D
Deleted member 887
Guest
"Need" is a strong word, it's more "the strategy that seems easiest" to me. If you want to support base Switch for the next 6 months to a year, the best way to say it is in the unambiguous language of game announcements and release dates. A Direct does that.Interesting - thanks for sharing, it's super fun to speculate about this stuff! I apologize if the answer to this in your post (having Friday-afternoon-brain right now), but I'm not sure I see your need for one more Direct before Drake's announced. Why couldn't the timeline be shifted forward? The messaging they communicate at E3 after Drake's announced could just be their messaging for a March Direct after Drake's announced.
I think you want to do that before you drop big new hardware, otherwise you risk confusion. Imagine this scenario, announcing Drake first.
Nintendo: "Hey, this is our new Switch!"
Gamers: "Wait, what? Is this a pro? I wanted that thing two years ago, I'm over it now"
Nintendo: "It plays your existing games better"
Gamers: "Man, I just got an OLED too."
Nintendo: "Here is a game that won't be on the old Switch. Red Dead Redemption 2!"
Gamers: "Wait, exclusives? Big ones?"
Nintendo: "Don't worry, we'll continue to release games for the old Switch."
Gamers: "The way you say that makes me worried! That's what you said for the 3DS and the GameBoy Advanced and it was lies!"
Nintendo: "Launches in March"
Gamers: "YOU'RE ENDING THE SWITCH IN 3 MONTHS???"
Nintendo: "$400"
Gamers: "AND CHARGING ME MORE THAN A SERIES S FOR THE NEW ONE?"
Imagine the Direct after that, full of cross-gen games. Half the folks walk away thinking, gosh, this is just a pro, why are they charing so much, and the other half thinking, gosh, all these games go on Drake already? It really is the next gen. You lose control of the message.
Now imagine the inverse scenario
Nintendo: "Here is a direct with 25 new Switch games, from us and our partners, releasing over the next 6 months"
Gamers: "Cool"
Nintendo: "One more thing, Metroid Prime 4, holiday 2023"
Gamers: "Extremely cool!"
1 MONTH LATER
Nintendo: "Hey, this is our new Switch!"
Gamers: "Wait, what? Is this a pro? I wanted that thing two years ago, but man, Zelda and MP4... tempting"
Nintendo: "Here is a game that won't be on the old Switch. Red Dead Redemption 2!"
Gamers: "That is very cool. Wait, is this a pro, or is this a successor? I guess they're doing MP4 this Holiday, so it's a pro?"
Nintendo: "Don't worry, we'll continue to release games for the old Switch."
Gamers: "Oh shit maybe it's a successor? When is this thing coming out?"
Nintendo: "Launches in March, $400"
Gamers: "This is absolutely wild. I mean I definitely want it, but can I afford it? And are they just going to replace this thing with a Switch 2 next year? Guess I've got time to save up, even if it launches in March, I know they're dropping Switch games all year. Well, time to play some Splatoon while I wait for MP4"
See how they retain more control over the narrative this way? Whatever their long term strategy is, their short term strategy is like the GBA->DS or the 3DS->Switch, where they ran the devices in parallel. Except unlike those situations, the predecessor is wildly successful, but there is no TV only console line to buffer it out if the transition goes south.
I don't think they can risk appearing to be only making lip service to the idea of Classic Switch support. If that's really their intent they need to demonstrate it, then position new hardware in that context.