Rumour New Switch model for Q4 2023

[Deleted member 2]

Wait, the way I worded it sounded rude???
I'm really sorry, I'm not a native speaker of English.
I really didn't mean to sound harsh or anything. Nor was I really attacking or dismissing you, I was validating your point that the game sold really well on the Switch actually.
I'm really sorry

Edit: and the part of the post before the quote wasn't aimed at you, I was just avoid double posting(that I ended up doing anyways lol) so I wrote my little rant about the rumors on past pages and then quoted you, by I was agreeing with you actually, 700k is already very good and that's the number reported indeed, I just remember people calling 1.5m or something.

They're just being pre-emptively sensitive.

 

[Bowser Sr.]

IF there is really a new iteration coming this year and IF it is getting 'update patches' for existing games I do the Xenoblade folks jump on that chance. The resolution on some moments tanks comically

 

[Hairway to Steven]

Will that guarantee us the Yakuza series and all future RE and Monster Hunter games, though?

Yakuza isn't happening. Not unless someone at Sega smartens up.

RE and Monster Hunter? Probably.

 

[Hairway to Steven]

As far as Japanese 3rd parties go, here's what I think we'll see

Resident Evil
Street Fighter
Monster Hunter
Mega Man
Devil May Cry
Dragon Quest
Mana
Kingdom Hearts
Tales
Granblue
And everything Switch has already been getting

Here's what I think won't come

Yakuza
From Software
Tekken (unless the hardware can run it)
Soul Calibur (ditto)
Dead or Alive (see above parentheses)
Team Ninja (see above parentheses)
tri-Ace

 

[AoiHana]

As far as Japanese 3rd parties go, here's what I think we'll see

Resident Evil
Street Fighter
Monster Hunter
Mega Man
Devil May Cry
Dragon Quest
Mana
Kingdom Hearts
Tales
Granblue
And everything Switch has already been getting

Here's what I think won't come

Yakuza
From Software
Tekken (unless the hardware can run it)
Soul Calibur (ditto)
Dead or Alive (see above parentheses)
Team Ninja (see above parentheses)
tri-Ace

KH4 ain’t happening, LOL. I could see some sort of Union X or Missing Link remake come to [REDACTED], though, but I kind of doubt it.

SF I’m iffy on. RE Engine seems to play nice enough with Switch, and I’d think that would only be more true of its successor. Nintendo’s online offerings famously suck, though, which might be a block for a SF6 port. Let’s put it under “miracle port” for now.

Everything else I pretty much agree with. Only time will tell with FromSoft and Tales, but I’d say you’re decently spot-on.

 

[9-Volt]

SF I’m iffy on. RE Engine seems to play nice enough with Switch, and I’d think that would only be more true of its successor. Nintendo’s online offerings famously suck, though, which might be a block for a SF6 port. Let’s put it under “miracle port” for now.

If it weren't for the Sony's exclusivity deals, SF5 and SF4 Remastered would have been on Switch. Now that SF6 is not an exclusive, nothing's stopping Capcom to put it on the successor. In fact I expect the history to repeat itself, SF6 being a launch title, just like SF4 was a launch title for 3DS.

For KH4, I think there are more titles to come before that. Remakes, hopefully. After great sales of those, Square will greenlight KH4 on Switch. I don't think Square will keep anything from the successor unless someone paid exclusivity for it.

Tekken (unless the hardware can run it)
Soul Calibur (ditto)
Dead or Alive (see above parentheses)

Rumor has it Namco tried Tekken 7 for Switch but could not due to limitations of the hardware. So if the successor is strong enough to have rollback netcode, we will see all of these.

 

[robertman2]

If it weren't for the Sony's exclusivity deals, SF5 and SF4 Remastered would have been on Switch. Now that SF6 is not an exclusive, nothing's stopping Capcom to put it on the successor. In fact I expect the history to repeat itself, SF6 being a launch title, just like SF4 was a launch title for 3DS.

For KH4, I think there are more titles to come before that. Remakes, hopefully. After great sales of those, Square will greenlight KH4 on Switch. I don't think Square will keep anything from the successor unless someone paid exclusivity for it.

