could be in a good position to start numbering their systems if they stick with the portable/TV connected system gimmick, i.e. Switch 2, Switch 3, so forth.
Xbox just sucks with it.

I seriously don't know what maniac at Microsoft was in charge of naming the damn consoles.

XBox: Fine, got the point across
Xbox 360: supposedly because its an "all around console", little out there but people got the idea, bigger number=new and better
Xbox One: Wat
XBox One S: Still wat, but ok, it's for slim I guess
Xbox One X: You're definitely losing me
X Box Series S and Series X: This is as bad as WiiU as far as brand confusion. "We should name our new console almost the exact same thing as the last 2 revisions we did on the last one. Surely this won't be a problem"

streamofthesky posted...

When the Switch launched, it had almost nothing for a library, even compared to most console launches. BotW basically single-handedly sold the console.

Precisely. The Switch had a system-selling launch title (if not a lot else), an interesting premise that was marketed well and clearly, and a promising lineup to follow up on the launch. That's a recipe for strong initial sales, which translates into stronger third-party support moving forward and more resources to develop games to keep up that momentum. Take BotW out of the equation, and you've got a much rockier start, especially where pushing sales back onto the WiiU would leave them with less potential to tempt fence-sitters by porting the WiiU's notable games.

streamofthesky posted...

Wii U was already getting sales and had a solid library. The idea that people would buy a full price Switch just for BotW but not a marked down Wii U w/ at least a few other games you'd want in order to play it makes no sense.

The WiiU had some absolutely fantastic games, but very, very few of them. Even if Nintendo hadn't given up on it in 2015-16, third parties had, and that meant buying one for BotW in late 2016 would be doing so with the knowledge that the few other games you wanted were probably going to be all you'd get. BotW would still have sold some systems if it were exclusive, certainly, but probably not all that many.

By contrast, the Switch had promise, including plans to port many of the games that might otherwise have made buying a WiiU attractive (in addition to newer stuff in the future). Buying a new system with a single system-seller and a handful of other interesting titles is generally more attractive than buying an old system with a single system-seller and a handful of other interesting titles. Even if the old system is cheaper, the new system can be expected to get better than the current state. The old system cannot. Nintendo's console generations have historically been six years long. The WiiU would have been replaced within a year or two of the Switch's launch regardless of how well it was doing, so anyone buying one in 2016 would be doing so knowing that there probably wouldn't be too many more high-profile releases.

streamofthesky posted...

But yeah, whatever. Nintendo basically gave up on the console by 2015, so it was never going to be given a chance.

Mostly, I'd attribute that to Smash's failure to turn it around. The system had a really weak launch (the Switch may not have had much outside of Zelda at launch, but the WiiU's only system-seller was NSMBU, which... speaks for itself), then kind of limped along waiting for a really big title to give it a boost. 2014 saw both MK8 (April) and Smash (November) try to give it that push, and neither ended up being enough to get it back on track. At that point, they could either continue to try to revive it, knowing that even a new, exclusive Zelda would struggle to get it back on track, or they could cut their losses and start developing a new system instead of focusing their efforts on trying to force the WiiU to be half-successful.

Remember that Mario Kart and Smash are both better-selling than Zelda. MK8 has sold a combined 62 million copies between the WiiU and Switch, Smash WiiU sold 5.5 million and Smash Ultimate sold 31 million, and BotW sold a combined 31 million (2 million on WiiU, 29 million on Switch). The WiiU had its killer apps well before BotW might have come out. They weren't enough to salvage it, so BotW likely also wouldn't have been, such that keeping it exclusive for the sake of propping up the system would not have yielded results as good as releasing it on the Switch did.

I hope the new Switch isn't backwards compatible. And by that, I mean I hope the new Switch just carries the entirety of the old Switch forward as if it isn't even a "feature" to do so anymore. Everything the Switch presently has on it should just exist flawlessly on a new system, as if there is no difference or gap whatsoever, just like how the games I bought on Steam 20 years ago are still available to me now.

No buy until Xenoblade is available

GEKGanon posted...

I hope the new Switch isn't backwards compatible. And by that, I mean I hope the new Switch just carries the entirety of the old Switch forward as if it isn't even a "feature" to do so anymore. Everything the Switch presently has on it should just exist flawlessly on a new system, as if there is no difference or gap whatsoever, just like how the games I bought on Steam 20 years ago are still available to me now.

That's still backwards compatibility. It's just the gold standard for backwards compatibility, as opposed to the limited approach most consoles take (whether voluntarily or out of necessity).

PK_Spam posted...

