I suppose Microsoft will say developers have to support the Series S, though that makes me wonder if that is gonna lead more third parties to be Sony exclusives. But if third parties actually do support Microsoft in their two-version setup, then yeah that could help Switch 2 a ton in getting new AAA third party games, something that simply doesn't exist on Switch.

I assume basically games on XBSeries will be something like 4k/90fps on the X and then 1080p/30-60fps or maybe still 4k but no more than 30fps on the S, with maybe some draw distance drops or something like that. As in, they'll probably make the changes as easy as possible to implement, keep the same assets and just drop the settings, and the Switch 2 should be able to handle close to what the S handles, so it shouldn't need downgraded graphics and a lot of work the way the Switch needs now to get PS4/XB1 ports. Instead Switch 2 should be able to get almost straight ports from the Series S.

This will definitely not happen, they need a longer life to make sure Switch 2 is roughly on par with Series S. So no, they aren't gonna cut their best money making machine ever just to hope to get third party games on their next system a little sooner, especially when that might actually backfire and make it harder for them to get third party games by releasing a weaker system earlier.

Also, knowing Nintendo, they won't even take all this into consideration, it'll just be the fact that the Switch is super popular so it'll be in the market for a long time and when a successor does come out in like 2024 it'll be able to handle Series S games without much work beyond just the straight porting work.

You have that backwards. 

It is going to be EASIER for Nintendo to get on par with this generation than the PS4/XB1 generation.

People can spin this all day long but the fact is this generation of machines have a much lower floor than the PS4/XB1 did. 

4 TFLOPS is much, much easier for Nintendo to get games from for 2023 than matching a PS4/XB1 was in 2015 for the Tegra X1. 

The equivalent of this is more like if Sony also released a PS4 Lite or something in 2013 that was only 1/3 the PS4 ... the Switch that can already handle ports of Witcher 3 and Dragon Quest XI and DOOM OK .... imagine for a moment many, many PS4 multiplatform games all had performance modes that operated at 1/3 the power of a PS4 ... anyone trying to claim that wouldn't be a major difference is a fucking liar. 

Again so many people are threatened by this idea lol, but whatever. The fact is the floor for this next gen is definitely lower because of the Series S. 

There's going to be a lot of games sitting on XBox Series S that are going to be much, much easier to port to a Switch 2 than the current dynamic that exists between Switch to PS4 to XB1. The Switch 2 doesn't need to exactly match the Series S either, if just needs to be in a somewhat similar ball park, even 2.5 TFLOP docked with a modern architecture like Ampere would do the trick for many, many games. 

A game running at 1080p on Series S (4K on Series X), but you have to understand because of DLSS 2.0 on Switch 2 that same game could run at 360p undocked and 576p docked resolution (upscales nicely to 900p undocked and 1440p docked). There what's left of your performance gap shrinks considerably. 

You don't need even 4 TFLOPS when you're only asking for a modern GPU design to display a resolution of 360p-576p (sub GameCube/PS2 level for undocked, lol).

The Switch online is on Par with the PS3 in terms of functionality.

- All native voice chat had to be withing the game's code as there was no party chat.

- There were no private servers set aside for PS3 by Sony for 3rd parties, resulting in a lot of Peer2Peer gameplay.

- Lacking compared to the competition in this aspect.

There is no reason to believe GTAV online would not run at an acceptable level on the Switch.  Such a claim sounds like lame PR and excuses to me.  As Rol said, all politics.

The game is also a 100GB download in its current state. 

If there are "politics" it likely stems from there being a bad history between the GTA team and Nintendo, but that is a very specific case, 99% of the world's developers today didn't work with Nintendo on a N64 2nd party game that Nintendo cancelled and several staff members quit. 

I think Switch 2 docked will be a slightly beefier PS4. Not close to XSS.

Also games need to work in portable mode. I Portable mode will probably be equivalent to XB1 ish levels. So games will have to be optimised for that. Much weaker than XSS.

A "beefier" PS4 with a modern GPU/CPU architecture (Ampere or Hopper), more RAM, better CPU, faster flash storage (NFS 3.0 speed or faster) that only has to render at 360p/576p would be close to the XSS. 

Much closer than a current Switch is to a XBox One.

The PS4 is hamstrung by an ancient GCN-based (2013-era) architecture and a shit CPU that even an ARM A78 will destroy. But the Switch 2 won't have those limitations, architecture wise if its Turing or better it has equal/better architecture than the PS5/XBS/X. 

So much of the PS5/XSX's power is eaten up by having to render at 1800p-4K resolution, even for Series S, if its 1080p target resolution, that's way higher than 360p/576p. 

Wishful thinking: The thread.

I would bet good money you also would have said Witcher 3 on the Switch is impossible. 

That actually is far harder to do than likey what Switch 2 to XSS will be.

For starters take the PS4 and cut its power down to 1/3 (600 GFLOPS) for a secondary model. You're full of shit if you're going to claim that wouldn't be a significant difference for the Switch in how easily it could run current game. That changes A LOT of things. 

If 3rd parties had a ready made 500-600 GFLOP version of every multiplatform game sitting around, porting those to Switch would be far, far more doable considering the Switch even as is still gets ports of games like Witcher 3, DOOM, DQXI, NBA 2K, Overwatch, etc. (a 394 GFLOP processor having to port games from systems that are 1.2 TF-1.8 TF, yet even that is entirely possible in many cases). 

You are  basically arguing with yourself. You try to answer for me and argue points you put in my mouth.

That's quite something.