By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - How Will be Switch 2 Performance Wise?

 

Switch 2 is out! How you classify?

Terribly outdated! 3 5.26%
 
Outdated 1 1.75%
 
Slightly outdated 14 24.56%
 
On point 31 54.39%
 
High tech! 7 12.28%
 
A mixed bag 1 1.75%
 
Total:57
curl-6 on 30 July 2025
Soundwave said:

Following this system's development was a massive headache on this board because of the "Dur Hur! I knowz Nintendo! They won't use gud hardware!" bros. that would come into every thread to shout the system down. It was ridiculous. 

True, there was a lot of downplaying and low key stealth trolling pre-launch, but thankfully that seems to have evaporated now that the system is out and its performance is clear to see.



Around the Network
Biggerboat1 on 30 July 2025
Soundwave said:
Biggerboat1 said:

Can you point me to where someone said that 'they can add an OLED screen, more RAM, 3nm chip with 50% more performance all for like $30'?

Or is this another strawman? 

Companies are free to charge whatever they want, and consumers are free to criticise them for it. Just because apple can charge silly money for extra ram or larger SSD doesn't mean that we can't call them out. 

My general point is consumers in this industry have generally been spoiled. Virtually no one in any industry sells any important component at cost, let alone at a loss. 

What Microsoft was leading the industry into was only a direction feasible thing because they don't really give that much of a shit about gaming. They have an OS division that is embedded into business to the point where they have a quasi-monopoly and make billions of dollars of profit every year from that. The game business' numbers were inconsequential. 

Well since MS has generally failed miserably at trying to replace Sony in the business that setup was never feasible in the long term. We're really just seeing the game business run more sanely, this includes Sony now also. Game hardware does generally need to make a profit. It does need to adjust for inflation over time, like any other product. People who want the moon but don't want to pay anything for it are likely in for a harsh reality check in the coming years. 

The ROG Ally X is like maybe moderately better performance than a Switch 2 in practice for like $900-$1000. And for that price you still do not get an OLED. The hardware performance the Switch 2 provides is quite good for $450. 

I'm assuming that because you didn't provide a post that said what you said it did that it doesn't actually exist and that it was indeed a strawman.

'Virtually no one in any industry sells any important component at cost, let alone at a loss.'

Dude, what are you talking about? Products are frequently sold as loss-leaders. Google does it with it's Pixel phones, Amazon does it with many of its tablets & smart speakers, and tonnes of consoles launch as loss leaders, including all in this very generation, including the Steam Deck. Or how about any service that offers a discounted or free trial, of which there are about a bazillion?

And this is just off the top of my head, within the tech sector - across all sectors we'd likely be looking at many thousands of products or services.

This strategy is normally used for a few reasons, 1) a company wants to break into a market where it has limited presence and so takes a hit for a generation or two in the hopes of gaining a foothold. 2) they sell a whole bunch of profitable tertiary services off the back of said product which will more than offset that initial loss. 3) they hope that by giving you a free or discounted period of time with a service that you'll ultimately pay the subscription longer term.

The reason that you're less likely to see a ROG Ally X going at cost or at a loss is that Asus does't stand to make money from services following the purchase, whereas Sony, Nintendo, Valve & Microsoft do. And the handheld PC market is currently so nascent that it likely wouldn't make sense for them to lose a bunch of money to gain a foothold in a tiny sector.

Furthermore, according to some analysts, the Switch 2 costs approx $400 to manufacture. If my research & maths are correct then it's selling in Japan, net tax, at $306.

So the very strategy that you're asserting is extinct is being used today by Nintendo itself...

And this strategy has nothing to do with gamers being 'spoiled'. Corporations are not altruistic, if they're implementing a loss leader strategy its because they think they'll make more money down the line than they otherwise would if they sold at a profit from the jump.



zorg1000 on 30 July 2025
Biggerboat1 said:
Soundwave said:

There are several posters who would flood every Switch 2 hardware discussion circa a year ago and loudly try to talk down the system and said it would be a hard capped at PS4 level performance only (something it's already exceeding) "because Nintendo", as if they think they're geniuses for believing that Nintendo started making hardware with the Wii in 2006 apparently. 

These posters didn't know shit, they don't even understand Nintendo's own history, most of Nintendo's consoles have actually be reasonably powered for their time period (Famicom/NES, Super Famicom/SNES, N64, GameCube, Switch 1, and now Switch 2), the only two that weren't were expressly aimed at casual audiences (the Wii and Wii U). 

