An optional gimmick isn't really a gimmick, since the whole point of a gimmick is to sell you on a product.
I don't think so, I'd definitely consider the 3D on the 3DS a gimmick, and it was both optional and there to sell you the product.
The motion controls and HD Rumble aren't really used as a major selling point. Most people have probably forgotten that the HD Rumble was even a feature and Nintendo did little to nothing with it after talking about it at the Switch's reveal.
The main selling point of the Switch was its hybrid nature, and that's the only part that gets emphasized now.
They didn't push motion controls and HD Rumble
as hard as they did previously with other gimmicks but they were certainly not just in there without any fanfare. Motion comtrols were already done before so they understandably didn't need to focus on it too much, but they were trying to push the HD Rumble concept fairly hard initially despite being a secondary gimmick.
And they absolutely did push the impromptu multiplayer capabilities, just as much focus was on the Joycons which slide on the side of the Switch as the hybrid nature of the device. The "Switch" name was all about how versatile the device is and how you can
switch to different ways of playing, not just dock/undock it.
How fast they stop using a gimmick doesn't really matter either. They entirely removed 3D from 3DS, that doesn't make it any less of a gimmick they tried selling it on.
And as I pointed out, the whole "Third Pillar" thing with the DS didn't even last long, because it was simply unnecessary. That's really the only example of them doing this.
That's not true, in practice they essentially did the same thing with the Switch initially. I'm not sure why you fail to acknowledge this.
When it came to both home consoles and handhelds, Nintendo moves on quickly. Period. They push their next product and don't look back.
That is objectively incorrect, as you've conceded with DS, and should concede with Switch; both were initially positioned in such a way as to pretend not to replace previous lines of products, but once successful, they did. There won't be a new Game Boy because DS was a success, and there won't be a new DS because Switch was a success. If Switch failed there would absolutely be a DS3, just as if DS itself had failed there would have been a new GB.
I'm fairly confident Nintendo, being that prudent in the past, will continue do that here, especially if they don't market Switch 2
AS "Switch 2". The odds they cut off Switch 1 certainly are higher if they break all precedent and name the console that way, but I personally don't have much expectation of that.
Most 3DS models were discontinued the same year the Switch launched (only the New Nintendo 3DS XL and then-recently released New Nintendo 2DS XL remained in production) and all first party game production ceased by 2019.
Yes, 2019, two years after Switch launched in 2017 and proved to be successful. This only reinforces my point. If Switch flopped do you not think there'd be a continuation of the DS line? Of course there would be, which is exactly why they kept 3DS afloat (for even longer than expected).
If Nintendo were really interested in maintaining some kind of back up plan, they would have released a successor to the 3DS like they considered doing. Nintendo have made the very specific choice to put all their eggs into the Switch basket and back that.
What...? A direct DS successor alongside their indirect, intended DS successor would be retarded, not a backup plan. The backup plan was keep the DS brand relevant in the background in case Switch fails. Sabotaging Switch with a DS successor would be even worse than Sega tier incompetence, magnificent really.
Kids are very in tune these days with what the latest thing is.
My argument wasn't their lack of awareness about the cool new thing. I don't doubt that they're aware, I was as a kid too despite the early Internet being more primitive. It's been this way for a long time, but that didn't help Wii U.
But anyway, what I'm saying is the Switch 2 being better isn't going to sell it as much as it being fresh and interesting with great, innovative games. Casuals simply do not give a fuck about better with Nintendo consoles, and kids just want cool toys.
Plus Switch 2 is a sterile name. If they actually go with that and couple it with the fact that Switch 2 simply having better specs is a boring selling point then they risk mainly catering to hardcore gamers, who for some reason prefer PS & XB. Nintendo is certainly taking that into account with how they design and market Switch 2, but they could do that, it's possible. Nintendo could be at the cusp shifting back to something more akin to their pre-Wii strategies.
