Of course these are tame statements... they are from professional reviewers. The crying commentaries from a lot of haters (or fanboys of the Switch OLED) were also there, but you can google these yourself... I don't need that kind of drama.

Also there ain't a big campaign of "don't buy a Switch 2"!!!! The display is horribad!!!" from professional reviewers. 

"Valve switched to an OLED display because they saw Nintendo making a fortune off the Switch OLED model and saw an opportunity to upcharge people. And they charged out the ass for it too, $150 premium mainly for a screen upgrade and a moderate die shrink when Nintendo only charged $50 more for a bigger OLED screen + die shrink."

You have some flawed logic.

The OG Steam Deck (LCD) 512 GB was priced $649 / €679 until the OLED version launched. Since then Steam Deck OLED 512 GB is priced $499 / €569, so for the screen upgrade + die shrink + bigger battery you have to pay less than before.

And even if you take doubling the storage for granted:

The OG Steam Deck (LCD) 256 GB was priced $529 / €569 until the OLED version launched. Since then Steam Deck OLED 512 GB is priced the same.
The OG Steam Deck (LCD) 512 GB was priced $649 / €679 until the OLED version launched. Since then Steam Deck OLED 1 TB is priced the same.

The price difference between the OG Switch and the Switch OLED wasn't that small because the Switch OLED was offered so cheap but because Nintendo wasn't cutting the price for the OG Switch. They probably made a lot more profit with the LCD models than with the OLED model.

No, back then the only discussion about the Switch among the same type who now complains about Switch 2 specs and screen is that the Steam Deck would crush the Switch, the Steam Deck was universally praised as the future of handheld gaming. The Switch OLED model was seen as an low effort upgrade by Nintendo because it only featured a screen upgrade while the importance was in performance upgrades.

There is no market in catering to the tech community because there will always be more expensive PC handhelds that they can rave about and compare favorable to the Switch 2.

I did not want to be involved in this prolonged conversation and debate but I am surprised at the cognitive dissonance here, nearing the levels of fanboyism. I have no idea why anyone would defend a firm or a practice that is clearly detriment to themselves.

I see people supporting the current hardware situation of Switch 2 and its price point. Switch 2's screen is OBJECTIVELY worse than even Switch 1. Forget the OLED, which I do not own, it's worse than even the original Switch 1. It had much worse ghosting and screen response times are laggy. The only thing going for is the higher resolution. Yes, switch 2 games will still "look" better on switch 2 than switch 1 games on switch 1 but that's not because of the screen but because of the hardware beneath.

Some people find excuses for why Nintendo did not use an OLED, and the fact that an OLED Steamdeck has a $150 premium, so switch 2 would allegedly cost $600. That is a totally misleading argument. Just check up alibaba or any other chinese retailer, you can buy a Switch 1 OLED screen for around $50-100. The whole screen costs that much, which is roughly $20-30 more than an LCD. The premium is not $150 but a mere $20-30! Cost is one thing, price is another.

In economics, we have a concept called (perfectly legal) price discrimination. The reason Steamdeck OLED is priced $150 more is not because it costs $150 more, not it doesn't, but because the customers who won't cheap out for an LCD, will likely be willing to pay not just $50 more but probably $150 more! After all, those won't, can get the cheaper option anyway! This is called price discrimination. Valve probably loses money in the cheapest non-oled Steamdeck, because they were trying to prove themselves in the hardware market and get a hold of it. Now that they do, they can even make some small profit by selling the OLED models for profit.

Switch 2 cannot cost more than $400, we know this, because the Japanese Switch 2 is priced at around $350. Traditionally Nintendo hardly ever made losses on their hardware, and even by a stretch of imagination, they would never lose more than $50 per console. This puts the Switch costs well below $400. So they are making a huge profit compared to the competition. This is not ok, and it is not comparable to the likes of ROG ALLY because those guys do not make profit off of the games so they have to sell the hardware for profit. So they do in return to genuinely great hardware, state of the art. Nintendo makes at least $50 of profit, by giving you a screen which is worse than Switch 1. This is such a despicable situation in which,

a) a 33 ms response time can only justify a 30 hertz display, forget about 60 fps(!) while the screen is advertised as 120 hertz.
b) The screen is advertised to have HDR while it is far from it, only a fake HDR.

You can still be happy with your switch 2, there are many reasons to be so, but this does not change the fact that Nintendo cheapened out with the screen at the cost of maybe $20-30, giving you a worse screen, hoping that most Nintendo fans are either technically illiterate or too blind to notice or care about anything. Nintendo, this generation acts like a spoiled entitled brat, and doing everything wrong so far. As the owner two switches (OG switch and Switch Lite), until a cheaper Switch with a better screen, I am off.

In response times, sure. In every other aspect and overall? No.  

Like for example, I took my Switch 2 on a camping trip last week. I was playing outdoors in sunny weather. I actually was able to see what was on the screen and not my reflection. 

Your post would weigh stronger if you didn't resort to hyperbole like this. 

lol, you can tell who doesn't have a Switch 2. The Switch 2 screen is way better than the Switch 1 OG screen, fuck outta here with that nonsense.

The response time of the screen can go higher if Nintendo really wants with a firmware update, it's an issue of power allocation, but I doubt they bother because frankly the screen looks good as is. OLED good? Not quite, but way better than the OG Switch 1 screen and the Lite screen.

V1 Switch 1 Outdoors

Switch 2 Outdoors

Can't you see all of that extra ghosting on Switch 2 than Switch 1? 

All you can do is laugh. 

