12.11.2024
Future Speculation
Separate Pages:
Nintendo Power Checklist
BWTB PokéMon GONintendo Power Checklist
The Nintendo x Sony PSX Fiasco
The Wizard
Non-Nintendo Systems
Introduction
I love Nintendo and I love to talk Nintendo news, history, business, modding, hacking, repairing, collecting, speculation and that's what my Nintendo AGENDA is all about. I used to write for and post at forums of many Nintendo fan and gaming online communities, but I was spending more time talking about games than I was playing games...so I got myself perma-banned from NeoGAF and stopped posting at other gaming sites altogether. I took to my Blogger and YouTube to get my thoughts out there. That's where I came up with the name "Nintendo AGENDA" for a couple of speculation videos I did a long time ago. This is all a work in progress and I have much content in mind to make...I just have to make it!
I made this section to explain why Nintendo does such...Nintendo things. Why do they do this, why don't they do that? While it is my POV on their POV, I still think it better answers some of these questions than any "industwy analyst/journalist" or "armchair CEO" out there. I tried to arrange these sections in chronological order Nintendo video game hardware historical eras/events (although there's some sections that transcend any particular generation). There's also some other sections with my own theories/ideas throughout.
Video Game Company = Profit Oriented
Back in the day it was just video game companies making hardware & software, but as they made billions they attracted companies that (I feel) have no business in video games. Many have come and gone, but Sony & Microsoft became Nintendo's main competition and there's still the looming threat that many other (non-video game) companies may come in for a piece. So, with all these big conglomerates coming in for the money, Nintendo has had to remain profit oriented to stay competitive and to prevent hostile takeovers. Nintendo is often accused of being greedy or cheap selling "low-tech" for high profits, but look at their competition...Nintendo doesn't have consumer electronics or operating systems to fall back on. Nintendo has to be profit oriented to remain the way they are: an independent producer of integrated hardware & software in video games.
The Iron Fist
We've all heard that Nintendo ruled the NES days monopolistically and that they were unfair, evil, greedy & ruthless...yadda yadda. The Iron Fist was President Yamauchi and he was ruthless...but he had to be in order protect his family business as it became a worldwide household name in a time when there was a lot of anti-Japanese sentiment. In hindsight many of the rules Nintendo made were to ensure a healthy gaming market with quality products. It birthed many strong gaming brands still around today namely due to the strict foundation set in place. It prevented oversaturation of hardware & software that plagued earlier generations in gaming. It created a platform where over 90% of games at the time could be accessed more affordably on one console. It protected gaming as a whole from outside leeches who only wanted to piggyback off their own success. It forced their competition to be their absolute best in order to actually compete. The Iron Fist of Nintendo was not as bad revisionist historians want us to believe.
The Power Race
When Sega Genesis came in to compete with the NES, Sega really pushed the idea of "next generation" and that's what all of Nintendo's competition has done ever since. Nintendo is old, slow, low-tech, under-powered, kiddie, gimmicky, etc. and it's eaten into the mindshare of gamers to the point they actually believe the marketing ploy. Mindshare in a young, fickle industry in some cases is more powerful than actual marketshare. SNES was arguably more efficiently powerful than the Genesis, but Sega touted "blast processing" to make Nintendo look slow & un-cool. N64 was more powerful than PSX, but Sony marketed FF VII with it's FMV's and Nintendo was seen as low-tech & un-cool. GAMECUBE was more powerful than PS2 but 'cos Sony was seen as bigger and more hip no one believed that Nintendo's un-cool purple lunchbox was a powerhouse. No matter the actual specs of a platform, the marketing tells people that Nintendo will always be old-hat by comparison.
Nintendo could make (and has made) ultra powerful systems, but people didn't believe it in the past and they wouldn't believe it today...especially when their current competition is so much bigger than they are. The moment they'd have such an ultra powerful system, their competition would more quickly play their own "next gen" card to outdo anything Nintendo could do. So, smartly, Nintendo isn't in the power race...with such power-focused competitors, Nintendo wouldn't have the money/resources to compete in such a race.
