No; Switch's chipset was 2 years ahead of PS4/Xbone and those systems had low end CPUs and mid range GPUs for their time.

The Switch successor you propose would be only 1 year or less newer than PS5/XSX which have higher end parts for their time.

As such, the gap would be much bigger and a Switch 2 using a 2020/2021 mobile SoC would be less able to run AAA PS5/XSX games than Switch is able to run AAA PS4/Xbone games.

If you want AAA PS5/XSX ports, you'll have to wait longer for mobile tech to catch up.

- So the tech you're on about isn't even released that makes this point even more pointless you know why? Because we're talking about active tech in the dedicated gaming portable market which is the whole point.

- Releasing a successor means the would be two platforms to then focus on and support and your reasoning for wanting a successor doesn't warranted such a situation especially as the platforms the successor will be deal with have opted to use higher than usual tech for consoles meaning rushing out a new platform seriously hurts chances of the ports you're touting.

- It is rushing it's a text book knee jerk reaction your whole reasoning of the needing to be a new platform to get ports is a rush tactic because in order to be out for 2022 it means that portable tech from now has to be used to be developed into a platform in time for a 2022 release not the tech that comes out in 2021 or 2022. You even said the tech you're talking about is expected to be used meaning it's not on the market yet in other words it would not be whats used in the 2022 platform you're saying should be out you really haven't thought this through as yes it would be rushing especially as PS5 and XSX are using higher level tech than normal for consoles.

Now compare this to how the Switch was handled it was announce 1 and half years in and still had 3 years of R&D it's reasoning for being developed was to compound both the portable and home console sides into one platform as it was no longer viable to have two simultaneous platforms out as even Sony themselves failed at that. Budgets have been increasing since the 360 15 years ago yet developer behaviour remains the same the only reason they do Switch versions is because they're running out of room to avoid the platform and they have to answer to shareholders publishers and developers aren't as willing because it has always come down to business approach and the approach on Nintendo platforms bring in different type of consumers who aren't as receptive to the practices these publishers and developers employ. I guarantee you that is TW3 never was ported over many of them would be using the power excuse.

Considering this premise, if PS5 and Xbox Series X tech are higher end parts this time, and if the Switch successor needs to wait until mobile tech catch up to get those AAA ports, then Nintendo will have to wait much longer than the 2 years that the original Switch needed, maybe to wait at least to 2023 tech and release at 2025.

-And still, Switch does not have the most powerful tech, it has the one balanced enough to give consumers good performance and price. We don't need to look for to infer tech has improve since 2015 and that the TegraX1 chip inside Switch is not the most powerful one, when even Nvidia has already the TegraX2. The other ones are more expensive or for used other purposes right now, which means that they could modify or tweak them and implement in the portable market. There are also rumors about AMD and Samsung being a possible provider for the next console if Nvidia does not have tech ready for Nintendo, with apparently the same architecture than the next gen consoles. We don't know what kind of chipset the successor is going to use, maybe one already released by that time, maybe one done specifically for Nintendo, maybe the AMD's RDNA new ones.

-With retrocompatibility, some developers can target the original Switch and those games could still work on the successor. New games could work on the successor. The only way they'd have to support two different platforms is if they have different architecture that prevents them to make Switch games work on the successor. Mid gen refresher by 2026 could work as good as PS4Pro, XboxX or New 3DS.

-This is not a tactic to get ports, it is one to get the tech that the industry is going to use for further development. The new console don't need to be on par to the next gen consoles, just have the tech that allow most developers to do Switch's successor versions of their games. That's all. Like I mentioned to Curl, waiting until mobile tech catch up to PS5/XBX tech is going to be a long way, up to the point that we could be looking for a 2025 release, 8 years after the original Switch. And I wouldn't be sure that the console will not sustain high sales during that long period, or at least not enough to warrant "Wii/DS-like profits" like Nintendo is looking for.

At this point, third parties are willing to give them "late ports" of this and last gen. By 2024? I doubt it. PC/PS5/XSX pool is big enough to just ignore a platform that may require a big downgrade to get their new games. And I'm not talking only about AAA games, which are still going to be thin in the successor library's compared to the indies and AA games.

Nintendo has said that once they release a new hardware, they always start the R&D of the next one. Successor have already 3 years of R&D, and Switch had at least 4. They don't start R&D after announcement.