Rumor has it Namco tried Tekken 7 for Switch but could not due to limitations of the hardware. So if the successor is strong enough to have rollback netcode, we will see all of these.

None of those fighting games have rollback (and Tekken 8 likely won't because Harada)

Plus Dead or Alive is a dead franchise

 

[thoughthaver]

the economics of game development kinda make it difficult to try to skip the switch particularly for the bigger boys. you'll still have your yakuzas and your soul hackers but the cost of making a game will just keep going up which means making back as much of it as possible.

 

[SiG]

Yakuza isn't happening. Not unless someone at Sega smartens up.

RE and Monster Hunter? Probably.

I guess my point was newer, more powerful hardware does not guarantee certain 3rd party game support, especially when said games are potentially being moneyhatted by Sony to prevent release on Nintendo platforms.

 

[Derachi]

Switch will never get Yakuza


Like a Dragon, however…

 

[robertman2]

I doubt many Japanese games will skip this tbh

It'll just be moneyhatted by Sony stuff, and those are almost always timed exclusives.

 

[Hairway to Steven]

KH4 ain’t happening, LOL. I could see some sort of Union X or Missing Link remake come to [REDACTED], though, but I kind of doubt it.

SF I’m iffy on. RE Engine seems to play nice enough with Switch, and I’d think that would only be more true of its successor. Nintendo’s online offerings famously suck, though, which might be a block for a SF6 port. Let’s put it under “miracle port” for now.

Everything else I pretty much agree with. Only time will tell with FromSoft and Tales, but I’d say you’re decently spot-on.

I can't honestly see KH4 skipping Switch 2 unless a) Sony moneyhats it or b) it really pushes PS5 to its technological limits. S-E knows there's demand for Kingdom Hearts on Switch. People are still begging for native versions of the 1.5 + 2.8 (or whatever the name of that collection is).

I also don't see Capcom outright canning SF6 just because the online is shit. Bad online hasn't stopped Capcom before.

 

[Hairway to Steven]

I guess my point was newer, more powerful hardware does not guarantee certain 3rd party game support, especially when said games are potentially being moneyhatted by Sony to prevent release on Nintendo platforms.

Yakuza is more a case of Sega being mentally stuck in the year 2001 and thinking Nintendo is "for babeez".

Sony isn't likely to moneyhat Yakuza, in my opinion.

 

[menx64]

Sooooo is it happening out just Internet talking?

 

[Hairway to Steven]

Sooooo is it happening out just Internet talking?

A new system is certainly happening. But we don't know if it will be a Switch 2 yet.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

A new system is certainly happening. But we don't know if it will be a Switch 2 yet.

This is basically completely the opposite of what we can reasonably assume; this rumour is baseless garbage that may accidentally end up accurate by pure chance since the source of the 'leaker' was obvious, but there should be a new system in the next year or so that is the successor to the switch.

 

[Hairway to Steven]

This is basically completely the opposite of what we can reasonably assume; this rumour is baseless garbage that may accidentally end up accurate by pure chance since the source of the 'leaker' was obvious, but there should be a new system in the next year or so that is the successor to the switch.

All common sense points to it being a Switch 2, but we don't know for 100% certain yet.

 

[bixente]

Yakuza is more a case of Sega being mentally stuck in the year 2001 and thinking Nintendo is "for babeez".

Sony isn't likely to moneyhat Yakuza, in my opinion.

I suppose that's why Shenmue skipped the system. A mature title fit for PS and Xbox, give the Switch Monkey Ball and Samba de Amigo.

 

[Lozjam]

All common sense points to it being a Switch 2, but we don't know for 100% certain yet.

It's doesn't matter really what it's called. It will still be the sequel to the Switch.

Sooooo is it happening out just Internet talking?

Yes I would say so.
Been hearing more whispers from the manufacturing side, and also Nintendo doesn't seem to be happy with current info going out.

Certainly there is a lot of smoke. And I think they may go into full production soon. However, plans change all of the time.