Gameplay vs Graphics = Innovation vs Power
...
Mindshare vs Marketshare
I talked before how mindshare sometimes trumps actual marketshare. Numbers don't lie and yet the personal bias of some will make excuses for why a certain thing is selling and why the other thing is better in their mind. The video games business is still pretty young in the entertainment market and opinions inside and outside of the games industry are still pretty immature and even fickle.
Mindshare had people thinking Genesis hardware was in every way superior to SNES 'cos of edgier marketing. Mindshare had people thinking PlayStation was more powerful than N64 again, 'cos of edgier marketing. Mindshare had people thinking that Nintendo would go 3RD party (making their games on other platforms) since that's what Sega had to do after DreamCast. Mindshare had people thinking that XBOX was right behind PS2 in sales when it was nowhere close to it and that GAMECUBE was in a distant 3RD when in fact XBOX & GAMECUBE were about even in sales. Mindshare had people thinking GAMECUBE (due to the way it looked) was under-powered, yet both Sony & Microsoft went to Nintendo's hardware partners to help them with their next systems. Mindshare had people thinking that Wii lacking HD meant the games instantly looked terrible and unplayable by default. Mindshare has had people believing all Nintendo games are the same crap, etc. bla bla bla....opinions of a very vocal minority beat out facts, numbers and marketshare to these types.
Mindshare is silly, yet important since video game systems are seen as an investment meant to last you through a generation of games. One's perception on how well a platform may do through it's lifetime is altered by it's mindshare which sometimes is just opinion or popularity.
The Golden Age Console
...
The 3RD Console Curse
This curse is just a theory of mine with the evidence for which follows in these stages: it starts with them coming off their golden age console where they believe they can do no wrong and arrogance leads to a dent in the armor which hurts customer confidence, arrogance continues by them making an expensive/hard develop for platform which hurts publisher confidence...ultimately leading to much weaker mindshare & marketshare for their 3RD console.
Atari::Nintendo::Sega::PlayStation::XBOX
2600::SNES::Genesis::PS2::XBOX 360
5200::N64::Saturn::PS3::XBONE
Gaming Market Crash::Virtual Boy::Genesis Add-Ons::PSP::Kinect
Atari 5200 was a disaster. The dent in the Atari armor was the market was oversaturated with crap hardware & software, instead of trying to fix the 2600 situation, they jump to a different machine in a market that already had too many machines. Shove old 400 hardware in a huge console form factor with a shitty controller gives you a failed platform with a fraction of 2600's marketshare. They did everything closed proprietary (carts, controllers, ports, etc.) 'cos they were losing money on 2600's open hardware & software business...5200 was made to try to start over and reverse an already crashing gaming market which only led to it crashing faster.
Nintendo 64, though a revolution in it's jump from 2D to 3D, would never reach the mindshare/marketshare of the SNES. Most say that sticking with carts led to it losing out to PS1's CD format which also lead to more expensive & hard to develop for games, less games and less 3RD party support, but it didn't start there. The first dent in Nintendo's armor was the Virtual Boy 'cos it showed Nintendo could fail. It wasn't a good product focused on the VR buzzword and was rushed out partly due to N64's many delays. N64 had many problems before it even came out, but Nintendo's arrogance that brought about the Virtual Boy flop did not instill confidence in the Nintendo name. With both Nintendo's & Sega's 3RD consoles being cursed they basically gave the gaming market to Sony's PS1.