Then there's a secondary type of poster that thinks Nintendo is out to screw them and they can secretly add an OLED screen, more RAM, 3nm chip with 50% more performance all for like $30 more but they chose not to. This is completely unreasonable too. For $450 in this day and age, the Switch 2 is even for 2025 about as good as you can get. There's no one out here offering dirt cheap hardware, this idea is outdated and stuck in the 90s and 2000s when companies would sometimes even take losses on hardware. No one is going to do that going forward for a myriad of reasons.  

And finally, yes, companies are entitled to make money off the hardware  they sell. There's no law that says they have to sell it right at cost or take a loss because Microsoft was dumb enough to try to make that an industry norm for 10+ years and even they have given up on that effectively. Not every company is in the business as a side hobby to their OS business. 

Can you point me to where someone said that 'they can add an OLED screen, more RAM, 3nm chip with 50% more performance all for like $30'?

Or is this another strawman? 

Companies are free to charge whatever they want, and consumers are free to criticise them for it. Just because apple can charge silly money for extra ram or larger SSD doesn't mean that we can't call them out. 

It’s hyperbole but you should be able to understand his point. There are people who claim Switch 2 is weak but it’s about as powerful as anyone should reasonably expect from a portable device at its price range.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

curl-6 on 30 July 2025

Yeah considering they had to keep prices down and that Nvidia stuff doesn't come cheap, cutting edge tech wasn't realistically an option.

Sure, they could've made it a premium monster like the ROG Ally X or something, but then it would be too expensive for most of their userbase.

Considering a lot of people expected it to be basically a PS4 when docked, the outcome's not bad at all.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 30 July 2025

Soundwave on 30 July 2025
Biggerboat1 said:
Soundwave said:

My general point is consumers in this industry have generally been spoiled. Virtually no one in any industry sells any important component at cost, let alone at a loss. 

What Microsoft was leading the industry into was only a direction feasible thing because they don't really give that much of a shit about gaming. They have an OS division that is embedded into business to the point where they have a quasi-monopoly and make billions of dollars of profit every year from that. The game business' numbers were inconsequential. 

Well since MS has generally failed miserably at trying to replace Sony in the business that setup was never feasible in the long term. We're really just seeing the game business run more sanely, this includes Sony now also. Game hardware does generally need to make a profit. It does need to adjust for inflation over time, like any other product. People who want the moon but don't want to pay anything for it are likely in for a harsh reality check in the coming years. 

The ROG Ally X is like maybe moderately better performance than a Switch 2 in practice for like $900-$1000. And for that price you still do not get an OLED. The hardware performance the Switch 2 provides is quite good for $450. 

I'm assuming that because you didn't provide a post that said what you said it did that it doesn't actually exist and that it was indeed a strawman.

'Virtually no one in any industry sells any important component at cost, let alone at a loss.'

Dude, what are you talking about? Products are frequently sold as loss-leaders. Google does it with it's Pixel phones, Amazon does it with many of its tablets & smart speakers, and tonnes of consoles launch as loss leaders, including all in this very generation, including the Steam Deck. Or how about any service that offers a discounted or free trial, of which there are about a bazillion?

And this is just off the top of my head, within the tech sector - across all sectors we'd likely be looking at many thousands of products or services.

This strategy is normally used for a few reasons, 1) a company wants to break into a market where it has limited presence and so takes a hit for a generation or two in the hopes of gaining a foothold. 2) they sell a whole bunch of profitable tertiary services off the back of said product which will more than offset that initial loss. 3) they hope that by giving you a free or discounted period of time with a service that you'll ultimately pay the subscription longer term.

The reason that you're less likely to see a ROG Ally X going at cost or at a loss is that Asus does't stand to make money from services following the purchase, whereas Sony, Nintendo, Valve & Microsoft do. And the handheld PC market is currently so nascent that it likely wouldn't make sense for them to lose a bunch of money to gain a foothold in a tiny sector.

Furthermore, according to some analysts, the Switch 2 costs approx $400 to manufacture. If my research & maths are correct then it's selling in Japan, net tax, at $306.

So the very strategy that you're asserting is extinct is being used today by Nintendo itself...

And this strategy has nothing to do with gamers being 'spoiled'. Corporations are not altruistic, if they're implementing a loss leader strategy its because they think they'll make more money down the line than they otherwise would if they sold at a profit from the jump.

I stand by what I said. Just because Google (a company that clears 10 billion+ in profit a year due to search + Youtube) subsidizes one product line (Pixel phones) and so does Amazon (another multi-billion dollar money machine from e-Commerce) doesn't mean even 1% of products are sold under that business model. 

Even for electronics, 99+% of hardware is sold at a profit. 

