In fairness, Patcher said they should have release a Wii HD around 2010... They didn't and went on to flop with the Wii U years later so maybe he was right. 

Three years, that was quick for a replacement.

I think with the launch of the next generation of systems, Nintendo has cover to release a switch SKU at $349 to $399, so long as they keep the cheaper options available. Given that next spring will represent four years since the launch of the switch, and the possible higher price tag, it makes sense to me that we could see a significantly more powerful Switch coming soon.

As for upscaling versus native resolution, I'm not sure that's even relevant discussion at this point. This just tells us that Nintendo is going to market it as 4K capable, and they want developers to know what their new hardware is going to be.

Nothing you said makes any sense.  Wii HD = failure.  Low power Wii = success.  Michael Pachter = wrong.

If this is accurate, then I'd say a Breath of the Wild 2 4K option would be an ideal launch product.

Comprehension is key. Patcher said that it would have been effective for Nintendo to release a Wii HD around 2010, not a Wii U once the Wii was dead and with an unecessary expensive gimmick. Anyway off topic, thats for another thread...

Not a replacement if they both sell alongside each other. It'll also be 4 years by the time its out ;)

I think the whole point of a Wii HD is not to raise the price, but to maintain the initial Wii price and then push the original model's price down to economy model levels. It wouldn't be a hard replacement, but rather a phase in next generation console. While most first/second party software would be dual, many third parties could put their exclusive HD software on the platform: Assassin's Creed 2, Mass Effect, and so-on; and unlike the Wii U, people would actually want to play them on Wii HD.

The biggest problem with Wii U is it didn't advance on the Wii. Instead it went in a very different direction with that big fat Game Gear looking controller, and priced-up the hardware quite a bit above the Wii while only offering HD and a controller that was less compelling what came before it.

Granted, for first-party and second-party titles, I am not a fan of cutting out support of the previous-gen entirely, so the idea of keeping games like Galaxy 2 as dual platform games appealed to me... meanwhile Wii Motion+ would be the primary interface, and Sports Resort, Wii Play 2, and Wii Fit+ would all be Wii HD exclusive (Though they'd probably call it Wii+ or Wii 2). Mario Galaxy 2 would have an HD and SD setting, with Wii HD being the more desirable platform to play it on.

I think it would have potentially pushed the Wii to one or two more 20M+ years in 2012 and 2013. Add in a higher quality feeling classic controller and a wireless sub-controller for the Wiimote, and you're golden! Unlike the Wii U, people will actually want to play all of those HD games on the console. The major problem with Wii U is games came out for it, but they weren't compelling to buy. For me, I bought Mario Kart 8 on Wii U, felt bored with it after only hours... also, when people wanted to play Mario Kart, it was Mario Kart Wii or Mario Kart 7 they wanted to play (mostly, that's because when I DID play Mario Kart, those were the versions available); but Mario Kart 8 Deluxe on Switch has several hundred hours of play -- it was simply a better platform.

Anyway, if Wii HD in 2010 was Wii 2, there might have even been a Wii 3 prior to the Switch.

I'm not sure why some people are talking about a Switch 2. This is a new model of the Switch, what we have all been expecting.
And it isn't 4k native that is being reported. It's DLSS 2.0 upscaling to 4k without much performance hit.

Personally I have zero interest in 4k so I'm much more interested in what other upgrades this premium Switch model will have. Give me a larger screen, a lot more disk space, increased performance for higher res and framerate for games that are low on those things, more battery life, and bluetooth and I'd consider eventually getting this for $300.

Will be interesting if they announce price cuts for the current models alongside the launch of the new model, or if it's gonna be like $350. To me it seems like they shouldn't go above the $300 price tag, cuz I mean four years in to a system's life cycle you should (EDIT: shouldn't) be bringing out models that actually cost more than it did at launch(!), and should drop at least the original model to $250 to make room for the premium model at $300. The Lite is so low already they might not even need to drop it when this new model launches.

I'm a big fan of price shifting.

Move Switch 1 and Lite down, and have Switch 2 at the original Switch's price or slightly higher - as people understand inflation - so if the original Switch is 300 USD, make Switch-2 319 USD. Put the original Switch down to 279 USD, and Switch Lite to 229 USD. That way, they've dropped enough to spark interest, but also not so much that there's no room for future price drops on the older economy models. Also, I like the Idea of Switch 2 TV for 239.

I like the Switch 2/4K NOT because of the visual upgrade, but because the whole notion of "4K" to people represents the idea of a whole new crop of games that wouldn't be on the first-gen. Now that Switch is an established platform, what will advance the next generation forward is the quality of the gaming software. The dream that "4K" puts in the head of consumers represents Switch 1 but with even more and better games, rather than simply the next versions of the same stuff we already have. It's kind of like the dream of the "Ultra 64" when we imagined it would have more and better games... although the reality was anything but. But many people were ULTRA hyped for it, before they understood the reality of it... it's funny now, but this wasn't a rare scene: