Too bad for you that, according to sales data, it seems most of your fellow consumers don't necessarily care about the things you want to see in the Switch.

Really? How many 3DS' do you think would be sold today if Nintendo had stuck with just the OG model or just OG model + XL even? There was no need to really offer anything other than those two models, yet we have 4 other hardware revision models of the 3DS in the 5 years since the XL. 

More models increase sales and keep the hardware line fresh. 

Even with the PS4 Pro which basically requires an entirely new TV (so it's not as accessible as a portable mid-gen refresh would be), we see about 20% of PS4 sales in weekly Japanese sales are PS4 Pro ... not an insiginifcant amount, and Sony makes a higher profit margin on the PS4 Pro model over the regular PS4. 

Tech scales faster than a lot of Nintendo fans here really understand. Apple offers new phones/tablets with 50-100% improvement in performance every 12-18 months ... and do you think they "give away" that performance from their profit margins out of the kindness of their hearts? Lol, fuck no. They can do that because that's how rapidly the tech is improving, they can offer continually better tech without paying more for it themselves and they pass on those improvements to their consumers which builds a consumer base conditioned to accepting more rapid hardware turnover. Which makes Apple more and more money. 

Mobile chips, in particular are a game changer, especially mainstream designs like ARM + Nvidia. Nintendo should keep a $300 model always, and just cycle in new tech every couple of years into the $300 model, it will yield them higher profit margins over time, older models can then scale down and occupy lower price points ($250, $199, $169, etc.) for those who cannot afford $300. This will effectively create a two-tier hardware setup with higher hardware sales while still having a unified platform. 

Using 3DS as your counter-example doesn't help considering none of them do what Pemalite is suggesting ("8-9" screen with a 1440P AMOLED or better panel", "specs initiatlly for the Switch, I'm a hardware enthusiast") Nintendo do with the Switch's iterations. I never argued against different models, don't get upset because you assumed that, Soundwave.

The specs can vary. I've measured the Switch's total screen + wasted black bezel area ... a screen of 7.3 inches or so would be easy to accomodate for example without changing even the size of the unit. 

They could use a still cheap 1080P screen, which would maintain a very nice pixel density at that size, while also allowing for better table top play. 

With a Tegra X2 they could have the chip run at docked mode (so ARMS, Mario Kart 8, and other games could run in docked mode portably at 1080P) in "XL Plus" Switch model. 

Besides what's wrong with a larger upgrade even later on? There was a vocal minority on this very board 1 year ago crying foul at rumors of a PS4 Pro and Scorpio and I even had a professed game designer telling me a NX with dual performance modes would be impossible because it would be too hard to program.

Well where's all the outrage over the PS4 Pro? Have consumers stopped buying PS4s in rage? Nope. And all those people have by and large just shut up. Sony is scoring larger profits than ever, in part because that PS4 Pro gives them a fatter profit margin, probably a good $20-$30 more/unit, if that's about 20% of all PS4 sales ... that's a nice fat chunk of easy profit. It's not 1994 anymore, things like the 32X are not what's going to happen, it's going to be more like Apple releasing multiple phone and tablet models at multiple power options with a unified OS/dev environment ... consumers gladly accept that and understand that and we see that with the PS4 line having no problems accomodating multiple models now. 

I think you trying to compare Switch with mobile phones and tablets, but true about mobile phones and tablets is that despite 1080p or 1440p screens games running at much lower resolution, games that would run even at native 1080p resolution on phones would drain battery very fast. You also need to consider that on Switch you have full console games not mobile games like you have on phones and tablets and they offcourse requre much more power and stronger battery. Games that runs at higher resolution and actual native resolution, requires stronger hardware and stronger battery in any case.

Despite Switch screen is 720p on 6", games look beautiful on Switch screens, definitely don't look like shit.

I think we will 1st see smaller, cheaper Switch with stronger battery that will be replace 3DS price point na market, before stronger Switch.

Agree, I think we will 1st see smaller, cheaper Switch with stronger battery that will be replace 3DS price point na market, before stronger Switch.

Guess Sony pissed consumers with PS4 Pro.

Exactly all that bruhaha about how PS4 Pro was going to piss off consumers ... a whole lot of nothing. Where are those people who were crying about that anyway? They've gone deathly quiet now.

Guess what? Scorpio will increase MS' hardware sales and they will likely make a fatter profit margin on the Scorpio too, just as Sony does.