Finally, I disagree completly with your last point. Skyrim HD, Doom, Wolfestein and Doom Eternal were announced before TW3. We also have games like Overwatch or Fortnite, heavy online succesful games, before TW released.

If by 2022-2023 they don't release a successor because the tech was not ready for them, it is not going to be the end of the world for Nintendo or for me. They will release one when they consider to be ready. But if by 2022-2023 they release one that has tech enough to satisfy them and other developers, that wouldn't mean it was rushed or that it was a bad bussiness.

Iirc, Iwata mentioned something like this.

- It's the most powerful dedicated gaming portable on the market so no matter what argument you use this fact doesn't change the sheer fact that the only argument you can bring are non gaming devices and tech that's not even being used by anything in dedicated gaming highlights this. 

- What are you even on about here you argued about Nintendo having both platforms alongside each other in order to not cut the Switch short that means Nintendo having to support more than one platform and again with the mid gen refresh nonsense Nintendo is not Sony or MS that's another pointless move as you release a new platform then do a refresh in 4 years, the Switch it self is in its 4th year and still bulldozing the charts, under your notion a refresh would be out now that adds nothing of value. I don't get the logic you're trying to push here it's like you want them to just release hardware for the sake of it.

- It's one to get the tech the industry is going to use by rushing out a platform that won't even be using it? You haven't thought this through you've just given a knee jerk reaction and Curl is correct you have to wait because your suggestion undermines what you actually want to the point that the suggestion's outcome contradicts the argument of why you want the said action the Switch has the luxury of being able to wait for mobile tech to catch up no need to sacrifice that luxury along with its success. PS5 and XSX are high end level tech performance wise going by their specs no current tech is going to match it in the mobile scene and your suggestion would mean current tech would have to be used with a further refresh needed later that's inefficient business as Nintendo could just wait and use better tech later that gets ports easier and won't require a refresh while competing.

Read what was posted Switch was announced a year in not R&D started a year in this meant we knew a confirmed platform to replace the WiiU was on the way and it was still given 3 years of further R&D when replacing a failing platform and you think ports which play a minimal part in Nintendo's current success are going to force them to drop the Switch? Skyrim is a game that was on 360, Doom and such are small linear shooters while TW3 is a large open world game the difference is easy to see and the's a reason why after TW3 power stopped being used as an excuse as TW3 was and still is the most demanding game of the gen until Cyberpunk arrives.

It's not just about tech being ready it's also about factors like performance, platform and business situation, how your competition is performing, strategic timing etc... The irony is what you're suggesting is something they did before to get third party support it's called the WiiU.

-My point still stands. Being the most powerful one currently does not neglect that there's already better tech out there. I don't even know what are you suggesting here.

-New Nintendo 3DS is the same as a Pro or Series X. A Switch Pro is rumored. How are those different from the Microsoft and Sony ones? I have said over several post why I believe is a good move in my opinion, and I will say once again: a new console is not going to cut the legs of the past one as long as it keeps getting support. Having retrocompatibility is going to guarantee some small developers that their games are going to appear on both consoles.

-How do you know that the tech used for a 2022-2023 Switch successor is something that it is not going to be used in the future? I also would like to know how my opinion is a knee jerk reaction when you were the ones that quoted my post in the first place. And, if by any means, Nintendo does what I suggest, are we going to feel that the console is rushed because of the time of release, ignoring the specs or tech that could be behind? You already said that PS5 and XSX tech is high end and we should wait, but why until 2024? Why wait not until 2025 or 2026 when mobile tech progress even more? Even the OP is suggesting 2025, not 2024, which will be rushed too.

-Skyrim HD is based on the remaster that came to PS4 and XboxX. Doom and Doom Eternal are considered demanding games. And the power "excuse" is still present to some companies (at least now), even after TW3 release. Not all engines work or have been ported to the Switch. And I still satnd by my point: those games still came out and TW3 release has nothing to do with that. New games are not going to be greenlighted because they are forced to do by shareholders because TW3 proves that Switch could handle games from the current generation.

-And I'm taking that other factors into consideration. They don't need to wait until Switch sales are dry to release a successor. They don't need to wait for an arbitrary year for tech if it is ready for them. And the Wii U is far from a good attempt to get third party support. Wii U launched at holiday 2012, 2 years after the last good Wii year in sales and a majority of the userbase moved on to new hardware, in fact it would prove that a newer console released soon as 2011 would have still part of the userbase ready to move to the new console. Their supposed "attempt" had PS3/360 similar tech behind it when the next gen was going to arrive a year later.

