I'm curious how the portable market does over the coming years.  The competition is already at 16 gb standard ram, with the Ally X going to 24 gb with the "fast" ram.  I suspect the Deck 2 will also see a minimum of 24 gb, maybe even with the Stix chipset.  Likely the S2 will be the weakest portable by 2026 on the market.  Seems like the rest of the industry doesn't see 12 gb at 112 gb/s as enough to handle 3rd party at good settings.  But Nintendo still has the major advantage of having actual exclusives.

As for the series S, it has twice the ram speed, so the comparison to the S2 isn't 10 gb to 12 gb.  It is more like 20 gb to 12 gb, huge difference.  Not sure why you continue to view ram exclusively in amount.  Speed is every bit as important.

Edit

S2 will likely be 2.5 ghz, while the series S is 3.6 ghz, another huge gap.

It feels like some like to discuss tech but do not have the slightest clue on how any of this works.

For the record I think the S2 will be able run most games, just at low resolution, low fps and low settings.  

COD Black Ops 6? The game that's on the 11 year old PS4? Like do you even do 5 seconds of research with some of your posts? 

Some of you guys are completely detached from the reality of the business of this industry, but for people who know are seeing things like Playstation's own former president saying costs are way out of control and almost every new gaming exec basically confirming that. 

The few developers that have tried to push graphics this gen with games like Senua's Saga and Immortals Aveum I'm not so sure are "loving" their sales figures. 

Cod6 is online only and switch being a handheld and all games are suppose to able to be experienced that way. I wonder if Nintendo would even allow that.

They're legally obligated to have the game on a Nintendo platform. If it turns out they're reneging on that deal they're going to have a shit ton of headaches with the justice department in any kind of purchase they try and make in the future, I doubt they are stupid enough to try and risk that over basically nothing. 

Their detractors in the justice department, various other regulatory bodies (like the U.K.) and other lawyers who are itching to bring anti-trust lawsuits against Microsoft would have a field day with them reneging on that stipulation in their Activision buy out. They'd be singing from the rooftops on that one the next time MS tries to buy any company, not even gaming related. 

So do you think Nintendo will alow a game on its handheld that's online only seems like it could be problem.

It's going to be on Switch 2. I think that "online only" thing is bullshit anyway, they want people to have to have some bullshit "Activision/Microsoft" account and that basically forces it. With the Switch 2 version it could work like Nintendo's NSO service does where it checks if you're online a certain period before but you can then play the games, like you can play N64, NES, SNES NSO titles on the Switch in airplane mode (offline). You just have to make sure you login online once a week or whatever arbitrary period they want to set. 

If we look at the evidence, we see Nintendo just bought a company that specializes in porting to weaker hardware.. if third party were going to target the series S, rtx 2050 and S2 then Nintendo wouldn't have made the investment.

Clearly Nintendo themselves think porting is going to take money, time and work.

Everything in the industry requires money ... unless you think people work for free in this business. 

Nintendo bought that studio likely because they are anticipating ports from PS5-generation games to Switch 2. It's not exactly rocket science. 

They probably may have been in negotiations with some high level 3rd party for a port or port(s) of certain titles and just moved in on that company to seal the deal. 

If Nintendo now goes to discuss a port of game XYZ from a big publisher they can simply point out "hey we have a studio that we can contract to you to make that port happen". Simple as that. 

Exactly.  It won't be a straight port and Nintendo has the in house ability to rework assets.

Glad we finally agree on something.

They don't rework assets for those ports by and large. Witcher 3 had the same assets as the PC version on Switch for example. 

Reworking assets is expensive and would require likely an actual art department which a dev team of like 15 people is not going to have.

So no, we don't agree on that.