No buy until Xenoblade is available

There's pretty much zero chance that there won't be at least one new Xenoblade game on the system. It's cemented itself as a flagship series for Nintendo, and it's developed by a studio that wants to keep making it. The only real questions are whether we'll finally see a port of X and just where they decide to go with the series post-3.

I think Nintendo should just pick a lane and call it the Nintendo Dom.

Blightzkrieg posted...

Man that is some fucking cope, I'd be surprised if they'd even started.

Anyway, what's the gimmick? I hope it has propellers and can fly.

They literally started working on it years ago, even after starting from scratch with Retro. Lolwut?

DeathMagnetic80 posted...

Xbox One X: You're definitely losing me

x
box
one
x

that's it. that's why it was called that

ArchonKnight posted...

Nintendo usually does well with their names except for Wii U,

nintendo entertainment system
super nintendo entertainment system
nintendo 64
gamecube
wii
wii u
switch
gameboy
gameboy pocket
gameboy color
gameboy advance
gameboy advance sp
gameboy advance micro
nintendo ds
nintendo ds lite
nintendo dsi
nintendo 3ds
nintendo 2ds
nintendo 3ds xl
new nintendo 3ds
new nintendo 3dsxl
new nintendo 2ds

sure. the only consistent naming scheme nintendo used was for its handhelds, and they were just descriptors for the device.

in hindsight the n64 had the dumbest name, since it really just implied it was the 64th nintendo if you weren't aware it was named after its cpu, which is a weird thing to do, but would have been neat if it caught on.

imagine, instead of xbox 360, we got XBOX XENON. or the PLAYSTATION C E L L

instead of xbox one, xbox jaguar. now that'd be a dope ass name, except the ps4 uses the same cpu, so we'd have the playstation jaguar, too. atari jaguar sees a resurgence from parents buying the console for their kids and they don't really know sony or microsoft, but they've heard of atari, and they definitely know their kid said jaguar, too

Their naming schemes did not constantly cause the same kind of confusion as to what you're buying. Xbox is terrible at that.

ArchonKnight posted...

Their naming schemes did not constantly cause the same kind of confusion as to what you're buying. Xbox is terrible at that.

I can't even tell you what the current xbox console is called, I legitimately don't know.

adjl posted...

I wouldn't say that was "just adding a number to it" in the sense of numbering a sequence, but was instead just tacking on a descriptor that happened to be a number. DS-->3DS was conceptually no different from Gameboy-->Gameboy Colour.

I was going for a witty jape that didn't quite land.

adjl posted...

The 3DS also suffered from some of the same marketing problems as the WiiU did, with a sizable number of less-informed customers thinking that it was just a new iteration of the DS with a 3D feature and not actually a new system altogether (much like many people thought the WiiU was just a tablet add-on for the Wii).

Honestly, I think the 3DS's biggest issue out of the gate was just a dearth of must-have titles. Which is odd, because Nintendo's usually good for that.

My launch-day buy was Bust-a-Move Universe, which wasn't even a particularly good BAM/Puzzle Bobble game. Beyond that you had, what, Steel Diver? Pilotwings Resort? The Sims 3 port? Street Fighter IV was the closest thing they had to a killer app and even that didn't really generate much buzz.

Things started looking better towards the end of the year with Mario Kart 7 and Super Mario 3D Land, but for a while the 3DS was mostly coasting on updated N64 games (OoT 3D, Starfox 64 3D) and the games lineup was painfully thin. It took a surprisingly long time for the 3DS to find its legs, game-wise.

Im expecting cloud computing and digital games

ArchonKnight posted...

Their naming schemes did not constantly cause the same kind of confusion as to what you're buying. Xbox is terrible at that.

considering that naming confusion is what killed the wiiu, and Xbox is just fine, I'm going to go ahead and say it's really not fuckin hard lmao.

only one console platform holder can say they failed due to the name, that's nintendo

I admitted already they fucked up with Wii U, but there is no denying Xbox's naming convention isn't also confusing as hell, even if it doesn't lead to a downward spiral in sales. I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue for here.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

only one console platform holder can say they failed due to the name, that's nintendo

I'd say that a lack of a marketable gimmick (the tablet just didn't do it for most people) and almost unarguably the single worst games library of any Nintendo console other than the Virtual Boy probably did a lot more to kill the WiiU than consumer confusion. The 3DS got over that problem by, shocker, putting together an excellent library of games; the WiiU failed to do so and it died as a result.

And I personally still say that the award winner for terrible, confusing console names is Microsoft, hands down. Naming your third console "Xbox One" is some shit that I would think came from a Penny Arcade comic if I didn't know any better. Given that track record, I half expected their next console would be called "The Original Xbox" or something.

I still think they should have called the handheld-only version Lite Switch

darkknight109 posted...