Sega Saturn was a mistake in a long line of Sega hardware mistakes. Confidence was weakened in the Sega brand way before the Saturn launched, namely in Sega USA & Sega Japan fighting for control of company power and releasing marketshare splitting add-ons (Sega CD, 32X, plus other hardware planned) for the Genesis which hurt/confused customers. There was arrogance in thinking their fans would keep buying these things to keep up. Sega had many other problems with Saturn too, they saw the threat of Sony's PS1 too late and changed Saturn specs (which increased development costs/difficulty), upped the price and surprise launched it to try to beat Sony to market. All of which scared publisher and customer support to PS1 as they didn't trust Sega hardware anymore.
PlayStation 3 was over-priced and over-designed due mainly to Sony's arrogance in thinking they could do no wrong. They thought PSP would just come out with all of it's console-quality power, destroy Nintendo's portable market and call it a day. That was actually Sony's first dent in their PlayStation brand armor 'cos it showed their faults...they didn't study that Nintendo downed all the competition in portable games or how they did so (cheaper, battery efficient, durable hardware with fun, gaming-focused, portable-exclusive games) and instead came out with more expensive, low battery, flimsy hardware that looked pretty with the same kind of games already available on home consoles and multi-media functions (done better with competing products). Sans the Monster Hunter craze and people mainly getting them to hack them to play ROM's, PSP was an over-designed mistake. They didn't know how to compete with Nintendo so they quit...but it's also difficult to juggle support between the portable and home console markets...Sony was spread too thin so they bowed out of portables and stuck to home consoles. Had to explain how PSP was the dent in the armor (even though it sold well) before continuing with PS3 being cursed. Sony actually had competition this time (which for PS1 & PS2 was not much of a thing) yet they ignored Wii & XBOX 360 going on record saying customers would rather get a second job to afford a PS3 'cos it was so great. $599 US Dollars will never be lived down! The Cell processor in PS3 was way more powerful than their competition...on paper...but it being so bloated made it difficult to develop for (a common theme in the 3RD Console Curse). PS3 eventually did okay, but coming off the PS2 it lost Sony a lot of money, mindshare & marketshare...it was the first PlayStation console not to sell 100M.
XBOX ONE coming off of XBOX 360 should've done better, but instead it showed Microsoft's true colors with their lil' XBOX project. It starts well before it came out, though...it starts with the Kinect. Their brand was built on the backs of the hardcore dudebros...but then the brand turned on them with the Kinect unveiling so that Microsoft could chase the motion control casual Wii whales (money) making their fans feel abandoned. They continued by making the next-gen Kinect packed in with each XBOX ONE...not just packed in, but always on and required. Other things were required too: DRM throughout, always online and each piece of software being tied to the hardware with no borrowing or re-selling of said software. They had to go back on these plans when the backlash against them was so bad, they were mocked by everyone. Even the (dumb) name was mocked too: XBONE! Kinect was the dent in the armor and their plans for it and the platform as a whole caused a lot of XBOTS to jump ship. They were chasing whales & buzzwords with things like Kinect and later, Game Pass. The unveiling was so cringeworthy with the SPORTSPORTSPORTS & TVTVTV shoved down everyone's throats that the only people who cheered for it were the "gamers" in the back row who were paid to cheer. As XBOX continues to fall apart as a brand Microsoft's plan is to buy a bunch of publishers to try to fix all their problems, sell the broken Game Pass model as "the Netflix of gaming" and pay shills to hype up what they don't have. Most people see right through all that and even knew this is where they were headed with gaming all along.
Cutting Their Losses
Nintendo had Square...they had RARE...both literally exclusive 2ND parties...what happened? Nintendo can see when a partner doesn't wanna work with them anymore. It's less about the money invested or the potential properties gained...it's about the passion. When Nintendo has been posed with the question of using their billions in the bank to buy out a 3RD party they have pointed out that when that happens, the passionate talent (the people) would leave...and they've been right about that. RARE obviously wanted to chase after the XBOX, so without any squabbles, Nintendo sold their stake in RARE back and now Microsoft is RARE's surrogate. A lot of RARE's talent has since left and some feel their passion (and certainly their marketshare) has dwindled since the N64 days. Square obviously wanted to chase after PlayStation so Nintendo let them go and they found success with Sony...but since then, they've had to merge with Enix to continue, they're lost talent, they've chased visuals over gameplay and now all they truly have is Final Fantasy so they've lost the breadth out what they were in the SNES days.