Beyond that a mid-gen refresh would work better for Nintendo IMO, for PS4 Pro or Scorpio you really need a 4KTV, which is an additional $1000-$2000 investment.

A Tegra Xavier based Switch around 2020 would come with everything needed right out of the box for $300. No big deal.

Also the Switch is not the same hardware philosophy as the Game Boy/DS line was ... the Tegra X1 was until the X2 came out (and it's only available now in limited quantities for Jetson kits for hobbyist developers) the most powerful mobile chip on the market or pretty damn close to it. It's so powerful the current Switch can't even run it at 80% clock. It's a $300 device, which is a premium device price point. This is not some cheap little toy with a 10 year old chip. It's a 2015 chip in a product that likely was supposed to be out for fall 2016, that's likely the most up to date chip Nintendo has used since perhaps the Nintendo 64.

The Switch is not relying on casual gimmicks either to *drive* hardware adoption, there is no Wii Sports or Brain Training 20 million seller here that's causing Switch to fly off shelves or soccer moms lining up for it. This is a different kind of product, indeed more in line with Nintendo's 90s philosophy of reasonably higher end tech. As such I think there's greater incentive to keep the hardware relatively fresh and able to offer higher-end experiences as it's more central to the appeal of the system. It's not a gimmick-driven platform as the Wii was that's going to rely on things like Wii Sports for sales, nor is it a budget $99 Game Boy that's mainly going to sell to Pokemon kids, it cannot have fading appeal over the years to enthusiast gamers or be seen as something that is out of date. 

Don't split the userbase. Switch just needs a more compact design with a longer battery life. Performance level is fine for what it is and the type of games it will get.

Saying that if they decide to act on their VR patent and produce a 1080p screen version that is a little more powerful purely for VR games and slips into a visor I'd be happy with that as long as it remains the same for standard Switch games. Although with its 1080p screen it will play Switch games in docked performance mode while portable of course if you are happy to sacrifice the battery runtime. That's the great thing about the Switch in the fact the upgrade path is easy, docked performance mode becomes portable mode. What I hope they don't do though is a higher performance docked mode than the standard Switch.

Has PS4 Pro "split the userbase"?

Nope. 

It's not 1994 anymore, times have changed, the way consumers look at different models is very different from the industry that was 20-30 years ago (which is funny because you have a bunch of teens/20 somethings here who try to talk definitively about that era when the truth is they were in their diapers then or not even born yet). 

The Switch is not the GB/DS/3DS either. People need to stop thinking about it as such. The biggest reason it's succeeding is because Nintendo was smart and realized releasing a "DS3" that was a typical Nintendo portable would not work. Why? Because people on this board still do not understand how much of an impact mobile/tablet gaming has had on the lower portion of the market. If Nintendo did that they would not sell even 3DS numbers. 

You have to give people a "wow" experience with a portable game machine now if you're going to get them to pay big money, otherwise I mean "bite size" gaming ... who cares. For too many people it's like "why should I pay $50 a a game for that when I can just have fun with these free games?". 

You gotta give people console type experiences now in a portable. It's the only way to give portable gaming value in a world where low end mobile games have eaten everyone else's lunch. 

And there's nothing wrong with that, but the point is that you're in the minority, man. You can be a Ferrari enthusiast too, but go driving up the highway and you'll find a lot more Kias, Fords and Chevys. You can be a photojournalism enthusiast, and there is definitely still a market for you, but 99 percent of people* are satisfied with the crappy camera on their cell phones.

*I made that number up. Don't quote me with an actual stat, person who tends to miss the point, because you know it's beside the point. You know who you are. Just don't do it. Fight the urge. Fight it.

It's less a Ferrari analogy though and more of gaming adopting an upgrade path more akin to smartphones/tablets (not quite yearly updates, but in the line of major refreshes every 3-4 years sandwhiched by lesser upgrades perhaps every 18 months or so). 

And nothing is more mainstream than those devices. 

People like buying electronics, the whole thing of the "angry consumer pissed off that company X/Y/Z is offering a better product" is simply an outdated concept in today's world. Even look at the Switch, how many Nintendo fans on this board were saying it was catastrophic if Nintendo dared to ditch the Wii U before the holy rule of 5 year support? 

Well Nintendo has had literally zero real backlash to their decision to move on. Sony has had zero for PS4 Pro. And MS is likely going to get little/none for Scorpio. Times, they have changed.