And that's fine and more than fair. 

Even the so-called "razor blade" model ... like people realize Gilette and other razor blade companies still make a profit on actual razor handle sales too, they don't just rely on profit from the blade refills. 

Nintendo isn't a trillion dollar market cap company with 20 other divisions. Sony isn't even close to that kind of market cap either, but Nintendo especially has basically this one business and these days it's pretty one hardware line. If they want to make a decent size margin on the Switch 2 hardware, that's entirely reasonable. Sony will likely be making a profit on future hardware too (hello $600-$700 PS6 base model). 



Around the Network
Biggerboat1 on 31 July 2025
Soundwave said:
Biggerboat1 said:

I'm assuming that because you didn't provide a post that said what you said it did that it doesn't actually exist and that it was indeed a strawman.

'Virtually no one in any industry sells any important component at cost, let alone at a loss.'

Dude, what are you talking about? Products are frequently sold as loss-leaders. Google does it with it's Pixel phones, Amazon does it with many of its tablets & smart speakers, and tonnes of consoles launch as loss leaders, including all in this very generation, including the Steam Deck. Or how about any service that offers a discounted or free trial, of which there are about a bazillion?

And this is just off the top of my head, within the tech sector - across all sectors we'd likely be looking at many thousands of products or services.

This strategy is normally used for a few reasons, 1) a company wants to break into a market where it has limited presence and so takes a hit for a generation or two in the hopes of gaining a foothold. 2) they sell a whole bunch of profitable tertiary services off the back of said product which will more than offset that initial loss. 3) they hope that by giving you a free or discounted period of time with a service that you'll ultimately pay the subscription longer term.

The reason that you're less likely to see a ROG Ally X going at cost or at a loss is that Asus does't stand to make money from services following the purchase, whereas Sony, Nintendo, Valve & Microsoft do. And the handheld PC market is currently so nascent that it likely wouldn't make sense for them to lose a bunch of money to gain a foothold in a tiny sector.

Furthermore, according to some analysts, the Switch 2 costs approx $400 to manufacture. If my research & maths are correct then it's selling in Japan, net tax, at $306.

So the very strategy that you're asserting is extinct is being used today by Nintendo itself...

And this strategy has nothing to do with gamers being 'spoiled'. Corporations are not altruistic, if they're implementing a loss leader strategy its because they think they'll make more money down the line than they otherwise would if they sold at a profit from the jump.

I stand by what I said. Just because Google (a company that clears 10 billion+ in profit a year due to search + Youtube) subsidizes one product line (Pixel phones) and so does Amazon (another multi-billion dollar money machine from e-Commerce) doesn't mean even 1% of products are sold under that business model. 

Even for electronics, 99+% of hardware is sold at a profit. 

And that's fine and more than fair. 

Even the so-called "razor blade" model ... like people realize Gilette and other razor blade companies still make a profit on actual razor handle sales too, they don't just rely on profit from the blade refills. 

Nintendo isn't a trillion dollar market cap company with 20 other divisions. Sony isn't even close to that kind of market cap either, but Nintendo especially has basically this one business and these days it's pretty one hardware line. If they want to make a decent size margin on the Switch 2 hardware, that's entirely reasonable. Sony will likely be making a profit on future hardware too (hello $600-$700 PS6 base model). 

You're moving the goalposts, you said 'Virtually no one in any industry sells any important component at cost, let alone at a loss.'

This is patently false. Do you know that bread and milk are regularly sold at cost or at a loss, the idea being that shoppers will be drawn in by the low prices of staple items then buy other profitable items whilst they're there. That's also why those items are generally at the back of the supermarket, so that you pass a bunch of other products. Or are bread and milk too niche examples?

Your point is also utterly bizarre as the very specific product category we're examining, game consoles, every one of the major players (Sony, MS, Nintendo & Valve if we want to include them) have all employed a loss-leader strategy in this very generation...

So just to be clear you're standing by your argument that the era of loss leader consoles is over, based on what exactly?

'Sony will likely be making a profit on future hardware too' - what are you basing this on???



Biggerboat1 on 31 July 2025
zorg1000 said:
Biggerboat1 said:

Can you point me to where someone said that 'they can add an OLED screen, more RAM, 3nm chip with 50% more performance all for like $30'?

Or is this another strawman? 

Companies are free to charge whatever they want, and consumers are free to criticise them for it. Just because apple can charge silly money for extra ram or larger SSD doesn't mean that we can't call them out. 

It's hyperbole but you should be able to understand his point. There are people who claim Switch 2 is weak but it's about as powerful as anyone should reasonably expect from a portable device at its price range.

