Nintendo Switch "2" could have double meaning

Before I get started I just want to make sure that we are on the same page.

I am not in any way, shape, or form saying to suggesting that this IS what Nintendo IS going to do. This is just a hypothesis based on available information and history. My motto for Nintendo has always been the same. To quote two famous professional wrestlers, as the Icon, Sting once said, "The only thing for sure, is that nothing's for sure," and what the late Rowdy Roddy Piper used to say, "Just when you think you have all the answers, they change the questions." The point is that Nintendo is liable to pull virtually (pun intended) ANYTHING out of their hat. However, I think I have some ideas that make pretty good sense. The first idea as you can see above is that the Switch 2 may literally be a Switch "2." Meaning a dual-screen version of the Switch. It's something no one else is doing right now to my knowledge to have a hybrid-system with dual screens and even if they are, it is not making a lot of noise to be sure. Now, why would Nintendo give us a dual-screen Switch? Well, let me explain. While the Switch has been the most successful "home console" they have ever released, the most success Nintendo has ever had was in the portable market which is why they made their home console portable. More to the point, the Nintendo DS is the most successful piece of hardware Nintendo has produced (as of NOW) selling 154 million units worldwide. Nintendo followed that up with the 3DS which sold about half that at 75 million. Not as successful by itself, but between the two devices Nintendo sold over 230 million devices. That is a lot of people. There were many people that were disappointed that they had to give up that dual screen experience, but with the Switch, Nintendo couldn't afford to get too cute with the gimmicks. They needed something that had clear and concise messaging, and was affordable in order to recoup the losses from the Wii U. I think Nintendo wants to bring that dual-screen experience back, and here are a few images of filed patents by Nintendo that support that...

Now, these are crude examples, but often with patent-filings they just want to get the gist of it across. There are many people that would love to have the dual-screen feature back. No 3D, just a dual-screen. So, that is one idea. Here is another idea. Nintendo has filed numerous patents for at least the past 3 years if not longer for something in the VR space. They refer to it as a "Virtual Camera." They don't just talk about it like it is a proof-of-concept. They talk about it like it is matter-of-fact. In many patents they mention it just as casually as they would the CPU, or DRAM, or flash memory, or accelerometer along with those things. The image I want to share with you now is this one.

That is pretty straight-forward if you ask me. Now someone is saying, "Well if you put the Switch in a VR-type headset, you still need a unit to process the actual game itself that the headset is connected to." I agree. This is where the second-screen comes into play. It is POSSIBLE............that the second-screen can "detach" from the Switch 2. One screen you would place inside the Virtual Camera headset, and the other screen will go in the dock and this would be done wirelessly.

You also have the option of placing one of the screens in the dock, slapping the Joy-Cons on the other, and now you have the ability to stream games to your Switch similar to what the PlayStation Portal does, and what the Wii U was SUPPOSED to do. Instead of having the drop off in performance and frame-rate going to portal-mode, not you can retain most of the graphical-fidelity that you get when it is docked. Speaking of the dock. It is interesting that in patent-filings they do not refer to it as a "dock." They refer to it as a "cradle" which is intriguing. Here are a few more pictures.

This certainly does not look like the dock used for the current Switch. Usually once a concept has been released on the market, when referencing it in patents they just go ahead and show what it looks like exactly rather than a general idea. So, this dock or cradle is different. I have no idea why. It almost looks like it is resting up "against it" rather than resting inside of it. I wonder if there is some significance to this? So, to summarize all of this highly speculative banter that is just to have fun and not to take too seriously, you basically have a console that is an amalgamation of every successful and failed idea that Nintendo ever had. Nintendo really took it on the chin with the Virtual Boy and the Wii U. I don't think they ever forgot that. The Switch 2 might actually avenge those failures. At the end of the day, the Switch successor might really turn out to be the "Switch" in every since of the word.

Is Nintendo going to announce a "Bundle" instead of Switch Successor?

There has been a lot of chatter as of late as to the imminent unveiling of Nintendo's next-generation device that most of dubbed with the moniker of "Switch 2." At this time, Nintendo has not given us a name or even a code-name for the Switch successor other than just that. "Switch successor." There are a few things that I want to discuss. First off, a post made by Billbil-kun on dealabs.com states that Nintendo will soon announce a new bundle for the OLED Nintendo Switch which would pack-in Super Mario Wonder. Credit: Billbil-kun https://x.com/billbil_kun/status/1831963584404013314 More than likely if true, this bundle would be available for the Holiday rush. Billbil-kun also goes on to say that this bundle is the "announcement" that Nintendo is preparing for in September and NOT the reveal of their Switch successor.