 

[YolkFolk]

KH4 ain’t happening, LOL. I could see some sort of Union X or Missing Link remake come to [REDACTED], though, but I kind of doubt it.

SF I’m iffy on. RE Engine seems to play nice enough with Switch, and I’d think that would only be more true of its successor. Nintendo’s online offerings famously suck, though, which might be a block for a SF6 port. Let’s put it under “miracle port” for now.

Everything else I pretty much agree with. Only time will tell with FromSoft and Tales, but I’d say you’re decently spot-on.

SF6 is going to be on PS4. It won’t be a miracle port in any way. There have also been third party games with solid online.

 

[Scrawnton]

Shooting my shot. Switch TV this fall. Just an overclocked full powered version of the current switch chipset that runs games at their max resolution and frame rate. $250.

 

[Simba1]

Will that guarantee us the Yakuza series and all future RE and Monster Hunter games, though?

RE and Monster Hunter most likely, but I doubt about Yakuza (they had some statments like that Nintendo platform is not best place for Yakuza series).

 

[Hairway to Steven]

I suppose that's why Shenmue skipped the system. A mature title fit for PS and Xbox, give the Switch Monkey Ball and Samba de Amigo.

Shenmue was a moneyhat. It also skipped Xbox.

Besides, I don't think Switch owners (or anyone for that matter) are clamoring for Shenmue 3, given how that game turned out.

 

[bixente]

Shenmue was a moneyhat. It also skipped Xbox.

Besides, I don't think Switch owners (or anyone for that matter) are clamoring for Shenmue 3, given how that game turned out.

Shenmue 1 and 2 didn't skip Xbox.

Shenmue 3 disappointed, sure, but the first two are great games imo. I'd definitely pick them up.

 

[Hairway to Steven]

Shenmue 1 and 2 didn't skip Xbox.

Shenmue 3 disappointed, sure, but the first two are great games imo. I'd definitely pick them up.

But Shenmue 3 did skip Xbox.

 

[Hairway to Steven]

I want Nintendo to stick with iterative, backwards compatible upgrades for at least a few gens. Build the biggest and best Nintendo library ever, if not the biggest and best library period.


I salivate just thinking about it.

 

[bixente]

But Shenmue 3 did skip Xbox.

Good for them.

 

[Hairway to Steven]

Good for them.

Yeah, probably. What a train wreck that game was.

 

[My Tulpa]

It's probably not too atypical for a lot of these big PS4/XB1 -> Switch downports, but that's sort of the point. Taking a game and trying to run it on substantially weaker hardware than it was designed for is a whole lot harder than the other way around.

Well, that’s what I’m asking.

Are you suggesting major AAA multiplat efforts at the scale of Witcher 3 take less than 6 months and just a couple of guys to make a port running on a completely different platform?

I keep searching different development forums and ~9 months with a small team like Saber Interactive (at the time)…is pretty standard for porting a huge AAA title to a completely new platform?

I have yet to see any evidence how Witcher 3 took an unusual amount of dev time or dev resources or cost to port.

I can't see either publisher kneecapping their own sales like that/pissing off their fanbase for the sake of convenience.

Why? They do it all the time.

SE wouldn’t even bother to port the ps3 version of the Kingdome Hearts HD games to Switch lol.

 

[Pokemaniac]

Well, that’s what I’m asking.

Are you suggesting major AAA multiplat efforts at the scale of Witcher 3 take less than 6 months and just a couple of guys to make a port running on a completely different platform?

I keep searching different development forums and ~9 months with a small team like Saber Interactive (at the time)…is pretty standard for porting a huge AAA title to a completely new platform?

I have yet to see any evidence how Witcher 3 took an unusual amount of dev time or dev resources or cost to port.

It sure wouldn't have taken months to port Witcher 3 to PS5/XS without enhancements.

The problem is that, at an AAA scale, separate porting efforts between PS and Xbox almost never happen, so there's no good counter-examples to point to. If a game isn't releasing on both at once, it usually either isn't going to, or is subject to a timed exclusivity agreement. This it partially because that segment of the industry is heavily oriented around PS and Xbox, but also because the machines are fairly close in power to one another (or differ mostly on fairly scalable axes, like the Series S) so there's little to no extra optimization that needs to be done.