You could argue that they cut losses with Sony when they went their separate ways from the SNES cd-rom add-on days. Their passions didn't align...Sony is about chasing Hollywood with story & visuals, Nintendo is about having fun with controls & gameplay. Those approaches can & do overlap, sure...but it's clear Sony & Nintendo do things differently and were not compatible.
Online Approach
With Nintendo being such a family focused company they have to play it really safe when it comes to online interaction. What's lacking in Nintendo's approach to online is you can't directly interact/communicate with other players using Nintendo hardware. There has been problems in the past with pedos trying to use Nintendo services to try to interact with kids so Nintendo has stayed far away from any of that. They make it to where you have to use a different service outside of their own hardware to interact/communicate in online gaming. Nintendo tried to go all out with their own online community: Miiverse, but that was too much for them to moderate and it's clear they won't try such an ambition again. It's sad that Nintendo is too wholesome for the online world...they could do more, but they probably don't see it being worth it. System-wide Friend Codes is better than per-game Friend Codes, but friends should be able to interact more. Street Pass was a great direction but they have abandoned that. Nintendo also being very Japanese focused doesn't help since there's a culture/language barrier that makes it difficult to communicate that their online is lacking overall due to the lack of system-based communication.
Gimmicky Hardware = Harder To Pirate
Writing this here as a note before I complete this section:
Nintendo does things that seem gimmicky at first, but after it catches on, the competition follows.
He With The Best Games Wins
...
Disruption/Blue Ocean Strategy = Being Different
...
The Casual Fallacy
The idea that Nintendo (during the Wii days) got success off the backs of "casuals" is false. Before the Wii (and even DS) came out Nintendo hyped their "Revolution" (Wii's code name) using disruption/blue ocean terminology above to grow the gaming population or audience for games. The haters and the industwy were blind-sided by Nintendo's sudden "comeback" even though Nintendo was telling them what they were doing. They wanted (or were told to want) the "HD future" so it became the "HD twins" (PS3/X360) versus "waggle" (Wii). In order to write Nintendo off they quickly had to label the Wii audience as: "casual"...ya know, not serious, real or hardcore gamers.
What is a "casual gamer" and what is a "casual game"? Is Tetris a casual game? People can play Tetris pretty hardcore! Is Call of Duty a hardcore game? People can play COD casually! You can play any game any way you want so labelling them or those who play them as casual or hardcore is pretty ignorant...like all things in life, labels are just labels...they don't define anything and are based on opinionated social buzzwords at the time.
The easy argument that Wii gamers were all simply filthy casuals is that after Wii sales fell off, those people went on to the other hardcore dirty-word: mobile. Mobile gaming existed in many forms way before, during and throughout the Wii era. Mobile was already a thing...it didn't kill off/replace the Wii or Nintendo's strategy for growing the gaming population. Wii fell off a cliff in sales due multiple variables but less so from "losing casuals" or competition and more so 'cos Nintendo spread themselves too thin between multiple hardware (DS, Wii, mobile, 3DS, Wii U) and didn't properly support the Wii after 2008 and had a very bad transition to the next (and conceptually poor) hardware. I blame this mainly on Nintendo falling for the industwy casual vs hardcore fallacy mantra that was everywhere to the point they thought they were making what they thought the "hardcore" wanted: 3DS & Wii U...which both faltered due to a hardcore focus (3D, HD, more power, Pro, online, multiple sku's, etc.) and lacking on the software quality & quantity which is hard to do when you spread yourself too thin.
It's what led them to combining their home & portable hardware well as their home & portable software. One platform to sell all their games to multiple markets...
Why Wii U?
