I think I understand where you are from, just add a little of my thought:
Yes, Nintendo Switch 2 "largely settled gamers being too confused and dev support cost too high", but from my POV, it is not that Switch 2 is not powerful enough to run third-party games, it is that third-party game publishers do not have enough incentive to build the port, or even when they do, the do it poorly (again, because no enough incentives).
And is a more frequent hardware upgrade helpful? Maybe.
After all, it's an interesting idea.
Jumpin said:
A little controversial, but I’d like more frequent hardware upgrades and much shorter generations. The main reason is I’m not a big fan of buying electronics that aren’t particularly new. Let me put it this way: I’m buying a new cellphone, computer, TV, or video game console, I’d prefer it to be as new as possible. I don’t mind playing older games, but games are creativity and art with engineering just being a means to express that, hardware is about engineering intended to express the goals for playing the games, generally more power is better, smoother or more functionality is better.
I think with Nintendo outsourcing their hardware manufacturing and growing the Switch laterally every 6 to 10 years is fine, but I also would prefer vertical growth every 2 or 3 years. So, if I bought a new Switch console in 2028, 2030, or 2032, I’m getting progressively more power hardware, not just the same 2025 SoC with a 30% better battery and a premium screen, and different colours.
Part of the argument against feasibility with “gamers being too confused about multiple gems of console available” and dev support concerns have largely been settled with the Switch 2 in favour of more frequent vertical upgrades. |
