Ultimately, does Square-Enix  want the franchise to grow or not? Because no executive suit wants to hear "we could have sold 1-3 million more copies of this game on Switch but we didn't feel like making the effort and we've bombed a once top franchise in Japan because we wanted to keep chasing the graphics dragon". 

That is not going to fly I think for too much longer especially when the board of directors is angry that your sales are declining and want answers as to why that is. Their stock price has bombed this year, they can say all they want that they're happy with FF16's sales, but the independent metrics don't back that up and investors aren't buying it. 

Make Final Fantasy 17 however you want. But make it 4K/30 or 60 fps on PS5 (and XBox). That will tank its performance and from that you can build a Switch 2 port that should work nicely at 720p native docked. 

I can't explain Square and their business decisions.  Chrono Trigger port to the switch with HD coating is simple money....  Square is odd....  if not just plain old stupid. 

And ps5 games should target native 1440p and upscale to 4k.  Native 4k is stupid.  The power should go to textures, shadows, lighting and frame rate.  

One of the reasons I think DLSS is being oversold is because all consoles can upscale.  Which saves ps5/series x power for other assets.  Scaling isn't going to be a Nintendo exclusive.

Japanese studios are gonna be in trouble this next gen, they cannot keep looking off the overwhelming market leader in Japan with rising development costs and dev cycles of 4-8 years per game. 

Like I said ... PS5 really can barely itself do "PS4 graphics" when you increase the resolution to 4K native and even 30 fps gets dicey, 60 fps is basically a no go for many, many PS4 games ported to a PS5 at 4K. It simply can't do it. Miles Morales PS4 can get to 60 fps ... but it can't do that at 4K native. 

So I mean it's not really that terribly hard to make a game that maxes out a PS5, but can still run on a Switch 2 because PS4 tier visuals + a little gloss put on them basically will max out a PS5 if you force native 4K res. The amount of pixels 4K demands a system push (natively) is just absurd, it totally kills most of the PS5's uplift in performance over a PS4 right off the bat. 

4k, native, is just stupid.  It can cripples power PC rigs as well.  If Sony would target 1440p and upscale it would have a bunch of resources for other graphical enhancements, which the Switch 2 will not match.

Just a matter of how developers choose to leverage hardware.  

One of the reasons Rift is gorgeous is because it uses dynamic resolution.  Rift is a clear example of something the ps4 and switch 2 will not touch.

I'm going off memory but I think Rift runs with RT at 60 fps.  It also has 120 hz.  Granted RT is disappointing on the ps5 thus far.  

1. Nintendo, like every company, is about money! They want that 3rd party license fees. I don't know the contracts but certainly those indie developers don't have to pay high license fees. There's simply more money to be made with AAA-licensing fees. Nintendo doesn't want to miss out on that money. The Switch 1 was simply technically not there yet to get most of the 3rd party AAA-games but for Switch 2, Nintendo doesn't want to miss out on that AAA-licensing fees. With the Switch 2 they say to 3rd party developers/publishers: That's what we have to offer, AAA-ports are possible without the need to make a triple somersault to make it possible. If you want to miss out on the money to be made on Switch 2, well, I guess you must be a communist then, you work in the wrong business!

2. I can't hear it anymore, Switch 2 will be on PS4/PS4 Pro level or anything in-between, blah bah! We should stop with that comparison. Switch 2 will not be comparable, it will be its own thing. PS4/PS4 Pro uses ancient technology, Switch 2 will use new technology. Xbox Series S is weaker on paper than Xbox One X but clearly beats it perfomance-wise, i.e. there are games on Series S that wouldn't run/look or run like crap on One X. We really should stop comparing old technology with new. I get it, what people mean is that Switch 2 games docked will look and run like PS4/PS4 Pro ports from PS5. That's fine but if we think in that terms we fixate ourselves too much in the PS4/PS4 Pro corner and it really limits our vision of what Swich 2 games can be (especially, the 1st party games).

I hope this is true, I've now seen these details from 2 separate sources. Would love to see Nintendo trying a bit harder on specs this time around, never been a big fans of their blue ocean strategy of weak specs relative to the competition, like Wii and Switch, prefer when they try to compete on specs like on N64 and Gamecube. The closer the specs on Switch 2 get to Series S, the better imo, and if they actually have Series S beat on RAM amount by 2GB, even better still, as it will make Switch 2 ports of current gen games much more likely and cut down on the number of games with huge resolution or framerate hits just to get them to run on Switch 2.

1440p 60 fps cripples a PS5 most of the time too. 

Japanese devs can ask themselves  if its really worth chasing the graphics dragon and spending more money to do it while cutting yourself off from the market leader in Japan. 

For what exactly? To impress some tech geek that you had slightly better textures or reflections in a puddle somewhere in your game? 

I think Japanese management of a lot of these companies is going to crack down on this kind of stupidity as dev costs and dev time skyrockets. Some of these employees simply have a grudge against Nintendo going all the way back to the N64-Playstation debacle, some of them are probably going to get put in their place. Can totally see it happening at Square-Enix for starters. Their new president is already trying to kiss Microsoft/XBox division's ass, because he knows they have to diversify. 

Japanese studios can't afford games that are leaps beyond what a PS4 can perform IMO even if the PS5 was capable of that (and it's clearly really not), these companies just don't have that kind of money to fall back on if the game doesn't reach sales targets, they're all in trouble with just 1 or 2 underperforming games. You can make a very nice looking game (something in the range of FF7 Remake Intergrade or Resident Evil 8, maybe even FF7 Rebirth) and design it intelligently so that it can scale to a Switch 2 at a lower resolution, while still pushing the PS5 to its max performance at 4K/30 or 1440p/60.

I don't think Rift looks much better than Spider-Man Miles Morales either (it at all), it's not really my cup of tea artistically anyway, but still. 

Rift Apart is the best-looking PS5 game I played so far.

It's up there but I prefer Miles Morales PS5. 

The demand for resolution increases and 60 fps (and some people even demanding 120, lol) is just killing the performance of these machines. You get 6x teraflop performance or whatever increase, but you give it right back by pressing the system to have to push 4x-8x as many pixels. 

PS5 really needed to be about double what it actually is I think to have a really wow impact in terms of generational leap, and even then I think most developers would not really use that extra power to really increase the visual wow factor but just sink it right back into even more resolution + frame rate. Because no one wants to double the budget of their game. 

Either way it's kinda good for Nintendo. 

All these things ... ray tracing, 4K, 60 fps, rising budgets are such massive resource sucks that it works to their benefit when the Switch 2 can get by with 720p + 30 fps. All of the sudden, the pixel disparity is massive. It's like having two bodybuilders but one guy only has to bench press 180 pounds and the other guy has to bench 375. Even if the other guy quite a good deal stronger, it's likely by rep 5 he's going to fatigue out. 

Easily.  And with the games I've played the ps5 has having zero issues hitting 1440p at 60 fps.  I'm not sure I own a game that doesn't hit 1440p at 60 fps.  I'm convinced not everyone has done their homework on ps5 games.