The Switch Effect
The appeal of the Switch isn't an easy to excuse away gimmick, it's one hybrid platform that reaches multiple markets which is attractive to the platform holder, publishers, developers, retailers and most importantly: consumers. It's not just that it's a hybrid that can be seamlessly played as a portable or on your TV, it's that it's one platform to get all of Nintendo's games when in the past you had to buy 2 different pieces of hardware to get access to all their software. As a business it has totally restructured how Nintendo used to do things and instead of spreading themselves (thin) across multiple platforms that sometimes cannibalized each other they have one streamlined pipeline of output. This means their 1ST party software content output is steady and strong. Switch being a hybrid is a continually fresh concept unlike other gimmick's (more power, 3D, HD, 4K, VR, motion controls, industwy buzzwords, etc.) that lose their charm over time. The only thing going against it's growth is oversaturation since everyone already has one which is why Nintendo focuses on having multiple Switch hardware in each household and eventually the newer iterative steps in the Switch family. Because of the success & longevity of the Switch there is a Switch effect:
-Switch userbase is over 146M and still growing-
-of those, over 120M of Switch users are annually active-
-selling software to just 1% of Switch users = 1M sales-
-this means even niche titles can find an audience on Switch-
-past hit software can sell even more (to a new audience) when ported to Switch-
-past obscure software now sells (to a bigger audience) when ported to Switch-
-huge software library attractive to wider audiences (not just hardcore)-
-publishers don't have to "test demographics" on such a huge platform-
-the charm of Switch isn't falling off a cliff like previous Nintendo platforms-
-all of the above gets even better as the Switch userbase grows-
This many years in, it's still new to consumers, still selling, still growing with such momentum. Not just hardware, but the software sales gain more as there are more buyers to sell to the longer the platform lasts. This is all momentum that hasn't been hindered by things that would've killed a lesser platform:
-lack of certain publisher support-
-poor Labo reception/performance-
-"too many ports" internet whining-
-aging tech, lack of power-
-lack of high profile games-
-no Madden or COD-
-competing next-gen systems-
-all the looming "Switch Pro" or "Switch 2" rumors over the years-
Many industwy hyped hardware have entered this "market" and it's barely a blip on the Nintendo Switch's radar. It's funny how much press portable PC's are touted as Switch-killers but this is from "journalists" who ignore that these Steamdeck's & ROG Ally's (as well as any future XBOX or PlayStation portables) aren't doing nor could do the same thing as Switch since Nintendo is focused on integrated software & hardware. The industwy just doesn't see the big picture:
-Switch isn't a success due to it simply being a portable...it's a HYBRID-
-Nintendo software sells Nintendo hardware-
-Nintendo is it's own market: home + portable-
-software is more tailored to Switch-
-one console platform means less self-cannibalization-
-software output isn't spread too thin between different console platforms
-Switch is a physical media platform-
-Nintendo is making a more mass-market brand & pricepoint-
Competition in Nintendo's (Switch) market isn't just about being a portable or whatever the industwy wishlist is. It's making a separate platform that is it's own thing, yet not spreading output too thin between platforms for the company who makes it. A portable PC isn't gonna compete with Switch and a "PSP2" or XBOY" will fall to the same problems previous handhelds dealt with when competing with Nintendo. Sony or Microsoft would just end up making baby PlayStation's or XBOX's with a screen that play the same types of games their home consoles already do...it'll spread their output too thin and/or cannibalize their own sales...and the Nintendo-hating shills would "love" these portables but only use them as modded emulation systems in the end. Even Nintendo themselves will have a hard time competing with the existing Switch once the next Switch comes which is going to make their transition tricky, but more manageable than the "competition" could do.
