Because general public didn't know that the word super, advanced, u & 3 (infront) are for a new gen. Majority of them prefer number at the end as a new generation in any products. That's why I strongly suggest Nintendo just put a Switch 2 name to avoid previous worst successors
Mega Drive 2, Mega CD 2, and Master System 2 weren't new generation consoles. PS3 being called that didn't spell "success" as a successor to the PS2. Wii U's problem wasn't the name - It's an insult to huge swathes of the global public, who, over the years, bought Tiger Electronics singular handheld games, understood that the Game Boy wasn't a new Game & Watch, that XBox ONE was more powerful than the XBox 360, that XB1S/X are different to XSS/XSX, and that iPhone 6S was not the same phone as iPhone 6. The idea that Wii U, which follows the same rules, is somehow a unique exception to this is BS. There are reasons why it ended up a commercial failure, but the name wasn't one. Industry Politics, 2 years of scandalous negative momentum preceding its launch, lack of prolific software momentum, several games ported to 3DS with nothing going the other way, Wii U and 3DS cannibalising each other often, trying to support two platforms after a HD transition without critical 3rdPs on board, loss of confidence - These are the reasons it became an internal commercial failure.
Similarly, the idea that the Switch's successor should follow the same boring conventions as the PS brand is straight-up anti-Nintendo, in that it doesn't convey what they're about, and that matters. It doesn't say "imagination". It's too safe. It's sterile. I'm not so keen on "Super", as that was very much of its time, BUT the assertion that 30+ years and generations after the SNES, people in 202X wouldn't get it blows my mind. A lot of people who grew up with that system would be parents now, and in the "Age Of Information", a younger generation who grew up with the Wii and its Virtual Console, and with wider discourse around such products, they would surely understand. But I feel we're heading towards an era of relative safety, and the Ordinal Numbering Convention will be adopted - So, it would be "Nintendo Switch (2nd Gen)". That would be considered "different enough" to the Cardinal Numbering Convention adopted by PlayStation and numerous phones, but safe enough to convey that it's a successor. Ultimately, the aim would be that "Switch" becomes the norm. I guess I could warm to "Advance", but the belief that Nintendo has to copy PlayStation's rules to have a successful transition is one that I (and hopefully they, too) must reject wholeheartedly. Once more, Nintendo has the fastest-selling systems to reach 100m units in the DS and Switch, AND the most systems to break that (DS, Switch, GB Family, Wii). So, the lack of faith is both wildly disproportionate and very much misplaced here.
All I did was state a fact as well.
Not to mention it’s been a couple decades since Nintendo has been concerned about releasing hardware that might be outdated and below current standards. Part of their approach for the last few generations has been manufacturing hardware they can sell at a point that’s considered cheap compared to the competition, while also avoiding selling at a loss.
Switch had an industry-leading chip. It launched with literally the best portable gaming SoC it could - There isn't another portable SoC in 2017 or earlier, which can play the games the Switch does, so, No, no facts were stated in that post. Wii was an outlier because they wanted to build a console for $100 following the failure of the GameCube. Wii U was the most powerful system on the market when it launched, for a year - Many people forget that. It was Nintendo's Dreamcast, if you will. Given that Switch portable mode is considered to be "Wii U equivalent performance", we can finally kill the narrative that the Wii U was "below requirements" or "underpowered". The Wii U was also a huge performance leap from the Wii. So, we can now identify another pattern - When they have a commercial failure, the performance "leap" is minimal, so as to prevent escalating (internal) development costs, and new ideas, new thinking, new approach are adopted. We see this from GameCube to Wii, and Wii U to Switch. When there is a commercial success, a performance leap is possible because the success breeds confidence among their hardware and software development teams. The leaked SoC details also support this.
