You know the other 66% belong to Creatures Inc and Game Freak, Nintendo own 30% of each company, right? Also, Nintendo still own the name of game and all Pokemon. Sony can buy the 66% left but can't use the name  or any Pokemon appeared in the series, unless Nintendo allow to sell it to Sony. You didn't sayyou want Pokemon on PS but you mentioned Pokemon will have no choice but come to PS. And remember, Switch is using the Tegra chip which was provided by Nvidia and Xavier come out this year, smartphone/table always get upgrade model each year with stronger mobile chip. Show me a mobile chip from ADM  that is stronger than X1 and cost only $250 which last 4 - 5 hours or even 10 hours like you said

Once again, Nin only own a minority portion. If PS were to get their hands on a majority, regardless of what deals they had to make, then Nin now has no choice but to work with and negotiate with PS. If this were to ever happen, Nin would basically be forced to put Pokemon on PS devices, because if they didn't, PS would just roadblock Nin at all corners and could even purposely run Pokemon into the ground. Then what happens once Nin's "savior" has been tarnished? This kind of thing happens all the time in big business, and while I don't see this ever happening, your point about Switch failing is what led us here. Smartphones and tablets are devices that have been out for years and have a proven record. Switch is a brand new concept and has no history or record, so assuming it will follow any upgrade standard is as wild as a guess as a PS portable. If you insist on following records, then either Switch 2 will fail just like how Wii U failed, or Nin will drop the hybrid idea and come out with something completely different.

You've been told multiple times that the new Ryzen 2500u/2700u can meet those requirements, other than the price since we don't know what it would cost exactly in a few years. However, when you are asked to prove that a Switch 2 is on the way and that it will use an X3, your evidence is based solely on other products, which doesn't count, because if it did, then I can say the same thing and be equally as justified.

It wasn't my hypothetical thought, I'm just expanding on it.  Considering the thought of Switch failing due to a new PS Portable, was followed by a question directed to me about Pokemon and how it can solve all problems, my reply was simply if Switch fails, what does Pokemon matter? That question was never answered, and so I gave the option that Pokemon could be on PS devices. It also could be held back from PS devices in this case, but that would most certainly hurt the franchise unless Nin came out with totally new hardware that nobody knows about. Since those types of possibilities aren't acceptable in conversations about the future of hardware apparently, only facts about the here and now, I could only assume that putting Pokemon on PS devices made the most sense. What if the other 66% of Pokemon were sold to PS, then what?

Nin owns 33%, so what if PS were to buy the other 66%? Not sure how history plays into Switch since it's the very first Nin hybrid ever right? I also said a more capable Switch can't exist if a PS Portable couldn't, so if you believe that's not true, then you must agree PS could create a competitor. I never said I wanted Pokemon on PS, I just said in that specific scenario it would be a good idea if not necessary. I never said I want Nin or Switch to fail, but you mentioned Switch failing in a prior post, so what is it that you have against Nin?

Once again, Nin only own a minority portion. If PS were to get their hands on a majority, regardless of what deals they had to make, then Nin now has no choice but to work with and negotiate with PS. If this were to ever happen, Nin would basically be forced to put Pokemon on PS devices, because if they didn't, PS would just roadblock Nin at all corners and could even purposely run Pokemon into the ground. Then what happens once Nin's "savior" has been tarnished? This kind of thing happens all the time in big business, and while I don't see this ever happening, your point about Switch failing is what led us here. Smartphones and tablets are devices that have been out for years and have a proven record. Switch is a brand new concept and has no history or record, so assuming it will follow any upgrade standard is as wild as a guess as a PS portable. If you insist on following records, then either Switch 2 will fail just like how Wii U failed, or Nin will drop the hybrid idea and come out with something completely different.

You've been told multiple times that the new Ryzen 2500u/2700u can meet those requirements, other than the price since we don't know what it would cost exactly in a few years. However, when you are asked to prove that a Switch 2 is on the way and that it will use an X3, your evidence is based solely on other products, which doesn't count, because if it did, then I can say the same thing and be equally as justified.

If this is the case than how come there are still new Donkey Kong Country games on Nintendo Consoles if Rare was bought by Microsoft? Even if Sony hypothetically bought the rest of GameFreak, Nintendo can use another studio to make new Pokemon games. Retro did make DK Tropical Freeze (One of the best 2d platformers of all time).

http://toucharcade.com/2016/07/28/who-owns-pokemon-anyway-its-complicated/

You also have to factor in the fact that most of the higher ups are ex nintendo enplotees, and loyalty is a big part of japanese culture. 

For one, ninty will notice and tey to block off such attempt to steal one of thier two lifelines, and even if they DO, they probably could convice everyone important to quit and re-join ninty or set up a new company. Ninty can do that, cause trademark ownership, leaving sony with an empty husk. An empty husk wich cost them probably more than thier on hand cash, which could seriously destablize sony's financial situation.

So how Microsoft purchased Rare but Donkey Kong was still belong to Nintendo? 33% IP Nintendo own are the name and all Pokemon in the series, they also own a part of Creatures Inc and Game Freak. Sony can buy an empty shell with big money amount of for nothing. Meanwhile, Nintendo can hire a new studio for next Pokemon like Retro make new Donkey Kong, a replacement for Rare. If not X3, what chip it will use? Table/Smartphone get upgrade every year, Switch is using a mobile chip. In 2020, X4 can even come out. What price for the chip the ps4/5 portable will use? And don't tell me it is digital only or it will have the same fate as PSP Go

So how Microsoft purchased Rare but Donkey Kong was still belong to Nintendo? 33% IP Nintendo own are the name and all Pokemon in the series, they also own a part of Creatures Inc and Game Freak. Sony can buy an empty shell with big money amount of for nothing. Meanwhile, Nintendo can hire a new studio for next Pokemon like Retro make new Donkey Kong, a replacement for Rare. If not X3, what chip it will use? Table/Smartphone get upgrade every year, Switch is using a mobile chip. In 2020, X4 can even come out. What price for the chip the ps4/5 portable will use? And don't tell me it is digital only or it will have the same fate as PSP Go

Because Rare never owned the Donkey Kong IP, they only licenced it from Nintendo for the DKC games.

Nintendo always was the owner of the Donkey Kong IP:

So basically Nin goes ahead and continues to create Pokemon games like usual on either new Nin devices or non PS devices and PS collects 66% of the profits for doing absolutely nothing? That's an even better deal for PS and way less work.

Switch is using a mobile chip you say? Well luckily PS4 is using a mobile chip as well. X4 in 2020 you say? What about Ryzen 9820u SuperTeraFlopaLastaRippa APU in 2020 that has 8hr battery life, all for only $300?