Perhaps I was unclear. We know the technology was there. Tegra 2 was out well before the Switch came out - with a Tegra 1 processor. But why would they bother? The DSi and New 3DS are marginal improvements at best (Sony did the same with PSP and PSV revisions), and the experiment of "New 3DS exclusive games" was a disaster and very quickly dropped.

I think it's patently ridiculous to think that not only is Nintendo strongly considering a "Switch Pro" that's significantly more powerful than the original switch, but that they're definitely going to do it less than two years after the release of the original Switch. That's completely insane. Just think of third parties (and if you think third parties are of little relevance, and don't do much to make a platform desirable - first party titles couldn't save the Wii U) Nintendo is looking at what Sony and MS is doing with their Pro and X variants and noticing what I predicted when these consoles were first announced - these consoles do little more than give third party developers more work to do with zero expectation that the investment leads to higher game sales. The vast majority of third party developers do the bare minimum for X/Pro compatibility because it's not worth the effort. Nintendo has historically had a hard enough time attracting third parties to their platforms, and has an even harder time keeping these third parties on their platforms due to struggling sales. A Switch Pro makes developing a game for the Switch that much more expensive, when third parties are already expecting lower sales. Where is the benefit, exactly?

On top of that, due to the reasons I mentioned above amongst others,  the PS4 Pro and X1X aren't the hits many predicted them to be, and I wouldn't be shocked at all if this "1.5" console concept is dropped from future console generations. It's quite plausible that these half platforms will never bring a positive return on the investments they required and continue to require, and now Nintendo of all companies is going to jump on that bandwagon? Come on man.


I don't think you're going to see a significantly more powerful Switch. However, as I mentioned previously, I do see them leveraging improvements in technology to give the Switch improved battery life, or a higher resolution screen (or both) similar to what Nintendo has done in the past with the DSi, and New 3DS. That's what Nintendo has done before, and I don't see any reason why they would break the mold.

AAA Western can be very big, some ps4/xbox 1 games are ~120 GB, digital only mean you need a storage bigger than 500 GB or you will bring a handheld with just 3 - 4 AAA games only, not mention a dozen of small indie games which take up several GBs. And yeah, why don't you name a portable that play game like ps4 which last 4 - 5 hours and cost $250? 

Switch cost ~$260 to make mean they raise it to $300 for profit. PS4 made profit for them till mid 2014, not at launch. The dock boost over %25 power of Switch, no dock, huh? Look like this ps4/5 portable isn't compatible with PS VR base on your prediction. Also, Sony didn't sold PS4 at loss so can't be sure they will accept the loss to sell PS4/PS5 portable

No doubt Sony can built a Switch? In other word, no doubt they can copy Nintendo because it is success. Decent success with  PSP based on hardware sold, not software. PSP is one of the most pirate console of the gaming world. None game in top 10 selling games reach even 8 mil units sold. 

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/261536/top-10-best-selling-psp-games/

As of now, third parties have to make game for ps4 and optimize it for ps4 pro, make game for PS VR also. You are asking them to downgrade them as much as possible to fit on a handheld? The system you are saying will be ps4 portable, and then it will play ps5 games too, a generation ahead ps4/ps4 pro easily like nothing? Sure, if you count out Switch 2 which is also a gen ahead Switch 1 can come out that time with Pokemon as well

The to biggest games in my collection are FFXV 68GB and GTS 64GB. The average game is ~35GB, plenty are in the 15 - 25GB range. So, no PS4 titles are nowhere close to 100 -120GB.

There is no current portable that can play PS4 games, no one is arguing that. There will be tech available by late 2019 to early 2020 that will be capable of it though. Maybe it will only get 2 - 3 hours of gameplay, maybe it will get 4 - 5. I don't even know why 4 - 5 hours is in this debate, I personally think 2 - 3 is fine on a portable, not preferable, but fine. 

As for cost, you are re-iterating my point. Sony is willing to sell at break even or a loss. Nintendo is taking ~$40 profit on each Switch. Does this gaurentee Sony will take a loss? No. Honestly I don't think they would have to, because I think they could do just fine selling at $400, with a small profit.

Regaurding the dock. I think Sony would take the same approach they took with PS4 and the PS Camera. If you want the dock to hook to your TV and PSVR, then it is available for $50 -$100. Otherwise if you are just looking for a device to bring your PS4 library with you on the go, then we aren't going to force you to buy the dock.

I don't think Sony should build a Portable PlayStation to copy or compete with Switch. I think they should build a Portable PlayStation as a logical progression of the Platform that they have built for the last 5 years. They should build a Portable PlayStation to allow their userbase to connect to their games 24/7, and to make a deeper connection with their users, meaning more money spent on PSN software and services. Sony should build a portable PS4 to build the foundation to a new Mobile landscape that can finally end the declining sales, and massive losses they are expereincin with Xperia and Android.