I'd say that a lack of a marketable gimmick (the tablet just didn't do it for most people) and almost unarguably the single worst games library of any Nintendo console other than the Virtual Boy probably did a lot more to kill the WiiU than consumer confusion. The 3DS got over that problem by, shocker, putting together an excellent library of games; the WiiU failed to do so and it died as a result.

The name confusion was a big thing, with a lot of people thinking it was just a tablet addon for the Wii (made significantly worse by so many of the customers that bought Wiis being casual gamers that paid zero attention to the goings-on in the market), but I'd say the biggest reason it failed was that there were alternatives. Both the WiiU and the 3DS had a one-year headstart over their competition, and they both blew it: They had weak early libraries and poor marketing (and in the case of the 3DS, a particularly unattractive price point) that failed to communicate to the general public that they weren't just enhanced versions of their predecessors (as their names suggested they were). The difference is that when the WiiU blew its head start, the PS4 and Xbone came out with decent launches and third parties were happy to abandon the WiiU in favour of focusing on them (especially where the WiiU was weak enough that maintaining parity with the others for multiplat titles wasn't really an option). When the 3DS blew its head start, the Vita came out and was even more unattractively expensive and didn't offer the same opportunity for lower-stakes development that handhelds have traditionally been known for. That meant third parties stuck with the 3DS through its rocky start, while the Vita had an even worse start and died shortly thereafter, leaving the 3DS with a large library of great games.

SilentSeph posted...

I still think they should have called the handheld-only version Lite Switch

You could argue that they did, given that the Japanese typically say last names first.

switch 64

Yep, I'm sure it will arrive in Q2 2024, alongside Bloodborne for PC & Half Life 3.

Blightzkrieg posted...

Bring back the third prong

That's what she said.

FinalFantasyIV posted...

Call it Super Switch

That'd be awesome, tbh.

streamofthesky posted...

lol, it wasn't lack of stock that led to PS5 and Xbox SeX being unavailable. It was scalpers buying up tons of them in sweeps.
Pressure retailers to limit quantity to 1 and make it harder to spam-buy. But yeah, capitalism....so that won't happen.

No, supply was also an issue due to the chip shortages.

It was a combination of factors. The chip shortage and other Covid-related distribution challenges limited supply, which in turn made scalping more attractive, and advances in scalping bots (particularly compared to previous launches) meant that it was extremely difficult for a regular customer to get to one before scalpers. But then there also really wasn't any reason to own either system for the first like two years, so meh.

Count_Drachma posted...

That'd be awesome, tbh.

No, supply was also an issue due to the chip shortages.

Scalping should be illegal though.

Revelation34 posted...

Scalping should be illegal though.

The problem is drawing a line between legitimate resale (which constitutes a substantial majority of retail commerce; most products are not purchased directly from the supplier) and scalping. A retail licensing system may seem like a solution at a quick glance, but in practice it wouldn't be that hard for somebody planning on large-scale scalping (large-scale scalpers generally being more of a problem than individuals who buy 2-3 extras and resell them) to just get a business license with which to do so, and that would prohibit more legitimate impromptu resale ideas like buying a bunch of bottled water from Costco and selling it at a markup to people lining up ahead of a concert or something like that. It's a simple enough concept, but the reality of turning it into an actual legal policy gets pretty complex (to say nothing of the fact that a lot of people don't actually see a problem with it).

Anti-scalping measures have to come from retailers/suppliers. They're pretty easy to enforce there, like limiting purchases to one or two per customer/IP address/shipping address/credit card, but there isn't a lot of incentive for them to do so because they make the same amount of money if scalpers buy every console for three months as if legitimate customers do. The potential problem arises if scalpers have hoarded so much of the inventory that game sales suffer for it (particularly where Playstation/Xbox systems are sold at a loss and rely on game sales to make up for it), but generally speaking scalpers' inventories usually make their way to actual customers fairly shortly after purchase, so that problem fixes itself.

Revelation34 posted...

Scalping should be illegal though.

Id be fine with this in most cases

adjl posted...

The problem is drawing a line between legitimate resale (which constitutes a substantial majority of retail commerce; most products are not purchased directly from the supplier) and scalping. A retail licensing system may seem like a solution at a quick glance, but in practice it wouldn't be that hard for somebody planning on large-scale scalping (large-scale scalpers generally being more of a problem than individuals who buy 2-3 extras and resell them) to just get a business license with which to do so, and that would prohibit more legitimate impromptu resale ideas like buying a bunch of bottled water from Costco and selling it at a markup to people lining up ahead of a concert or something like that. It's a simple enough concept, but the reality of turning it into an actual legal policy gets pretty complex (to say nothing of the fact that a lot of people don't actually see a problem with it).