If you suggest socialized healthcare and I say that you want communism is that hyperbole?

Amongst other things he said;

Then there's a secondary type of poster that thinks Nintendo is out to screw them and they can secretly add an OLED screen, more RAM, 3nm chip with 50% more performance all for like $30 more but they chose not to. This is completely unreasonable too. For $450 in this day and age, the Switch 2 is even for 2025 about as good as you can get. There's no one out here offering dirt cheap hardware, this idea is outdated and stuck in the 90s and 2000s when companies would sometimes even take losses on hardware. No one is going to do that going forward for a myriad of reasons.

Apart from being totally incorrect (no-one has taken a loss on hardware since the 2000s, eh, sorry what???), as far as I can see, in the recent history of this thread, nobody has suggested all of those improvements for $30, or even close. If I suggest a bigger battery to drive the screen properly & potentially allow for better VRR implementation and longer battery life, is the above just hyperbole or a complete strawman?

Too many people living in lalaland in threads like this still thinking they're living in 2005.

He failed to provide any examples of who this applied to, so it's hard to take him seriously. Ultimately his entire remit seems to be to scold anyone who has any opinion that doesn't fawn over Switch 2 & Nintendo, it's just fanboyism.

Also, I guess we can start referring to Japan as lalaland as they're seemingly currently enjoying Swicth 2 sold at a loss...



Biggerboat1 on 31 July 2025
curl-6 said:

Yeah considering they had to keep prices down and that Nvidia stuff doesn't come cheap, cutting edge tech wasn't realistically an option.

Sure, they could've made it a premium monster like the ROG Ally X or something, but then it would be too expensive for most of their userbase.

Considering a lot of people expected it to be basically a PS4 when docked, the outcome's not bad at all.

To be clear, I don't think the outcome of S2 is bad either, but I do think they could have improved in certain areas without breaking the viability of the product & price.

I can't remember a single suggestion within the last couple of months that would have driven the price up to anywhere near the ROG Ally X...

Isn't the point of a forum to reply directly to other posters points rather than to those of the dumbest poster you've seen elsewhere on the internet?

I'm sure there are some numpties out there that want PS5 Pro performance out of a handheld at sub-$500 but why would we, the posters on this thread, on this forum care?



Soundwave on 31 July 2025
Biggerboat1 said:
curl-6 said:

Yeah considering they had to keep prices down and that Nvidia stuff doesn't come cheap, cutting edge tech wasn't realistically an option.

Sure, they could've made it a premium monster like the ROG Ally X or something, but then it would be too expensive for most of their userbase.

Considering a lot of people expected it to be basically a PS4 when docked, the outcome's not bad at all.

To be clear, I don't think the outcome of S2 is bad either, but I do think they could have improved in certain areas without breaking the viability of the product & price.

I can't remember a single suggestion within the last couple of months that would have driven the price up to anywhere near the ROG Ally X...

Isn't the point of a forum to reply directly to other posters points rather than to those of the dumbest poster you've seen elsewhere on the internet?

I'm sure there are some numpties out there that want PS5 Pro performance out of a handheld at sub-$500 but why would we, the posters on this thread, on this forum care?

Because that has been the tenor of the discussion here for like a year+. People constantly trying to downplay the system as we were getting news over the past 12-14 months non-stop and sniping at anyone who would suggest the hardware might actually (gasp!) be fairly decent. The non-stop down talking of leaks that turned out to actually be legitimate was also tiresome. 

The "Nintendo Expert" brigade in particular who actually don't know shit about Nintendo's history and think they know everything because they remember the Wii and DS (whoopity doo) look especially stupid now. 

There are different hardware priorities and different hardware eras at Nintendo, in the Yamauchi era they made very good console hardware for like 20 freaking years, but these "Nintendo experts" apparently forgot all about that. The NES/Famicom was waaaaay better hardware than the Sega SG-1000 which launched the same day as the Famicom in Japan. The Super NES was better than the Genesis and Turbo Grafx 16. The N64 was more powerful hardware than the PS1 with the unfortunate lack of a CD drive holding it back. The GameCube was better hardware than the PS2. In the Wii/DS/Wii U/3DS era they chased a more casual audience, yes, but that was reflective of the market situation of that time. It's also obvious that era is also over and Nintendo is in a new era with entirely different people at the head of the company now.

Last edited by Soundwave - on 31 July 2025

sc94597 on 31 July 2025

The bits of Star Wars Outlaws we saw in today's direct didn't look too much compromised. Obviously not the best version of the game, but looked true to the game's aesthetic goals..