How Will be Switch 2 Performance Wise?

[freedquaker]

I did not want to be involved in this prolonged conversation and debate but I am surprised at the cognitive dissonance here, nearing the levels of fanboyism. I have no idea why anyone would defend a firm or a practice that is clearly detriment to themselves.

I see people supporting the current hardware situation of Switch 2 and its price point. Switch 2's screen is OBJECTIVELY worse than even Switch 1. Forget the OLED, which I do not own, it's worse than even the original Switch 1. It had much worse ghosting and screen response times are laggy. The only thing going for is the higher resolution. Yes, switch 2 games will still "look" better on switch 2 than switch 1 games on switch 1 but that's not because of the screen but because of the hardware beneath.

Some people find excuses for why Nintendo did not use an OLED, and the fact that an OLED Steamdeck has a $150 premium, so switch 2 would allegedly cost $600. That is a totally misleading argument. Just check up alibaba or any other chinese retailer, you can buy a Switch 1 OLED screen for around $50-100. The whole screen costs that much, which is roughly $20-30 more than an LCD. The premium is not $150 but a mere $20-30! Cost is one thing, price is another.

In economics, we have a concept called (perfectly legal) price discrimination. The reason Steamdeck OLED is priced $150 more is not because it costs $150 more, not it doesn't, but because the customers who won't cheap out for an LCD, will likely be willing to pay not just $50 more but probably $150 more! After all, those won't, can get the cheaper option anyway! This is called price discrimination. Valve probably loses money in the cheapest non-oled Steamdeck, because they were trying to prove themselves in the hardware market and get a hold of it. Now that they do, they can even make some small profit by selling the OLED models for profit.

Switch 2 cannot cost more than $400, we know this, because the Japanese Switch 2 is priced at around $350. Traditionally Nintendo hardly ever made losses on their hardware, and even by a stretch of imagination, they would never lose more than $50 per console. This puts the Switch costs well below $400. So they are making a huge profit compared to the competition. This is not ok, and it is not comparable to the likes of ROG ALLY because those guys do not make profit off of the games so they have to sell the hardware for profit. So they do in return to genuinely great hardware, state of the art. Nintendo makes at least $50 of profit, by giving you a screen which is worse than Switch 1. This is such a despicable situation in which,

a) a 33 ms response time can only justify a 30 hertz display, forget about 60 fps(!) while the screen is advertised as 120 hertz.
b) The screen is advertised to have HDR while it is far from it, only a fake HDR.

You can still be happy with your switch 2, there are many reasons to be so, but this does not change the fact that Nintendo cheapened out with the screen at the cost of maybe $20-30, giving you a worse screen, hoping that most Nintendo fans are either technically illiterate or too blind to notice or care about anything. Nintendo, this generation acts like a spoiled entitled brat, and doing everything wrong so far. As the owner two switches (OG switch and Switch Lite), until a cheaper Switch with a better screen, I am off.