NSW successor not coming in 2022 confirmed for those who suggest it, I still think if this FY and next FY continue to do close to/above 20mil then a successor won’t come intill end of 2024 or spring 2025. Most people seem to be on board with 2023 spring which doesn’t make sense to me

I think unless the Switch continues to sell insane numbers in 2022, we will see a successor in either holiday 2023 or first half 2024 (as that time slate seemed to work well for Switch) I don't at all see it happening prior to then regardless and if the console keeps selling it could definitely be even later.

Remember when people thought PS5 was for sure coming in 2019? Those same people think Switch successor must be coming 2022. Nintendo has it's own plans as always. :P

Yes this exactly. Longer they wait the more powerful the Switch 2 will be, which means the smaller the gap will be with the home consoles, which means the more likely Switch 2 will be able to get current multiplat games.

With how popular Switch is it never made any sense to suggest it would be replaced in 2022, I don't understand where those people are coming from. I think Spring 2023 has always been the earliest reasonable guess, but holiday 2023 or spring 2024 is far more likely. I'm all for spring 2024 as by then I think Nintendo will be able to launch a Switch 2 that will have a smaller gap with home consoles than the current Switch gap, leading to much better third party multiplat support, and March launch worked for Switch having two huge buying seasons for year 1 so it makes sense they'll do it again.

The "wait for years to have better hardware argument" is non-sensical.

For starters the PS5 and XB2 are not magical unicorns. The RDNA2 architecture they use is only now catching up to Nvidia chips from 2 years ago. AMD seriously lags behind Nvidia. Nvidia Ampere (which a 2023 Nvidia chip would likely be based on) will still be architecturally better than RDNA2, so as long as the chip is Ampere based it will have the architecture that's better than what's on RDNA2 chips. There is no point in waiting for Orin based chips to have better architecture than RDNA2, Ampere will already do that without much fuss. 

The Switch 2 chip really would only need to be about the same to the PS5 as the Tegra X1 was to the XB1 circa 2015.

If it is and you add in DLSS 2.0 or 3.0 implementation, the Switch 2 becomes basically effectively 3-4x more powerful because it only needs to draw 1/4-1/15th the pixels is some cases.

If DLSS had been available on the current Switch, it would be able to run PS4/XB1 games no problem.

The issue with waiting so long is third parties invest too much into PS5/XBSX/PC's pipeline that those systems become their focus, they're not going to care that much about a platform that is starting way back at 0 in 2024 when PS5 is well past probably 50 million units by then + whatever XBox has.

The current Switch can actually handle a lot more PS4/XB1 ports, devs just don't want to bother with it because the PS4 + XB1 + PC userbase is so far ahead and they don't want to change mid-cycle that much. Timing is as important as hardware, if you wait too long developers have already made their bed for the generation and are not going to be as amenable to including something else. 

No. Just no.

First off no one is saying wait years to get a more powerful system. Most people agree 2023-2024 launch is when would make sense, but if the later part of that range means a Switch 2 that can handle home console ports without a ton of issues and therefore it will get way more multiplats then it makes sense to launch in the later part of the reasonable Switch 2 launch range unless the Switch is totally dead by 2023 which seems incredibly unlikely.

And why are you talking about magical unicorns? Home consoles are obviously more powerful than a portables. No the Switch can not handle more than the PS4/XB1, that's ludicrous, it isn't nearly as powerful as them.

At least you are right about one thing, devs don't want to bother with porting games to Switch, but you're wrong about the reason. If Switch could easily handle those games like you suggest then of course they would port them, otherwise they'd just be throwing away money. The whole strategy behind mutliplats is to get them on as much hardware as possible. They don't bring them to Switch because it takes a lot of effort to port it over and figure out how to get it running well on Switch and what downgrades should be put in and trying to figure out if it'd just be so downgraded as to not be a good experience so people won't even be interested in it. And that is the whole point of waiting later in the launch range for Switch 2 if that means getting that extra bit of power to bring it close enough to the home consoles that third parties don't have to try to figure out if porting and downgrading a game to the Switch 2 is gonna leave it in a poor state, they'll just be able to port it over with perhaps a few simple graphical downgrades equivalent to lowering the settings on the game (i.e. lower res, shorter draw distance, little bit lower frame rate, but everything else the same).

Saying third parties won't invest in Switch 2 because they're just gonna stick to PS5/XBS/PC pipeline is the whole point of what we're talking about. We want a Switch 2 that is powerful enough to be in that pipeline! To say that is non-sensical is itself non-sensical!

I said the current Switch can run more PS4/XB1 games than it currently gets, developers don't want to bother because it came out too late in the game. 

The Tegra X1 was released in May 2015 ... the PS4 was only 1 1/2 years old at that point, it's already capable of running PS4 games. 

The Tegra X1 can basically draw basically the same visuals a PS4 can, the main difference is it has to do so at a lower resolution, so you get an image that's blurrier/more distorted. I think devs look at that and say "well it's going to be an ugly looking port, not worth our time". Mortal Kombat, Witcher 3, DOOM, etc. do run pretty well on Switch, the main issue with them really is they image quality is kind of ugly and I think that is putting devs off (why put in the effort to make a Switch version when the end product is going to look image wise a good deal worse). 