Optimizing software so it can run faster or in a smaller memory footprint is hard, regardless of what kind of software it is. Any port that requires that is by necessity going to take more work to happen.

 

[My Tulpa]

Actually you have plenty of big 3rd party games running below 720p on TV. Even Witcher 3 runs below 720p in TV mode, games in TV mode runs at dynamic 720p, that means max resolution is 1280x720 but goes low as 896x504.

But that's a point game doesn't run on 720p even on TV, on handheld mode for instance Witcher 3 runs at 540p.
And we talking about one of best and most optimised 3rd party games on Switch that requires huge effort, and not every 3rd party want to invest thats kind a effort for results that will not be satisfied (releasing games in in 2023/2024 that will be runing even below 540p).

Witcher 3 sales were about as good as you will get from a huge multiplat coming later to the Swifch platform. Which means people were just fine playing 540p on their portable 7” screen for that.

If the game was ported to the new Switch model and ran 720p on its 7” inch screen with a bit better IQ…it’s not going to change the sales much. I dunno why you think it would.

People choosing to play a AAA multiplat on their portable 7” screen aren’t gamers who pixel count or are framerate whores. They play those games on their other platforms.

I agree that Nintendo would not have all 3rd party games like Sony even if releasing same hardware like Sony, but you are completly wrong that stronger hardware doesnt means more big 3rd party games compared to current Switch models.

Based on what evidence?

Why would they make more effort? The sales expectations wouldn’t change much. The risk/reward for the effort will still be there. It’s still going to be how much the portable draw for their game trumps the resolution/performance on all the other platforms.

Its a fact that current Switch wouldn't run every 3rd party game, same as that plenty of 3rd parties are not willing to make huge effort and in same time "cripple" their game (540p resolution) in order to run on Switch.

lol. The Witcher port was very well received and considered a marvel. No one interested in portable gaming considered it “crippled”

There is also and matter of limiting factors of size of Switch cartridges, bigger game is required bigger cartridge that costs more to developer,
but luckily Switch 2 cartridges will be bigger.

Thats why, Switch 2 will have some 3rd party exclusive from day one that will not be released for current Switch.

I doubt it will be many.

What I am saying is that these “big 3rd party ports that are exclusive to only the Super Switch!”…won’t be significantly more than what the Switch got 2017-2022.

These “unprecedented exclusives” you are imagining will be very similar to what we have already seen on the Switch.

Titles similar to Witcher 3, Skyrim, Doom 2016/eternal, Diablo 3, Assasins Creeds, Resident Evils, Final Fantasies, Control, Overwatch, Fortnite, Bioshocks, Borderlands, etc etc.,

A couple of really big AAA multiplat efforts as a showcase by devs…a few big timed exclusives…but mostly late to the party ports of older AAA titles, lots of AA ports, lots of indies.

So, pretty much the same kind of support we have seen. Which isn’t a bad thing, I think it’s been fabulous! Best Nintendo device ever for 3rd party ports!

 

[Lord Azrael]

I can't honestly see KH4 skipping Switch 2 unless a) Sony moneyhats it or b) it really pushes PS5 to its technological limits. S-E knows there's demand for Kingdom Hearts on Switch. People are still begging for native versions of the 1.5 + 2.8 (or whatever the name of that collection is).

If Square Enix didn't even bother making native ports for the existing Kingdom Hearts games on Switch what makes you think they will try to port KH4. As you say they are aware of the demand, yet still they put in minimum effort. Not to say they wouldn't do it if it were easy, but it won't be easy and therefore we'll be lucky to get a cloud version at best

 

[Hairway to Steven]

If Square Enix didn't even bother making native ports for the existing Kingdom Hearts games on Switch what makes you think they will try to port KH4. As you say they are aware of the demand, yet still they put in minimum effort. Not to say they wouldn't do it if it were easy, but it won't be easy and therefore we'll be lucky to get a cloud version at best

I think one of two things happened

1. Disney got greedy/impatient and demanded they put the games out on Switch ASAP. They likely wanted it to coincide with Sora's inclusion in Smash. Square-Enix needed time to optimize the games for Switch and Disney said "no".