The Switch is a major win for Nintendo, but there's still some things to keep in mind. It may end up becoming Nintendo's best selling hardware but it combined their home & portable hardware business so it should be more fairly compared to their past home + portable hardware together:
Wii + DS (256M)
NES + GameBoy (181M)
Switch (146M)
GAMECUBE + GBA (104M)
Wii U + 3DS (90M)
software sales:
Wii + DS (1870M + 10% digital*)
Switch (1301M + 33% digital*)
NES + GameBoy (1001M)
*Nintendo doesn't release digital #'s so these are guestimates
tie-in ratios:
Wii + DS (15)
NES + GameBoy (12)
Switch (8)
number of titles:
Wii + DS (4700+)
Switch (4500+)
NES + GameBoy (3200+)
So this tells some stories, while there's less sales cannibalizations between multiple hardware per generation and a streamlined software output combining both markets Switch does better hardware vs hardware, but when you add hardware, software and tie-in ratios together from generation to generation Switch #'s are down...but close...and they're not done yet. Also, Nintendo is making more money this generation than any previous generation regardless of unit sales or tie-in ratios. With these observations there's more things to note:
-NES + GameBoy includes GameBoy Color in Nintendo's #'s and Nintendo had a higher marketshare & longer lifetime for those consoles, but the total gaming population was also lower-
-digital sales didn't exist in the NES + GameBoy days and were lower in the Wii + DS eras so Switch has advantages there-
-NES + GameBoy had better macroeconomics for their time while Wii + DS fought against worse macroeconomics, it's arguable that Switch may have the worst macroeconomics yet-
-mindshare & invested perceived value with the Switch is closer to the NES + GameBoy era (very good) rather than the Wii + DS era (poorer)-
-Nintendo's overall financials are arguably at their best even though individual unit sales are comparatively lower-
-Switch hardware & software sales are high even without any pricedrops (which still may happen and if there are pricedrops that can only help it's total sales in the end)-
-Switch numbers will also have advantages due to gaming population growth-
-even with the next Nintendo hardware looming in 2025 the (current) Switch hardware and/or software could continue to sell for years after if supported properly (especially since the next system is backwards compatible)-
I love to speculate and there have been rumors starting soon after the (current) Switch even launched, but now it's 2024 and probably coming next year. Switch Pro, Switch 2, Super Switch boogaloo we've already heard it all. From here on I'll refer to the next Nintendo platform as the next Switch as it's widely believed that it'll keep the Switch-like hybrid form.
The other sections in my Nintendo Philosophy pointed out where Nintendo has done things right in "The Switch Effect" but also the dangers that came before then...namely Nintendo spreading itself too thin. The main advantage of the Switch is that it combined home & portable hardware & software...but the danger in that is transitioning to what's next...in the past they could lean on an established home console when launching a new portable console and vice versa...not anymore! All eggs in one basket arguments aside, I do think Nintendo has more strength outside of video games today (through entertainment media, licensed products, etc.) than in the past so the risk is lessened, but that's only if what they're transitioning to is as good a platform or better than the Switch. Spreading themselves too thin can happen if they lose balance in supporting the current Switch with the next Switch. You don't wanna brickwall the Switch nor do you wanna use it as a safety net too much. You wanna carry over Switch support/success to the next Switch but you have to communicate that it IS the next Switch whilst not abandoning the current Switch too soon.
President Furukawa has already expressed that they plan to communicate properly through the transition as he admits that is a danger for them. The next Switch will be the first platform he will launch as President...to note, Furukawa has been described as a business-focused leader and it shows. Being business focused would hopefully mean he aims to repeat and improve on the current Switch by making money doing what consumers want instead of seeing this as a personal idea/creative vision. Nothing wrong with creativity or Nintendo's own personal touches...as long as it lines up with what customers actually want!
I see what most reasonable Nintendo customers want: a better Switch with backwards compatibility, more power and more current games. Doable, if Nintendo is also being reasonable. Keep the Switch name, the brand is still fresh with people and don't create more problems by trying to be too different. Add those Nintendo touches but not at the detriment of what people want.