Anti-scalping measures have to come from retailers/suppliers. They're pretty easy to enforce there, like limiting purchases to one or two per customer/IP address/shipping address/credit card, but there isn't a lot of incentive for them to do so because they make the same amount of money if scalpers buy every console for three months as if legitimate customers do. The potential problem arises if scalpers have hoarded so much of the inventory that game sales suffer for it (particularly where Playstation/Xbox systems are sold at a loss and rely on game sales to make up for it), but generally speaking scalpers' inventories usually make their way to actual customers fairly shortly after purchase, so that problem fixes itself.

Make it a law so the retailers have to do that policy.

Also how much do you think it will cost? I'm glad I didn't get TotK now.

Revelation34 posted...

Make it a law so the retailers have to do that policy.

For every item? If not, how do you decide which items? And how many of each item can each customer buy? And how does that factor into any sort of wholesale orders, like what restaurants have to do with food items? If it doesn't apply to wholesale, how do you decide who gets to order from wholesalers?

Laws need rigid definition. Scalping is hard to rigidly define. You usually know it when you see it, but that's not good enough for writing laws.

Revelation34 posted...

Also how much do you think it will cost?

It's anyone's guess. I'm inclined to expect that they'll probably aim to stick close to the Switch's price point, but that will depend on lot on exactly what they try to do with the system. If they aim for something closer to parity with the PS5/whateverthehexbox (which they might do purely for the sake of getting more revenue from CoD, now that Microsoft has committed to porting it), it'll probably be more in line with their prices.

I wouldn't mind a smaller portable with about as much power as a Gamecube

adjl posted...

For every item? If not, how do you decide which items? And how many of each item can each customer buy? And how does that factor into any sort of wholesale orders, like what restaurants have to do with food items? If it doesn't apply to wholesale, how do you decide who gets to order from wholesalers?

Laws need rigid definition. Scalping is hard to rigidly define. You usually know it when you see it, but that's not good enough for writing laws.

And this is the big issue. Saying, "Scalping should be illegal!" is all well and good, and very few people would disagree, but the devil's in the details. It's very hard - maybe impossible - to craft a law that is both effective at stopping scalping while also not restricting legitimate commerce.

Perhaps the biggest thing is that it's not Joe Nobody camping out at Walmart and buying three PS5's that's the problem, as much as that's how we tend to think of it. That happens, certainly, and it does limit availability for others, but most of the scalping that actually prevents normal customers from being able to buy popular items or tickets or whatever is carried out at an organized, business-scale level, relying on automated systems and sometimes having multiple employees helping them cast a wider net. By any metric the law can use, that's largely indistinguishable from any other business that buys and resells products. Any laws that stop Joe Nobody aren't going to stop organized scalping operations, which will continue to be the bulk of the problem.

To be clear, the Wii U was a far and worse name than 3DS. That at least made sense.

When they were first announcing the WiiU and leading into it with "now, we're making a console for you" I was 100% expecting them to have called it the Yuu or something like that. I'm not actually sure if that would have been better or worse. Probably less confusing to casual observers, but I feel like that's more of an offensively bad name, compared to the "that's weird, but whatever" of WiiU.

Nintendo has a pretty tried-and-true pattern for naming their consoles: if the previous console sold well, they keep the name as part of the next one and try and have the design hew as close to it as possible while still taking advantage of technological advances. If it didn't, they don't.

-NES sold well, so the next console just tacked "Super" onto the name.
-The N64 got beat out by the Playstation and was criticized for clinging to cartridges long after the rest of the industry switched to discs, so the next console got an unrelated name (Gamecube). And when the Gamecube's sales were also disappointing, they opted for "Wii" for the next console.
-The Wii sold gangbusters, so they wanted to leverage that, which I think is really the only reason why the Wii U was designed, named, and marketed as it was. People criticize the design and naming convention for being too similar to the Wii, creating confusion, but I think Nintendo wanted people closely associating this console with the Wii. But, of course, the Wii U was a flop, so the Switch became its own thing.
-Handholds are pretty much the same, minus the GBA/DS split (which, as previously mentioned, was because Nintendo was worried about the viability of the original DS and didn't want to tarnish the Gameboy brand in case it flopped).

About the only anomaly in that list is that the N64 didn't really retain any naming similarities with the SNES, despite the latter moving a tonne of units.

Reminder that the announcement video for the Wii U did not show the console

I hope this console is underpowered too.

I haven't owned a Nintendo console since the N64! As a kid Nintendo was best thing but as I got older, I went to Playstation. I wish Mario were on other consoles LOL