Now, this is entirely possible, and I want to go on record that I'm not saying this WON'T be the case, but while I agree that another Holiday bundle is probable from Nintendo because it's kind of a standard practice with them almost every year, I do have some push back on this. While these claims cannot be confirmed, the part where I break company on this is the whole "instead of" aspect. Billbil-kun is suggesting that "instead of" an announcement for the Switch successor, we will get an announcement for the OLED Super Mario Wonder Switch bundle. First of all, there is no reason why Nintendo cannot do both. One has nothing to do with the other, and I'll explain why. Some people tend to think that if you announce the Switch successor too soon, that will greatly impede if not kill the sales of the incumbent product. Historically, that is incorrect. Many people erroneously refer to the "Osborne Effect" in these types of cases. That principle does not apply here and people that try to use this did not properly research just exactly happened with the Osborne. In Laymen's terms, the Switch has far exceeded what Nintendo could have ever hoped or even dreamed with this hardware. Plus, they gave a market-cap of 13 trillion YEN which exchanges currently to 91 billion US dollars with 14 billion cash-on-hand. In short, they are in no danger of bankruptcy which is what ultimately doomed the Osborne company. To add to that, historically, consoles that have been this successful have continued to have consistent sales into the next-generation. Currently, the PlayStation 4 at 117 million units is still selling, while at an infinitesimal rate. However, because of the chip shortages a few years ago for the PlayStation 5 and XBOX Series family, it was still selling pretty well. While we are on the subject of the PlayStation, let's look at the best example. The PlayStation 2. That console launched in the year 2000, and did not cease production until January of 2013 which was only 9 months away from the PlayStation 4. The PS2 stayed on the market for two complete console generations having inferior tech compared to all three major consoles each generation. Only the Sega Dreamcast was less powerful, but we know what happened to that. Furthermore, the PS2 sold more than the GameCube and Wii combined and respectively sold more than the XBOX and XBOX 360 combined. The point is that the announcement of the Switch Successor is not going to hurt sales of the current Switch that much, if at all. Consumers already know that the Switch successor is coming. It's not like it's a surprise. Knowing "when" it is coming is not going to stop someone from buying a Switch bundle or a Switch period that already had their mind made up to buy one at this point going into it's eighth-year or being on the market. It's not like back in 1983 when you didn't have internet and social media and you got your news from the TV, radio, tech magazines and newspapers. You weren't privy to every single development by a company, or could easily track their activities. Outside of special circumstances, we all learned about new tech at the same time. There also is no advantage for Nintendo to basically carpet-bomb us with Nintendo Directs in late August with 3 of them within the span of two weeks (which is something they have NEVER done before,) just to have a Nintendo Direct discussing a bundle, which as I stated earlier is something they do almost every year. Do I think there will be a Super Mario Wonder OLED Switch bundle announced soon? Possibly. Probably.

Do I think it necessarily has to happen in September? No. Business-wise, it doesn't make a lot of sense to announce it so far away from Black Friday. You've already announced all the games coming to the Switch this year. What else would you have to announce FOR Black Friday if you announce the bundle now? It doesn't make since to have put any effort into anymore MAJOR 1st-party IPs just to put them on a console on it's way out the door. Those games should be on the Switch Successor whether it be a new Zelda, F-Zero, StarFox, or even remakes of previous first party gems. Save that for the Switch successor. Do I think it will be "instead of" rather than "in addition to" a teaser-trailer for the Switch successor? NO.

Died a hero, became the villain....

So, it was announced at the San Diego Comic-Con that Robert Downey Jr. will make his long-awaited return to the Marvel Cinematic Universe as........... Dr. Doom? Huh?? That was the sentiment of MANY people online. Like, wha?....Really?? Why Him? I mean, Cillian Murphy is out there and while I'm not a fan of actors playing major characters in multiple comic universes (Cillian Murphy played Jonathan Crane a.k.a The Scarecrow in Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy,) that was more than 15 years ago so it's not that bad. This, however is far worse. Iron-Man was the foundation of the MCU. Robert Downey Jr. is as synonymous with Iron-Man as Christopher Reeve was and still is as Superman. Imagine, if Tim Burton had hired Christopher Reeve to play Owl-Man in Batman Returns? That would have been cool on paper, but you just can't un-see Chris Reeve as Superman. It's like God literally created him TO be Superman. Likewise, you cannot un-see RDJ as Tony Stark. We all understand that RDJ in every role he's in these days prints money, but on the surface this move feels really desperate. NOW. IF this "particular" Dr. Doom is actually a variant of Tony Stark that went down a dark-path and became Dr. Doom, I can buy that. Again, TOTALLY unnecessary to do it this way, but I can least see that as "plausible."

When you think of Tony's mindset in Avengers: Age Of Ultron and how even though he knew the consequences of his actions, he just plowed right on ahead with the creation of Ultron much to the consternation of everyone because in HIS mind HE felt that HE knew best for the world. That literally is the genesis point for every major super-villain arc. At least the GOOD ones anyway. They always feel like what they are doing is for the "greater-good" so to speak.

I've heard people say that they should have just made him "Superior Iron-Man" which is definitely canon in the comic books, but Ultron kind of already checked that box. It's possible that maybe they don't want to cheapen the legacy of the original Tony Stark by just bringing back another variant of him. At the time of this post, there are far more questions than answers. One question is why is this movie being called Avengers: Doomsday when this movie clearly is centered on the Fantastic Four? I know that they have a movie coming out the predates this one. Maybe they fight Dr. Doom in the first film and it ends in a stalemate or a LOSS, which is why other MCU characters will have to get involved to stop Dr. Doom in this film? I don't know. It just seems very disjointed and disorganized. Even with the original MCU, while we didn't know what was coming next, what we were given made sense. Nothing that they announced or were planning felt off track. I guess we will have to wait and see how this plays out, but as of right now, I don't know about this.