Personally, I don't think the PS4 Portable should play PS5 games. I would prefer to see PS4 Portable and PS4 Premium in 2019, expand the PS4 life until 2022 or later. I think a PS4 Pro portable should drop around the time PS5 launches, with PS5 Portable coming somewhere in the middle of the PS5 life cycle.

There is the chance that Sony will launch PS5 in 2019. Then they may lanuch a PS5 Switch/Portable/Whatever as well. In this case then, I really don't know what the difference between PS4 and PS5 games would be. A ~10 - 12TFLOP PS5 would basically offer PS4 level titles at 4K/60fps, with no added bells and whistles. If this is the case, I could see them dropping the PS4/PS5 games, and just calling them PlayStation games. If you buy a PlayStation game it will work in PS4/PS4 Pro/PS5/PS5 Switch. In that case, yes devs would have to optimize for all PS4 and PS5 varients, but honestly, this is nothing new. Devs built games fro PS2, PSP, and PS3. They built for PSP, PS3, PS Vita, and PS4. Building for PS4/PS4 Pro/PS5/PS5 Switch is still one build, then optimization for each spec. Much, much less work, and a much much larger potential userbase.

I don't even know what to say anymore. Everything purposed is based on looking at the market in 2019 or 2020. 500GB of on board flash in late 2019 or 2020 is going to be super cheap.

3DS to New 3DS: CPU dual core clock at 200 MHZ to quad core clock at 800 MHZ, double processor, RAM 128 MB to 256 MB, VRAM 6 MB to 10 MB, Battery Life 3.5-4 hours (old) to 4.5 - 5.5 hours (new), add C stick (right analog) and L2/R2 button, faster chip for loading and web browsing, Screen 3.5 inch to 3.8 inch (normal size). 3DS: ~ 6 - 7 Gflops, New 3DS: 15 Gflops

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1177455

The idea behind any new Mobile, Portable, or Switch like PlayStation would be to run it on the same chipset as the PS4 or an X86/Radeon APU that is capable of running all PS4 titles without additional dev work. Basically, it would either be another version of the PS4, or Sony would provide tools to make all PS4 software run on the advanced chipset.

Even if it comes down to scaling, it would be an extreamly quick and simple process. 3rd parties have been scaling across X86/Radeon for decades, and even Sony's 1st parties are building scalability into their in house engines. This is nothing like having a PSP,PS Vita, PS3, and PS4 version of the same game, where every one has to have the game completely re-built. 

You are the one who said Ryzen chip only cost $300, you didn't mention the total handheld cost $300 only. No third party are willing to use Switch 32 GB cart, let alone 64 GB or more so your argument is based on nothing. The Ryzen chip came out after X1, X3 (Xavier) also. And you have to remember AAA Western games on ps4 is 100GB or even more, ps4/4 portable can reduce it to 80 GB, yet who is willing to carry a digital only portable with several games that take over 80GB? They have to expand the storage and a small form factor handheld no way can have a very big storage outside Micro SD card. And even efficiency like X1 chip only last 3 hours for AAA games. A ps4/5 portable which is almost a generation ahead Switch with the new chip can cost only $300 as well as 4-5 hours battery life and have ps4 graphic? Wow. Not even the strongest handheld with the newest chip at the moment can do that. You know Sony can do it because you already have it in the different parallel universe, right?

One more thing, look like your "pokemon on ps" illusion and dream was already crushed by everyone

And what's being done with that added horsepower? Essentially nothing. There's about 15 games taking advantage of it, most of them are first party, and most of them are only using it for quicker load times, many others are just taking advantage of the additional inputs. Third party devs are effectively ignoring it.

You are the one who assumed I meant the chip itself would cost $300 when every other time we both assumed the cost was the entire unit. Based on the low cost of Ryzen APU's right now, retail, $300 is clearly way too high for just the chip. Exactly, some third parties don't want to launch their games on the platform, not because they don't think it wont sell, but because it can't be completely sold as physical or digital without taking another extra separate step. You keep saying all PS4 games are 100GB or more, please show me this huge list of games at those sizes, and explain to me how when the games are downgraded to play on the portable that they will still be over 80GB. Yes, expandable storage is necessary for both Nin and PS to keep the retail launch price of the portable low enough to convince people to buy it, so why is this only a problem for PS? Worthwhile portable battery life most likely requires downgraded graphics, like we've talked about before, so why are you saying it would be so horrible because of the games playing at their fullest potential? I said PS can do it, and I've given an example of how I think it could be done, but that doesn't mean it's the only way, or the way that PS would decide to go about it, if they did it at all.

I especially like your definition of "everyone". Your definition is basically the exact opposite of what it means based on your remark. Which also makes me wonder when it comes to the numbers and math you've provided, since to justify "everyone" it would have to be proven with sizable numbers, a majority, something you may have in another universe apparently, but not this one.