I don't get why people say that 512GB storage is surprisingly high? Like for the Switch maybe, but we're talking at least PS4 like machine. 50-100GB AAA games will be a norm. Doom, Wolfenstein, Witcher 3, Elden Ring, GTA5 ... all 50-60GB on PS4. RDR2, FF15 or latest NBA and COD games, well over 100GB. And if you think we're getting all of that on a single cartridge then I have no words for your naivety.

Hopefully the new switch is powerful enough to play the zelda switch games at 60fps and it is full BC with switch. I skipped switch this gen but that would get me on board with the next switch.

Doesn't mean they will release this (though I suspect they will) but it looks like Nintendo has been demoing BOTW at 60 fps 4K resolution at Gamescom with no loading time to boot (the loading time on the Switch 1 version kinda sucks):

So yeah, looks like your patience probably will pay off in this case. 

Maybe we'll get a Switch with bigger storage using a NVMe SSD so you don't have to worry about importing one.

huh?

Who said anything about three games? The high end AAA games may be 40gb or so (as compared to 8-16gb on Switch), but the vast majority of the games that release on the system will be far lower. If you're planning on putting really large games on the system's storage yeah you're only gonna be able to put a few, same as Switch. This is not different than the situation with the Switch. You're acting like suddenly there's a problem with this when gamers have been used to this situation for 6+ years with Switch now. If you bought an SD card for "literal pennies" and it lasted you 4 years then you are obviously buying mostly smaller size games so I don't know why you are acting like you would have a problem with 4x internal storage and perhaps 5x larger cards next gen.

I bought 200gb card for Switch in late 2017. 512gb cards now cost as much or less than that did. And Switch 2 isn't out yet. 512gb cards are going to be quite cheap by 2025, and in 2025 1TB cards will probably be getting down to the price I paid for a 200gb card in 2017. I fit about 4 dozen games on that card before I decided to upgrade to 400gb last year. 1 TB is five times larger than that 200gb card. If games are ~4x as big but SD cards storage per dollar is up ~5x that means SD cards are MORE capable of holding games than SD cards were during Switch's time.

If you didn't have a problem getting an SD card for the Switch there is no reason you should have a problem doing the same next gen.

Also realize you literally just said Nintendo should increase the price of their system by $50 just to add some more storage. Nintendo makes affordable systems. $50 is a huge increase of how much their system would cost and that would impact sales negatively. It would be a terrible business decision to put $50 extra storage space in the system.

"I hope Nintendo at least provide an option for those who needs more space"....they literally already do. It's called buying an SD card lol. You aren't limited in any way by the internal storage of the system. Everyone who has a Switch understands that if they don't only buy physical games they will have to get an SD card. That provides consumers with options...you can buy any amount of physical vs digital games and choose the amount of storage you require based on your needs. Nintendo gives gamers enough to get by and then based on your buying habits you get to choose what amount of storage makes the most sense.

This situation is the same as with the Switch and you said you got by just fine with an SD card on the Switch so I have no idea why you are complaining about this as though it would suddenly be a problem next gen. You wanting 512gb internal storage means you think games are all going to get 16x larger in size. THAT IS NOT HAPPENING. You have nothing to worry about.

??

Switch was 32gb. 512gb wouldn't have been surprisingly high for Switch, it would have been laughably unthinkable. Next gen it would simply be surprisingly high to the point at which its not at all economical for Nintendo to do that, much in the way 128gb would have been in 2017 on the Switch.

The Switch can do cartridges up to 64gb. So your 50-60gb games that require naivety to think would fit on a cartridge next gen...already would fit on a cartridge this gen!! lol

Given that current gen does up to 64gb cartridges, it is likely that next gen will eventually do up to 128gb cartridges. So if we just go with facts...it looks like your naivety is what we have no words for because these games very likely will all fit on a single game card.

Nintendo also takes compression much more seriously. And most of their AAA games do not do hyper-realistic artistic styles. These two things mean Nintendo AAA first party games are going to be much smaller than the third party AAA games on consoles. Also third parties will probably focus more on compression in AAA games on Switch 2 because it is a handheld and not a console and therefore storage is more limited. If you think 100gb games are going to be anything other than extremely rare you are very naive.

The opinion of some people on here that Nintendo suddenly needs to up their internal storage by 16x is a really bizarre and untenable take. It makes no sense from financial nor storage requirement point of view. If you got by fine with 32gb on Switch you'll get by fine with 128gb on Switch 2. The 512gb people just seem really confused haha

People seem to think the switch 2 will have enough power to get modern AAA ports... not sure how happy third party developers will be about having to put their games on a 128 gb high speed cartridges, because there is zero chance current switch cartridges have fast enough read speeds for modern AAA titles.

The reason people expect significant jump in internal storage is for third party support.  

The only way 128 gb makes sense is if Nintendo wants shitty third party support.  

I don't understand why people think 512gb is a crazy increase.

The original DSi came with 256MB of storage. This was increased to 2GB with the 3DS. Which was increased to 32GB for the Switch (and, later, 64GB with the OLED).

From DSi to 3DS that's a 8x increase in storage capacity. From 3DS to Switch it was a 16x increase (32x increase later with the OLED). 512gb is another 16x increase (or 8x from the OLED). That's perfectly in line with expectations.

Dude, I need a 128 GB to fill games in my Switch if the next gen average size is at least 4 times bigger on average of course I will need to have a 512 GB SSD card at least. This whole conversation makes me thing you don't have Playstation or Xbox because if you think storage for those systems were as cheap as 128 SSD cards then I have bad news. In 2019 I have bought 128 for cheap price, but even in 2025 a 512 GB will be far far more expensive, five times more expensive to be precise. 

I buy smaller sized games because those are the games available on the system. I mean of you are only planning to buy indies and smaller Nintendo games then maybe 128 GB is enough. If you want to play any kind of AAA western game be prepared to buy a couple of 1 TB SDD cards as other stated here them being over 100 GB is not uncommon. 

The difference between me buying a 140 USD card and Nintendo selling a 50 USD more expensive system is quite clear. Nintendo can buy millions of components and put them on the system to resell them as lower price. 

There is absolutely nothing affordable in spending over a hundred bucks to fill more than 10 games in a system by the way. But I guess you are just blind with the view Nintendo provides "affordable" systems while Xbox is literally selling a 300 machine that can play fucking Starfield, and you don't even need to pay for it if you subscribe to GP. The affordable company in the market is Microsoft not Nintendo but I digress 

512GB storage would be pretty huge for 3rd parties because they would pretty much have an assurance that their game should run on a Switch, even like monster sized games like 300GB and they could sell it on the eShop no problem and (sadly) probably do the whole 16GB starter cartridge, download the rest thing too.