Define permanent
Nintendo won’t stop supporting all the Switch consoles with software releases until whatever the next hardware after Drake comes out (imo)
Because software sales (and engagement) is more important than sales of new hardware.
Smooth transition for Nintendo means not disrupting the userbase of the current system as well as not disrupting the interest in the new system. You can actually appease both by positioning this new model the right way.
I’m pretty sure Nintendo would rather give out the message that the current Switch gamers that they have cultivated shouldn’t worry about being able to play most Nintendo Switch games on the devices they currently own.
I don’t see how the message of “buy this $400 device or miss out!” does them any favors
There is no negative in placing Drake as part of the Switch family of Systems. So why not do it?
Apologies for this giant message, but I think this is the only way to explain why this argument is wrong (in my opinion):
I agree that software sales are the goal, more than hardware sales, but I wouldn't say they're
more important than hardware sales, because you can't sell software without selling the hardware first. So we half agree on that.
However I disagree with the rest of your case, because your case is effectively an argument for 'they should never create a platform outside of the Switch family until Switch games stop selling well'. The problem with that is that when that happens, it's too late. They don't want to scramble through a year or two of poor software sales while they try to build a new audience on a new platform, they want to get ahead (while still supporting the old Switch, we all agree they can still do that).
Nintendo has explained in the past to investors, that they're constantly in competition with all entertainment. They are conscious that new entertainment products are constantly being developed that could entice people away from Nintendo. We never know where the next big hit product will come from that takes people's time and attention away. They said themselves, that if they don't keep innovating, they stagnate and will fall behind.
That's why they need to produce the best software and hardware products they can in order to stay competitive, even against future competition, so they're not suddenly left scrambling. What if Meta Quest had blown up and massively succeeded? What if Steam Deck or a similar device had massively succeeded? What if something outside gaming came and stole the show like smart phones and mobile devices suddenly did and ended up hurting 3DS sales. All of these things, ultimately take up people's time, and take it away from Nintendo. That problem is exacerbated if Nintendo's current offerings are old and lost their freshness, whereas if Nintendo's current offerings are fresh and new (i.e. not 7+ years old), they're more likely to withstand and hold more of people's attention, even if competition comes to fight them. e.g. if there was no Switch, only 3DS, I would have probably bought a Meta Quest by now, but I never did. Why? Because even though I was enjoying the 3DS, I was SICK TO DEATH of those graphics in the last few years of it. Imagine the 3DS had continued to sell and no new Nintendo console released since then, as soon as heavy competition came in, I would have bought a steam deck or meta quest because I would want something new and fresh and exciting - but since the Switch had recently come out when those competitors did, I was content. I'm now teetering on the edge of buying a Playstation 5 or Xbox Series even though I haven't bought a non-nintendo console since the PS3 and 360. If Nintendo doesn't come out with a true next gen Switch 2 next year, I'm buying on of those platforms for sure. If Nintendo comes out with a Switch Pro next year, I'm probably still moving over to those platforms, because Switch Pro games will not be allowed to do anything the Switch OG couldn't do, and therefore there's nothing exciting about a Switch Pro or its games
(except slightly better graphics, but not a real leap).
In summary, even to a hardcore Nintendo fan like myself, things eventually get boring, and they do so quite suddenly, and there's a thousand companies competing to entertain me. Nintendo doesn't want to wait until we're all bored of their brand to start trying to build a new install base on a new exciting piece of hardware, because they'll be suffering with low sales for a couple of years while they try to do that. They need to start looking ahead now, and if they position the next Switch as just another one in the family they will destroy sales of the new system because they won't allow their new games to do anything new that Switch 1 couldn't do, and therefore people will have little incentive to buy the new Switch because slightly better performance is not a strong incentive for most people.
Even if later they wanted to drop the OG Switch to take full advantage of the new system, it will be so hard to market the fact that that system they said for years was just a 'Pro' is now next gen. Us hardcore will know it, but the mainstream public won't because it's not an easy message to get across after years of saying the opposite.
Finally, if you doubt what I say, I think judging by Nintendo and Ubisoft's words over the last few years, it's pretty clear the new console won't just be another one in the same family. If it was, none of Nintendo's quotes about having a transition, or moving over the account system, or Ubisoft's quote about waiting for the next system make any sense. Do any of those quotes make any sense if they were about an OLED? No, so why would they make sense about a pro?
Why would Nintendo even refer to a transition, or even explain that the Nintendo account will transfer over, if the next system was just a new Switch family model? It makes no sense. That's the final nail in the coffin for me, none of those quotes make sense if the next system is just another in the same family.