Not to mention the Switch 2 screen has much better color saturation, colors pop much better on the display than the "faded" washed out look the Switch V1 and Switch Lite screen output. Black levels are also significantly better on the Switch 2 screen, brightness obviously is better too. That's not even getting into the fact that's it a higher resolution display as well. 

There is more to visuals than just resolution.
Yes the Switch 2 panel is higher resolution, higher refresh rate... We have already touched on that.

I own a Switch 2 and I own a Switch OLED. I literally have them side by side and difference is massive.

Whether it matters to you or not is definitely personal prefernce, but there is a massive downgrade from the OLED to the LCD in terms of colour and contrasts, which makes darker looking games look washed out... Add poor pixel response time and you get additional blur.

The OLED panel was just crisp and clean.

I don't like the fact any device gets just a couple of hours. 
Rog Ally included.

Don't take me as an apologetic here, if I level a criticism against one device, it applies to all devices.

Switch OLED is better for flights due to it's longer battery life, it's also just a smaller and more portable machine, it's also cheaper.

DK Bananza and Final Fantasy VII isn't out yet, making them irrelevant points, they may end up being bad games (Unlikely).

The Rog Ally is offering better performance than the Switch 2.

The number of sales is irrelevant for PC Handhelds.
PC Handhelds doesn't require mass-market appeal to get games and make them financially viable, Rog Ally had one of the largest games libraries in the world on the day of it's release, drawing on almost half a centuries worth of games on day 1.

However we also need to remember that ASUS builds a brand-based ecosystem, you buy an Asus motherboard, you likely have an Asus Monitor, paired up with Asus networking gear, paired up with Asus peripherals, paired up with an Asus Graphics card... And maybe you might buy an Asus Laptop, Phone, Tablet and/or handheld.

Thus devices like the Asus ROG Ally doesn't need 100+ million sales to do it's job, if it locks a couple million of customers into Asus ecosystem, it pays for itself.
..And that's the difference here. Ecosystem, not platform.

Asus doesn't make money off software, it makes money off hardware. Brand is everything for hardware.

Being thinner is the status-quo, the Switch OLED was thinner than PC handhelds as well... And the Switch OLED and Switch 2 have the same thickness for the most part.

But you *had* to pair it up with the portability factor... And that is where the Switch OLED beats the Switch 2, it's a smaller device.

That's not double standards I am afraid. I never claimed a PC handheld was a better handheld than the Switch 2 or Switch OLED.

It doesn't have to be OLED for the Switch 2. It's the preference to be OLED.
It just needs to be better than what we have.

Even a VA Panel would have been a better choice, which is price competitive with IPS, which I elaborated upon in my previous post (Did you even read it? Or just go on a tangent again?) which would have provided the best contrasts you can get for an LCD... Place many VA panels have some brilliant colour output, especially with a polarizer.

But unfortunately without zoned LED backlights on the LCD panel, you aren't ever getting true 10-bit or 12-bit HDR.

I will get a Switch 2 OLED on day 1. Just like I got the Switch 2 LCD on day 1... And this mimics the previous generation where I got the Switch 1 LCD on launch and the Switch 1 OLED on launch... And then I can give the old models the flick.

OLED is great, I would bathe in OLED panels if I could.

I personally don't care about the price of hardware... It's a long term investment, which is why I never use price of the hardware in my arguments of justifying one device over another, I am happy to pay extra for better quality if given the choice. (Hence why I own the Switch OLED over the LCD)

..Unlike yourself... You can't proclaim that the Switch 2 being cheaper than the Rog Ally is the sole justification of buying the Switch 2, when the Switch OLED is in turn cheaper than the Switch 2.
..The pricing argument tends to fall into circular-logic hypocrisy when analyzed at a high level.

Anyone who says that LCD has better colours than an OLED is delusional.

It's not about the vibrancy of colours, it's about how accurate each technology represents it's colour space... And OLED always wins by a landslide.

I have both a Switch OLED and Switch 2 as well (and Lite and Wii U and Switch V1 for that matter though the Switch V1 is currently lent out). Saying Mario Odyssey or the Zelda games look better on the Switch 1, even the OLED is just false. 

The OLED gives you better black levels and a little more color saturation ... but it's not magically going to make a jaggy 645p image or whatever Mario Odyssey is on the Switch 1 look like the 1080p much cleaner image that it is on the Switch 2. The game looks better at 1080p on the Switch 2 display and it's not even close really. Within about a minute of playing the game it's hard to not see the game looks significantly better at a higher resolution. 

Same thing with the Zelda games (BOTW/TOTK). 

I don't even think the Switch 2 LCD is a bad screen, the color saturation, black levels (for an IPS display) are solid, they just undervolted the screen to save some battery life because 99% of people are never going to notice. And they're right. Likely the issue can be altered in a firmware update if Nintendo really wants it to be, but I don't think they will because the fact is most normal people (even normal "core" gamers) are not going to be able to see ghosting. This is not like a Game Boy or some shit like that. This is a way better display experience than the OG Switch or Switch Lite, people trying to now weasel that into the conversation ... y'all  getting a bit too greedy with the stupid, lol. On no planet is the Switch 1 V1 or Switch Lite screens overall better than a Switch 2, they look like shit next to the Switch 2 screen side by side. 

DF just dropped another episode and spend a bit of time on the screen. Overall they do say that it's nice screen for a handheld though double down in their concerns with lag & ghosting.

Oliver is saying that he finds that games at 60fps don't actually feel like native 60, more like 60 through interpolation.

@ sc94597 & Pemalite
Is that something you can attest to?

The whole team are also skeptical that 120 with this level of lag will be worthwhile, does that ring true to you or you think they're overstating it?