The difference this time is the price gap between 3DS and Switch. It's going to be a while before Switch will be a low enough price to fully replace 3DS, right?
That's how I see it, too. The 3DS needs to exist a little while longer to hold up the low end of the market. It (or the 2DS at $80 or under) would serve as a good "cheap" portable machine for children or casual gamers who might only play one or two games here or there. A $300 system with (initially) a sparse game selection isn't going to be the first choice for those people.
Game support will obviously slow down but I don't think this is a new DS-GBA situation here.
DS launch price was $150 while Switch is $300 (in competition to a $80 2DS). That's not really a pricepoint where parents will mass buy it for their kids when the new Pokémon game comes out.
Good comparison. The DS supplanted the GBA much quicker because it was a lot closer in price. The fact that the DS (early models) could play the existing GBA games also helped.
I expect the 3DS to eventually get replaced by a cheaper produced "entry-level" Switch model that is lower priced.
I agree. You might eventually see a "Switch Pocket" that's smaller and maybe ditches one or two non-essential features, which would be like the relationship between the 2DS and 3DS. By that time, the Switch game library should be more robust as well. When you can sell a machine like that for under $200 (preferably $150), then it could move into a position to fully replace the 3DS/2DS.
I'm glad I got a chance to get an N3DS non-XL, it's a really nice and nice-looking system. One of my favourite Nintendo products ever and there's still a massive back catalogue to explore. Too bad it's the last of its kind.
Yeah, I'm in the same boat. I just got a New 3DS (non-XL) a few weeks ago, and it's a great little machine. Since I didn't own either a 3DS or DS previously, both of those game libraries represent a
significant back catalog that I haven't tapped.