-And again, you are labeling third party games or Switch 2 versions as ports. I mentioned before that imo they are going to try get same day versions, not late ports.

If by the time I suggest the successor the tech is not ready for Nintendo's bussiness, then it is ok to me for being wrong. But if they feel confident on releasing a successor by the time I suggest, that has the tech that would allow to keep getting third party support, then I would not feel like that console was rushed to the market.

- Mate it's not hard to understand when someone says most powerful dedicated gaming portable and you come up with non gaming tech or tech not even on the market you've not made a point at all it's like some one saying this particular Range/Land Rover is the fastest you can buy and you trying to bring up formula 1 vehicles or sports cars it not only comically doesn't fall into any of the said context it just becomes pushing a null and void point.

- New 3DS is a prime example of why your suggestion is bad how many games took advantage of it only one and that one from the platform holder themselves you know why? Because developers aren't going to ignore the rest of the userbase, Switch Pro was rumoured so many times it's a meme now last time they were sure a pro model was coming Switch Lite turned up instead.

- You want to know how we know? In order to release in 2022 tech available now you know the tech that won't do as good a job keeping up with platforms that match high end PC performances, 2024 was the minimum I gave not the only release date they can release it in 2025 and this was to ideally meet your better ports notion as in order to get that scenario 2022 is too early so Nintendo releasing a platform then would mean they're not considering what you are in fact it'll indicate it wasn't as much a factor for them. Your suggestion of rushing out a platform for ports in 2022 is a mind set of these platforms are coming out lets get a platform out quickly to keep getting ports that's what is know as a knee jerk reaction.

- Skyrim is a remaster of a 360 game the assets and all are the exact same only difference is it has a more stable engine and some different lighting I know as I mod the game on PC it was never a massive power required to run it, Doom and Eternal are demanding games yes but they are still small scale linear shooters these type of games are much easier to scale down than a demanding large scale open world game like TW3 which has more active elements. Yes shareholders can force a situation you know why? As investors it's their money powering the company and example is a Capcom being pressed constantly by them on MH for the Switch with recently being unveiled something is now in the works.

- Non of what you've posted indicates you've taken such factors in which is why the WiiU is the perfect example of what you're suggesting in fact it represents it down to a tee from releasing a more powerful hardware straight away to keep up instead of phasing out a prior success to trying to play part of the power game for multiplatform titles. You know why 2010 was the last good year for Wii? Because they had moved focused on to the WiiU in the developer reel for the platform developers told of how they were approached and introduced to the concept back in 2010 meaning those quiet years leading to WiiU were because they effectively did what you suggest they do with the Switch, the irony is what you're trying to point out in the shortcomings with the WiiU as a defence is what would happen in what you're pushing, PS5 and XSX are even higher level than what their predecessors were the latter were mid level. This is why the's a view that the current success has to be seen out in a more organic manner that's in line with the factors of the current success then trying to keep in line with those that have little bearing on it.

- Multiplatform games are ports always have been whether released together or staggered.

Releasing in 2024 or 2023 would probably get the job done, but 2021/2022 will severely limit what ports it can get.

The Tegra X1 launched in May 2015 ... so it was only 1 1/2 years older than the PS4/XB1, and it was cheap from day 1 ... the Shield console was $199.99 in May 2015 so the chip itself was never that expensive. 

There are other factors too. The possible implementation of DLSS can make a Switch 2, 2-3x more powerful in effective usage because the system can render at insanely low resolutions and save most of its power for visuals rather than being taxed for resolution.

There's also XBox Lockhart which Phil Spencer has all but confirmed as a cheaper XBox next-gen option ... the existence of that model means there's actually a lower bar for Nintendo to have to hit, if Switch 2 is close to the Lockhart model in power plus it has DLSS on top of that (so its actually more functionally powerful), than this is actually a better situation than what the Switch-PS4-XB1 is ... much better.

There's also DLSS 3.0 likely coming at some point, who knows maybe you'll be able to go down to some insane resolution like 320x240 (N64/SNES era resolution) and still be able to reconstruct that image up to 720p-1080p for undocked play. We already have seen 540p-576p DLSS can scale up to 1440p really nicely. 

I wanted to make a thread just like this one, but since it was already there, I'll answer it here.
Late 2024,I think.