DLSS completely changes that, it will let Switch 2 to render at even lower resolutions while having image quality that's actually better. You'll be able to get a very solid 720p-1080p image undocked reconstructed up from as low as 640x360 (this is N64 tier resolution, lol). Docked you'll be able to get 1440p-full 4K easy while only rendering 720p. Lower actual base resolution also means you can bump up the graphical details, you don't have to have everything on low settings, you have overhead horsepower now that you didn't before. 

As long as Nvidia can give Nintendo a chip for 2023 that is equivalent to what the Tegra X1 was for 2015, they will be able to do PS5 ports easier than what's possible now with Switch-PS4. DLSS 2.0 completely changes the pixel resolution requirements that dramatically. 

So as long as the Switch 2 is basically equivalent to what the current Switch is relative to XB1, you'll have next-gen ports that are easier to do. The architecture is the big thing, AMD's RDNA2 is basically only catching up now to Nvidia Turing from 2018, Ampere will be better than Turing. As long as the architecture is there it's really then just what performance (resolution + fps) you can get, but DLSS is a game changer on that front. 

Just simply not true. You really think developers are like "oh Switch came out too late so we're not gonna bother with it!" REALLY?? That's absurd.

Let me try to explain this very clearly because you just don't seem to understand what is going on here:

Developers will put games on systems where they think they will make a lot of money. Switch has been out for 3 years and has blown by XB1 sales despite coming out later. Developers don't have a cut off date per-generation for when they'll make games for a system based on when it launches as you seem to think, they put games on systems based on the first sentence in this paragraph: will it make good money. Money comes from excited userbase, which in part relies on the ability to have the game be good on the system, and size of that system's userbase. It would make far more sense for them to put games on Switch instead of XB1 despite it coming out later because the Switch has a larger userbase that will continue to grow far larger for years to come.

The reason they don't is the power difference. They either have to make two different games for PS4 and Switch, or downgrade it a lot to the point where gamers might just not be interested in it, or they have to do a lot of work in conjunction with downgrades to highly optimize it for the Switch. They generally don't want to do the first option because that involves making two separate games so costs and requires a second team just to make the same game. They sometimes do the second option but that usually leads to poor sales plus bad will so they don't want to do that either. And there are a few instances of the third option like Witcher 3 which has gotten a lot of praise for being on the Switch but they again usually don't bother with doing this because it takes a lot of work. Why don't they want to bother with doing a lot of work you might ask? It's not because they years ago said oh the Switch came out too late so arbitrarily and against all business sense we'll simply ignore this highly successful system for its entire life despite the fact that we could make tons of money off of by porting multiplats. They don't bother with it because they can already hit two out of three systems with a straight port without having to worry about downgrading the game to the point where it runs poorly and people won't buy it or spending a ton of effort optimizing a port so the downgrades aren't terrible. Instead they can just do a straight port to the XB1, and even though it is a less popular system it means an easier and better port which means more excited userbase which means easier to make money. If Switch 2 closes the gap so a few quick and easy graphical changes to multiplats equivalent to just adjusting some graphical settings down can make it run well on Nintendo's system that'll lead to much more third party support. This imaginary cut off date of yours doesn't exist. Businesses make decisions for business reasons, not imaginary reasons.

If the Switch came out the same day that it did but was a decent amount more powerful to the point where PS4/XB1 games could easily be ported over there would be a hell of a lot more AAA multiplats on the system. Period. There are no imaginary cut off dates when developers decide they'll only support previously launched systems. The fact that you had to come up with this crazy cut off date theory should be a red flag to you when making this argument.

You can port PS4 games to the Switch ... they're just going to be uglier mainly in terms of image quality, especially undocked. I think that's another turn off for devs, why bother putting in the effort for a version that's going to look like someone smeared vaseline all over the screen with a bunch of jaggies everywhere. They want to protect the reputation of their AAA brands as being visual showcases. 

DLSS changes that equation massively in favor of Switch though. 

If the current Switch had DLSS it would be able to run games like The Witcher 3 and the graphics and image quality would be considerably closer to the PS4/XB1, quite possibly better than the XB1 actually.  

If the current Switch had DLSS for example it could run Witcher 3 at 640x360 undocked (less than half the resolution it does now) which then means you can now increase effects. Docked it would run at 1080p (DLSSed from 540p only) easily with better effects to boot.

Nvidia just needs to basically give Nintendo the same tier of chip the current Tegra X1 is compared to XB1/PS4, relative to what the PS5 is. You have to factor in DLSS to that equation, because it basically means a Switch 2 can easily be "only" 1/3 (docked)-1/8 (undocked) the performance of the PS5, but it will still be able to very comfortably handle ports with a pretty decent image quality (docked will be very nice). The current Switch is about 1/3 the performance of the XB1/PS4, if Nvidia can hit that gap which shouldn't be a big problem, DLSS will take care of the rest. 

To be honest the PS5 specs are not very impressive in the grand scheme of things. It's basically probably little less than Nvidia's 2080 GPU ... which launched 2 years ago. Not only that there's apparently the lower end XBox Lockheart (or whatever its called) that's only going to be only 4 teraflops. That could be a very nice boon for Nintendo too, because that is going to be easy as cake to get ports from, Switch 2 with DLSS 2.0 will be actually functionally more powerful than that. AMD does not have DLSS all they have is a sharpening filter. 

Nintendo typically but not always does 6 years before we get a successor. What it was for Wii and DS despite their success.