It's... better than a mobile RDNA2 GPU in that regard but that's it. Remember we're likely talking here about half a 3050 that it's underclocked by a lot.

I do think playing it safe is the correct choice here since another disaster would be even worse for them than last time due to no longer having a 2nd system to fall back on. They can try to come up with new gimmicks but whatever it is should either be minor enough to have little negative impact if people end up not caring about it or be completely optional like with Labo. Any 3DS or Wii U level gimmicks should be avoided due to the huge risk.

Those games can and did run on inferior Wii U hardware. I guess it was better than the 5+ year old Vita. I wouldn't say those games are graphical powerhouses, but you can define things your own way. Again, the question is whether or not the type of person who finds the graphics on those names good enough going to be the same type of person that will be willing to spend 300+ dollars for the kind of improvements a new chipset could offer.

Pretty sure that even after the release of the 2DS, the 3DS models continued to sell better. The feature seems to be worth the extra cost to most people at least. Probably not worth the cost in terms of performance, but offputting is a bit much. Not really sure what you're trying to argue with software, because if the shift of shovelware to mobile was a factor, then that seems to cut against the argument you're making if I'm not misunderstanding. If that was a big part of the Switch's decline, more horsepower wouldn't have really helped. So, absent that, what would the 3DS have sold? 100 m? What would a beefier DS have sold? 

The Vita was what people are suggesting the Switch 2 should be. Essentially the same, with better graphics, and QOL improvements. It may not have had the improvements you think it ought to have had, but it did everything the PSP did, and then some. People weren't interested. Those kinds of sequel consoles are just not guaranteed to have the same appeal as predecessors. 

I did not say the Switch 2 would be the same thing as going from the GBC to GBA. The GBA was a legitimately massive leap over the GBC that allowed you to do types of games that just couldn't have been done before. The Switch 2 will not do that. It was also for the most part a wholly unique library that couldn't be found anywhere else. Outside of the first party stuff, the Switch 2 presumably won't have a ton of exclusives. The GBA came out at the height of Pokemon where handheld gaming was taking off. I'm not saying the Switch 2 won't simply continue the trend of Switch sales, but the scenario is different, so there is no guarantee of that. 

Yeah, the hybrid feature is appealing. But, people already have a system that does exactly the same thing, the Switch. If you're expecting them to drop another several hundred dollars, then the new system should do something worthwhile that the old one doesn't. If we have the same kind of cross gen period as XBoxSx/PS5, the value proposition on the Switch becomes very unclear. Is the Switch audience going to be sold on shinier graphics when that really hasn't been a major selling point in the first place? They can just only put games on the Switch 2, and some people are going to buy it because they just have to have the next Smash Bros. But I think a lot of people are going to think why am I going to 400ish dollars for a system that plays pretty much the same kinds of games at the same level of quality? What's the pitch? "It's like the Switch, but a little better." "Well, if you want to play the next animal crossing, you kind of have no choice". 

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. In the unlikely event I wind up running a massive gaming hardware manufacturer, you will not be working for me.

Regardless, one thing it'll really need is a strong launch game lineup. Especially brand new games.

It will probably have a couple from Nintendo. Third parties on the other hand...

I doubt it. Gimmicks have been very hit or miss for Nintendo. The DS's two screens worked out well, but adding glasses-less 3D to its successor did not. Motion controls worked out very well for the Wii, but the tablet controller didn't help the Wii U one bit and might have been a detriment to it.

Also, some of those gimmicks were simply already-existing tech, or tech that was very similar in terms of concept. Motion controls had been attempted since the NES days. The Wii was just the first one to do it right. Touchscreens had existed well before the DS or Wii U used them. Second-screen tech and connecting handhelds to a TV had a conceptually-similar predecessor in the GBA's link-cable connectivity with the GameCube. Also, there was the Sega Nomad, which was a handheld version of the Genesis with TV-out capability. Even the Wii U's tablet controller was like a reverse Switch, allowing you to play a home console game remotely on a handheld device.

What other tech for "new" ways of playing is there that Nintendo hasn't already tried? VR? I can't really see that going anywhere on the Switch 2. It's not even mainstream on PlayStation, or anywhere else for that matter. The tech is better than it was in decades past, but despite years and years of hype VR seems to be struggling to become mainstream, much less *the* way of playing video games. It's pretty much a guarantee that the next-gen Nintendo console will literally be just a Switch 2, i.e., a next-gen Switch. Just a modular "hybrid" console, this time with at least PS4-level horsepower. Assuming it keeps all the same features, it'll have motion controls with its Joy Cons as well as a touch screen when playing in handheld mode, so it'll already have features that have been established for generations. Nintendo has literally done it all. Not only is there no need for radical new innovations, but there may not be any to be had anymore

