Probably the controllers. It seems we’ve already had a bunch of rumors surrounding those. It would also explain why that report was unsure of backwards compat, bc new controllers would make that difficult and it’s entirely possible Nintendo won’t make it backwards if it’s too much of a hassle with the new hardware design.

LOL

I mean they could...but Xbox isn't that popular in the first place at least not compared to Nintendo and Playstation, and by doing a handheld you have to give up on the latest cutting edge graphical games. Whereas Nintendo has a huge lineup of their own games and most of those are not realistic-style games. Xbox's brand is a lot of high end realistic looking action type games. Those wouldn't be coming to a handheld Xbox, so likely a handheld Xbox would just be significantly less popular than the console Xboxes are. Probably not a good move.

Steam Deck was a really big deal....and is a pretty niche product. I don't see Microsoft having an interest in releasing a niche product that won't even play the types of games their userbase is used to.

Excatly. Switch to successor is like GB to GBA. They have a winning formula, and they have no market pressures forcing them to do something new and wacky. As amazing as Switch is there are plenty of areas of improvement in hardware and software beyond just the generational power upgrade. Nintendo should be focusing their time on those, not on R&Ding some totally new idea.

Nobody is in Nintendo's R&D, I doubt they're going to be like "well we're not going to do that idea because Game Boy Advance didn't do anything new after Game Boy" ... like lol, I seriously doubt anyone in their R&D at this point even gives a shit about the GBA.

If someone has an idea that legitimately catches some interest, then they'll pursue it. VR is something that is a legit game changer in the experience of gaming and you could tell looking at Labo VR that Nintendo had a shit-ton of ideas and were really inspired by doing it even if the tech was laughably rudimentary.

I mean XBox doesn't sell past 60 million mainly because they have to fight the Playstation for the exact same consumer tooth and nail. If there was no Playstation, the XBox is selling what? 100 million? 150 million? 

What an XBox branded take on the Steam Deck would do is just what you alluded to there ... it would not be a niche product. It would get stocked at every retailer and a global release and you would see TV ads and the works for it, so it wouldn't be like a fringe type of product. Like the Playstation sells more than the XBox but no way does anyone think of the XBox as some fringe/niche brand, it's a mainstream brand for sure. 

Frankly with the amount they've spent on Bethesda and Acti-Blizzard there really is no more going back for them anyway, they are all in on gaming now, there's no like "well, we're just sorta doing this as a hobby". Not when you put down $70 billion dollars for one acquisition. If they believe that much in the Game Pass model then probably at some point a portable XBox makes some sense, to drive Game Pass adoption because there is zero chance Nintendo will ever allow that on the Switch. 

With the PSP and Vita it was a different story because it had to be a totally distinct hardware and software ecosystem that required tons of R&D and dev resources to support and those systems, but in this case like ... there is a version of every game they make already playable on a PC architecture, they don't even have to do anything. 

It's not even like the hardware R&D would be pricey either ... AMD is already making the APUs for these kinds of devices, I'm sure Microsoft could get something similar or better from AMD. It's not some exotic "made only for ASUS or Valve!" chip. 

Which ones? I'm curious.

Yeah absolutely Xbox sells less because Xbox and Playstation have basically been twin systems for three generations now and Xbox is just the much less popular brand. But doing a handheld or hybrid I don't think would get them anywhere. Of the people who do buy Xbox, I think most of them want the latest graphics action games mostly. That's like most of the audience. If Xbox made a handheld who would buy it? You wouldn't be getting ANY of those latest high-end graphics games because handhelds are well, handhelds. Just like Switch doesn't get the big AAA high-end third party games, Xbox portable wouldn't either. Sure now they have a bunch of developers they've bought so they could try to pump out games for it, but again, who's gonna buy it? Not the Xbox fans who want the latest AAA graphics. And they aren't buying up developers of console AAA games to have them not make console AAA games, not handheld-level games which are essentially graphically a generation behind. That's not their audience. And they won't be able to match Nintendo's first party output and "games for everyone" market. I think all they would get is an Xbox handheld that sells like a quarter of what their consoles sell. They'd probably do WiiU type numbers with an Xbox handheld.

Xbox knows their market. High end (by which I just mean games with realistic art style) AAA action games and the like. They are buying up studios to provide more of those. Handheld would just be a shift away from their market to a market that is fully occupied by Switch and for which Microsoft has little to offer. The path Microsoft is going on is to be the subscription console to differentiate themselves from Playstation. That's their niche. They aren't going to go after the niche dominated by Nintendo. That would be a huge blunder for Microsoft and the Xbox brand. They are buying up big developers in order to get huge AAA console games on their subscription service so that they can get a steady monthly income from like 50 million people. And people tend to keep subscriptions, so its a good model to have when moving from one generation to another. That's the Xbox path, definitely not trying to compete with Nintendo in the portable market.

They just need to keep dialing down their portable console and accessorize the hell out of it like the current Switch.
Nintendo has essentially left the fixed home console market already as they just couldn't find long term success unlike their handhelds.

Basically it needs:
* Higher quality display. - Higher refresh rate with VRR technology wouldn't be the end of the world.
* Controllers that aren't designed for childrens hands and suffer from quality control issues like drift.
* Better graphics. (Goes without saying.)
* Digital/Physical library from the current Switch can be brought forward rather than starting your library again from scratch.
* Longer battery life.
* Better, more responsive OS/GUI.

Nintendo has found it's userbase and market with the Switch... Which isn't just a temporary market like with moms/dads and the Wii that were surfing on the back of a gimmick/cool factor. - They just need to keep that momentum going with the successor and keep delivering on the games.

DLSS I don't see as a necessary requirement. - Ray tracing though? Definitely.
Needs to be packed with the latest modern rendering features to ensure ports.

VR is a messy crowded red ocean. Just give me a more powerful system I can play all of my physical games on. Support future physical games. I don't need a new online account. Saves carry over at no extra cost. Reliable system. I want back buttons on the pro controller.

The secret sauce will be upscaleing DLSS when hooked up to the TV.
Seriously, all the switch 2 needs, is just abit more power, better storage.... and a upscale tech like DLSS.
Maybe active cooling? like there could be a fan on the Dock? so it can push clocks abit futher when docked?

*edit: Saw permas message above, and agree with him, like its 2023, its time for Nintendo to also support VRR.
(which alot of mobile phones/laptops even have, to reduce battery consumption, when not gameing ect. (more typical use))
(the fact that it can reduce frame tearing, was originally just the cherry on top. Now VRR is everywhere, tvs and pcs, laptops, phones ect)