2. Kingdom Hearts 3 and 2.8 held them back.

 

[Deleted member 1005]

The one point I don’t agree with when it comes to timing of the announcement is “kneecapping sales”. If they still make Switch 1 consoles that are cheaper than Switch 2, they will sell. The sales are only “kneecapped” by the company themselves, like Xbox deciding to discontinue the Xbox One around Series S/X launch, and obviously the Wii U.

With that said, we are getting to the point where the Switch could very well plateau in sales in the next year or two, so pushing a new platform for these ~118 million Switch owners to purchase sooner rather than later is probably a very tempting prospect for Nintendo, especially if it has backwards compatibility.

 

[ITSMILNER]

We could see even better 3rd party support with this device so long as it’s powerful enough to let devs do so without having to make too many sacrifices. They’ll have seen just how well the first Switch has done and will assume the second console will do just as well.

 

[Hairway to Steven]

Some folks are actually expecting 3rd party support to remain the same with no improvement at all. That's way too cynical, even for me.

 

[My Tulpa]

It sure wouldn't have taken months to port Witcher 3 to PS5/XS without enhancements.

And throwing the Lite Switch version of Witcher 3 onto the new power upgrade model wouldn’t take months either…lol that not what we are discussing here and you know it

The problem is that, at an AAA scale, separate porting efforts between PS and Xbox almost never happen, so there's no good counter-examples to point to.

They do. They just usually happen during original development. One target for main development, port it to others along the way with different teams.

It’s based on how many platforms a publisher/dev team want to focus resources/efforts on. There are finite resources/time. Especially big titles. Not just devoted for original development, but resources you need to add for post release support…for each platform.

Sometimes xbox/ps developed games skip pc. (And port later)

Sometimes ps/pc developed games skip xbox. (And port later)

It’s not about something being “too hard/too different”. It’s just picking and choosing and focusing on the platforms that will give you the biggest returns. Ps3 was notoriously a pain to port pc/Xbox developed games to…didn’t stop them cause the ps platform for their games promised too great of reward to ignore.

This is why Nintendo machines are usually skipped in the original development. And often even skipped when it comes to later porting. Usually won’t provide big enough returns for the effort (which isn’t TOO HARD, it’s just extra)

I liken Nintendo 3rd party support to EA Madden on PC.

EA decided not to bother porting Madden to the PC from 2008-2018. Not because it was too hard to make their game work on a pc (they could have easily dumped the xbox360/Xbox one version on high end pcs like you say lol)

They didn’t bother because the demand/sales expectations weren’t there to spend resources that could be better used elsewhere.

And when they did finally decide to support the PC again, it was a lower effort and missing features found on other platforms (sound familiar?)

Optimizing software so it can run faster or in a smaller memory footprint is hard, regardless of what kind of software it is. Any port that requires that is by necessity going to take more work to happen.

No more work than any other port to different architecture. People keep telling me how scalable game development is these days anyways. Yes, it requires more ingenuity and tricks to port to more limited hardware, more concessions made. But that doesn’t necessarily mean significant more time, more people (which is the cost factor)

You are telling me that if the Witcher 3 had never been ported to the current Switch, but they decided to port it to just this new upgrade model…that it would have taken much less time and people than it did? Sorry, I just don’t believe that. Considering it’s 2023 instead of 2019, they would attempt some sort of XboxOne/Series X hybrid with the new enhancements and such.

It would cost about the same resources/time for the publisher I’m betting.

 

[My Tulpa]

I think one of two things happened

1. Disney got greedy/impatient and demanded they put the games out on Switch ASAP. They likely wanted it to coincide with Sora's inclusion in Smash. Square-Enix needed time to optimize the games for Switch and Disney said "no".

2. Kingdom Hearts 3 and 2.8 held them back.

Yep. It’s always going to be something isn’t it

I’ll give you a good excuse when KH4 isn’t natively running on Switch as well.

