>>31255715People have very short memory spans.
Nintendo always hedges their bets. There's a precedent for several of their devices being referred to as "not a replacement" despite the clear intention thereof, so that in case it tanks they can fall back to extant, successful devices while they go back to the drawing board. Japan's senior corporate culture seems to have an inbuilt fear of failure that might go as far back as the Virtual Boy.
>The Nintendo DS will be the third pillar of gaming (GCN+GBA+DS)This was oft said leading to the DS's release, cynically to keep GBA sales up in its end-of-life, but also somewhat cynically betraying a lack of confidence that the DS would do well more than anything else, actually. The release of the GBA Micro immediately before/shortly after the DS's release and success was awkward, and its existence forgotten.
I think the Wii might've also been referred to as a third pillar (GCN+DS+Wii).
Anyways, my point being that Nintendo would go ahead saying "not a replacement!/third pillar" as if we can't see the writing on the wall, and yet you'd have Nintendrones repeating this as if it was canon truth.
The Switch is foremost a Wii U replacement because its sales are fading fast. They don't actually have any great idea for a console - no one does anymore - so might be ceding the market to instead double down where they were always uncontested - handheld gaming.
The 3DS doesn't do what its predecessors have done well - handheld gaming on a good-enough screen with a fantastic battery life, instead giving us handheld gaming on good-enough screens with bad battery life (this is what killed the Game Gear), but the 3DS has still sold ok because of its IPs and lack of competition (RIP Vita).
The Switch banking on being a handheld is risky because its battery life is probably going to outright suck. They'll probably hedge their bets even more here and continue to support the 3DS.
I'd guess sales+devs could be a deciding factor.