I'd also argue that, thanks to certain mistakes they made, Nintendo was essentially forced to improvise with all sorts of gimmicks with their home consoles after struggling to compete directly with PlayStation for two straight generations. The Wii paid off immediately. Instead of a Wii 2 that was just a Wii with 360/PS3-level power, they tried something new with the Wii U, which failed so badly that Nintendo stopped making "traditional" home consoles. So they only had two non-conventional home consoles, and while the first one succeeded, the second was an unmitigated disaster for the company (which is a shame because I thought it was a great console). One wonders whether if they took the safe route and just released a Wii HD instead of the Wii U it would have done well. Perhaps they felt, arguably rightly, that motion gaming was declining in popularity and that they had to try something different, therefore making the Wii U another case of trying something new out of necessity rather than by choice.

With their handhelds, they've actually been a good bit more conservative. The GBA was just a more powerful Game Boy in terms of functionality. With the DS, they supposedly didn't actually intend to have their new dual-screen system be their flagship handheld, but it blew up in popularity after the Lite revision and essentially displaced GBA sales. If the DS had become a more niche product, then it's probable they may have made a single-screen GBA successor.

The 3DS is basically just a more powerful DS with glasses-less 3D added. It's unclear exactly what effect, if any, those 3D capabilities had on the 3DS's sales. What is clear is that its high launch price hurt it ($250 being a lot at the time for a system like that), Nintendo clearly overestimating how much people were willing to pay for such a system. The impact of mobile is harder to estimate. The high sales of certain DS games and the subsequent lack of success of those kind of games on the 3DS certainly suggests that a lot of casuals that bought the DS didn't bother with the 3DS, but the Switch far outselling the 3DS (which it still would have done by a comfortable margin even without, well, you know) in the face of a now well-established mobile market just complicates the issue. The 3DS did well enough for itself despite failing to replicate the DS's success, but I still think the right question to ask there is not "Why did the 3DS sell half of what the DS did?" but rather "Why didn't it sell as much as the Game Boy Advance?" or "Why did the DS sell so much?"

With the 3DS selling "only" 75M units and the Wii U being a flop, resulting in the 2013 to 2016 period being the company's worst period for hardware shipments since the mid 90s (software fared better, but still hit 15-year lows by the 2016-17 fiscal year), Nintendo was once again forced to change things up.

Nintendo doesn't have to innovate to distinguish themselves anymore from PlayStation & Xbox, and they've filled their own separate niche in the TV gaming market for the past 16+ years. They haven't run into any other complications that necessitate any big changes. Finally, they have had the handheld market on lock for over 30 years. They found something that works with the Switch, a system that combines the best of their home console and handheld strategies into a single unified platform. They have a formula that's guaranteed to sell over 100M units each generation so long as the games are there. They knew they had a bad track record with their post-SNES home consoles, but their handhelds always did very well. I think they also felt that there was still demand for home console gaming, so they weren't quite ready to write off the TV gaming experience entirely and move to a pure handheld. The Switch's "best of both worlds" approach was arguably the right choice to make at the time, and it paid off massively. It was far bigger jump in power than any other they had with a handheld unit, with enough power to also be a reasonably high-quality TV gaming experience.

But having a single unified platform does have the consequence of painting themselves into a corner. They can't afford to take risks with radical new concepts anymore (again, if there's any to be had), and I don't think they will. I fully expect the Switch 2 to be a return to the more conservative Nintendo of the pre-Wii days.

Wouldn't the best move here be for Nintendo to try to get into the sort of position Playstation is in? That being where they don't need to do much aside from releasing more powerful hardware and compelling software to get guaranteed huge success as long as they don't screw up. I just can't see why it would be a good business move to risk the best position they've been in in 15 years when they could keep at least close to this level of success going for close to another decade by playing it safe. A standard Switch 2 would almost surely sell at least 120m if they keep the compelling software coming.

Then they'll need more than just a couple from Nintendo. From what I remember the Super NES had way more launch titles made and/or published by Nintendo.

Do they? I mean the Switch didnt...

Zelda: Breath of the Wild has a scope and scale that no Vita or smartphone had. 

If Nintendo tried to sell a DS type console today (something underpowered and cheap) IMO it wouldn't sell that well. 

The whole thing that makes the Switch special is that it CAN play full blown console type experiences along with other types of games, but you take away the BOTWs and Mario Kart and Xenoblade type games and the system is not anywhere near as special anymore. 

Smartphone gaming was cutting into mobile gaming with the 3DS and Vita, to combat that you had to go upmarket with higher end tech and deliver gaming experiences that are way better than what you can get on a phone (read: experiences that are basically console games, not "kid brother spin-off portable titles that are much smaller in scale type of experiences).