The name of the next Switch is important 'cos it has to tell people it's the next or new thing whilst also carrying forward brand recognition. The Switch brand name this late in this generation is still a strong one, unlike the Wii brand was going into Wii U. A bad name can really hurt the brand and/or confuse customers so I would hope Nintendo wouldn't call it Switch U, Switch On or Switch Up, Switch Pro, Switch GO, "new" or "next" Switch. Switch Lite & Switch OLED are good names 'cos they tell you what's different about them in the name itself...this would make you think the name Switch 4K might make sense but I don't think they'll go with that. PlayStation has a simple but effective numbered naming convention as do cars, cellphones and other products...but could Nintendo do the same? Calling it Switch 2 or better: Switch 2.0 could work 'cos it quickly tells you it's the next one and it would fit with later iterations of the system, like: Switch 2LT (Lite or mini), Switch 2.5 (mid-gen upgrade), etc. I kicked around Switch + or Switch Plus, but that would've been more for a mid-gen jump. My personal hope would be Super Nintendo Switch (SNS) or Super Switch which would fit with recent Nintendo naming (like Super Nintendo World) and also bring up SNES nostalgia...get Paul Rudd to do the Super Switch commercial like the old SNES one:
They may call it something else though, especially if it's not backwards compatible with Switch?
While I don't wanna stick to conventional revolution/evolution thinking in regards to what Nintendo would do next, I don't think they'll aim to re-invent their next hardware business...just take what they got and make it better. More power, improved parts and added features would already make it better. The real value in the current Switch isn't just the hardware or software itself...but how long it's lasted on the market. A market that has been hit by bad world events and bad macroeconomics, consumers in a bullish thrifty economy appreciate a product that lasts longer and is supported for longer. Game consoles are kind of like a committed investment and that's even more important these days in this questionable economic climate.
So before Nintendo goes all out with the next Switch they should really assure current Switch owners with more support. This should help in the transition and building brand trust, especially if they keep the Switch name and Switch BC. Beyond that they should, in this order:
-communicate clearly (and soon) that current Switch software will work (maybe even with improvements) on the next Switch*-
-give the name of the console (which should include Switch branding) to assure it'll continue the established 8yrs of quality the current Switch has given us-
-bring back their budget "Nintendo Selects" line for Switch's older software-
-continue to support the current Switch with smaller titles well after the next Switch launches since those titles will also work on it-
-have a GameBoy to GameBoy Color-like "cross-gen" transition having new software that works on the old Switch but has improvements on the new Switch-
-go back through some of the old Switch hit software and offer patches to make them look/run better on the next Switch-
-maybe even introduce a Switch Home mini console? (without a screen, battery or dock they could make it a super budget console)-
*UPDATE: Nintendo has confirmed Switch software will be playable on the next system. This has to mean both digital eshop software and physical game cards.
**SWITCH HOME
Such a stand-alone console could be the "junior" to the Switch (like the NES top loader, SNES mini, Wii mini, etc.) but would Nintendo see the Switch Lite as their budget console already? Maybe something like this could be saved for the next Switch a few years in to provide a budget option?
Dealing with the transition without spreading themselves too thin across both generations I'll go into what I think they'll do for the next Switch. They should make it powerful enough to run more current games from 3RD parties as that will also help in the transition since their partners could help fill in the gaps while Nintendo makes new games for the next Switch. It should also be powerful enough to give it a long lifespan even in the wake of what the competition may do. Maybe take power scaling to the next level having different performance settings for: portable, docked & unlocked/over-clocked modes. The system should have more storage, but even better would be that the next Switch physical software cards would have a much higher capacity so you won't have to use as much of the built-in memory or download too much.
Entry + Controller Wall + Exit
Metroid Wall + Game Shelves + Hallway
3RD Party Wall + Non-Nintendo Systems
Nintendo Posters + Amiibo + eCards Wall
Bookshelves + Entertainment Center
Nintendo in other parts of my apartment