 

[Hairway to Steven]

Yep. It’s always going to be something isn’t it

I’ll give you a good excuse when KH4 isn’t natively running on Switch as well.

They're theories, not excuses. Chillax.

 

[My Tulpa]

All common sense points to it being a Switch 2, but we don't know for 100% certain yet.

All common sense points to it being a next gen successor in terms of power upgrade, but that it will act like a “pro” type upgrade model to keep engagement high in the later years of the Switch family lifecycle.

We could see even better 3rd party support with this device so long as it’s powerful enough to let devs do so without having to make too many sacrifices. They’ll have seen just how well the first Switch has done and will assume the second console will do just as well.

It’s still going to be putting a huge modern videogame on a small portable with extremely low clocks and low power draws. Many sacrifices is inevetible.

I think trying to qualify where gamers playing on 7”inch screens draw the lines in terms of sacrifices is kind of pointless, imo. It’s baked into the cake from the get go.

I’m imagining a relatively steep entry price for this new model, tbh. I think the majority of the active Switch userbase will be on the current models for a few years. Publishers will still have to weight its smaller userbase size and compare it with the entire Switch family as a whole. When calculating demand/sales.

Some folks are actually expecting 3rd party support to remain the same with no improvement at all. That's way too cynical, even for me.

Like i said, I think the 3rd party support the last 6 years have been fantastic. Being similar for the next 3-4 years isn’t a bad thing.

What titles do you imagine being ported to this new switch exclusively that didn’t have a similar counterpart on current models?

 

[Vantell]

All common sense points to it being a next gen successor in terms of power upgrade, but that it will act like a “pro” type upgrade model to keep engagement high in the later years of the Switch family lifecycle.

I mean even it if it is a "Pro" it would still be seen as a successor for most, no? And I need to look up the exact details on the leak, but based on some earlier leaks through Nvidea and such it seems that the next model will have quite the boost in performance.

 

[Lord Azrael]

The one point I don’t agree with when it comes to timing of the announcement is “kneecapping sales”. If they still make Switch 1 consoles that are cheaper than Switch 2, they will sell. The sales are only “kneecapped” by the company themselves, like Xbox deciding to discontinue the Xbox One around Series S/X launch, and obviously the Wii U.

Except the succ is very likely to be backwards compatible, and not much more expensive than the Switch at all, especially OLED. It will absolutely impact holiday sales if announced too early.

 

[Pokemaniac]

And throwing the Lite Switch version of Witcher 3 onto the new power upgrade model wouldn’t take months either…lol that not what we are discussing here and you know it



They do. They just usually happen during original development. One target for main development, port it to others along the way with different teams.

It’s based on how many platforms a publisher/dev team want to focus resources/efforts on. There are finite resources/time. Especially big titles. Not just devoted for original development, but resources you need to add for post release support…for each platform.

Sometimes xbox/ps developed games skip pc. (And port later)

Sometimes ps/pc developed games skip xbox. (And port later)

It’s not about something being “too hard/too different”. It’s just picking and choosing and focusing on the platforms that will give you the biggest returns. Ps3 was notoriously a pain to port pc/Xbox developed games to…didn’t stop them cause the ps platform for their games promised too great of reward to ignore.

This is why Nintendo machines are usually skipped in the original development. And often even skipped when it comes to later porting. Usually won’t provide big enough returns for the effort (which isn’t TOO HARD, it’s just extra)

I liken Nintendo 3rd party support to EA Madden on PC.

EA decided not to bother porting Madden to the PC from 2008-2018. Not because it was too hard to make their game work on a pc (they could have easily dumped the xbox360/Xbox one version on high end pcs like you say lol)

They didn’t bother because the demand/sales expectations weren’t there to spend resources that could be better used elsewhere.

And when they did finally decide to support the PC again, it was a lower effort and missing features found on other platforms (sound familiar?)



No more work than any other port to different architecture. People keep telling me how scalable game development is these days anyways. Yes, it requires more ingenuity and tricks to port to more limited hardware, more concessions made. But that doesn’t necessarily mean significant more time, more people (which is the cost factor)

You are telling me that if the Witcher 3 had never been ported to the current Switch, but they decided to port it to just this new upgrade model…that it would have taken much less time and people than it did? Sorry, I just don’t believe that. Considering it’s 2023 instead of 2019, they would attempt some sort of XboxOne/Series X hybrid with the new enhancements and such.

It would cost about the same resources/time for the publisher I’m betting.

You keep acting like ports of a game to different consoles are completely separate projects, when that's just not how it's worked for a long time. Only a small fraction of a game's code directly cares about what platform its running on, but more drastic changes can be required if it's not running as fast as it needs to be.

Games are more scalable than they've ever been, but that doesn't magically make hardware power a non-factor. The industry dug themselves into a fairly deep hole by largely refusing to build with Switch in mind.

 

[Deleted member 1005]

Except the succ is very likely to be backwards compatible, and not much more expensive than the Switch at all, especially OLED. It will absolutely impact holiday sales if announced too early.

It really wouldn’t, the PS3 was backwards compatible with the PS2 but that went on to sell an additional 40-50 Million. Now I know it’s a different situations pricing wise, but keep in mind that the PS2 had its price dropped significantly throughout its lifetime, whereas Switch has not seen a single official price drop and it still managed to become the third best selling console.

The Switch has sold nearly 120 million units, they really don’t need to even worry about lost potential sales of the original Switch, because so many people already have it and are buying software for it. Anyone that wouldn’t buy a Switch because of the Switch 2 is just going to buy a Switch 2 anyway, bringing in a (potentially more expensive) sale.

 

[ILikeFeet]

If Square Enix didn't even bother making native ports for the existing Kingdom Hearts games on Switch what makes you think they will try to port KH4. As you say they are aware of the demand, yet still they put in minimum effort. Not to say they wouldn't do it if it were easy, but it won't be easy and therefore we'll be lucky to get a cloud version at best

allegedly they said they attempted a KH3 port to switch, so it's not like they're against it. with more powerful hardware (and a system with more storage), it might not be off the table

 

[Gay Bowser]

The Switch has sold nearly 120 million units, they really don’t need to even worry about lost potential sales of the original Switch

That’s not the way any company on Earth works. No company is going to be like “all right, that’s enough success, we don’t need to worry if we’re hurting our sales this holiday”

 

[Deleted member 1005]

That’s not the way any company on Earth works. No company is going to be like “all right, that’s enough success, we don’t need to worry if we’re hurting our sales this holiday”

I didn’t say that they were thinking like that, I said that they would have success this holiday season with or without a Switch 2 reveal and that it didn’t have to be a worry for them.

 

[Lord Azrael]

It really wouldn’t, the PS3 was backwards compatible with the PS2 but that went on to sell an additional 40-50 Million. Now I know it’s a different situations pricing wise, but keep in mind that the PS2 had its price dropped significantly throughout its lifetime, whereas Switch has not seen a single official price drop and it still managed to become the third best selling console.

What? This makes no sense. I already addressed this point. Let's say the succ ends up at $400 - that's barely more than an OLED. If it's backwards compatible, why would anyone buy a Switch at that point? As opposed to your PS2/PS3 example where the latter was what, six times the price of the former?

Considering the Switch still sells well and hasn't had a single price cut throughout its life, I don't see why it would happen now. The only reason Nintendo would do it at this point is to counteract dampened sales from a successor announcement, which they could also just dampen by... not announcing it too early

allegedly they said they attempted a KH3 port to switch, so it's not like they're against it. with more powerful hardware (and a system with more storage), it might not be off the table

I know they tried. But if KH3 was too technically advanced for them to port to the Switch, I don't think KH4 on the succ will be different, considering the power gap is probably going to widen

 

[robertman2]

Sony is still selling new PS4s

Nintendo can still new Switches after the Switch 2 releases

 

[ILikeFeet]

I know they tried. But if KH3 was too technically advanced for them to port to the Switch, I don't think KH4 on the succ will be different, considering the power gap is probably going to widen

yea, that definitely wasn't it. "technically advanced" isn't a problem with Switch or future devices, just "it doesn't look how I want it to"