^{After reading this article below about Amazon games being on board as soon as they can, it made contemplate the question.}

^{Has Nintendo finally gone full circle to the days of the SNES and are going to get the same games the other system get? Sure the Wii and the Switch got a bunch of multi-plate titles, but mostly the smaller ones. Or if not a smaller title it was a digital only or indie game.}

^{But what about bringing back the CODs, the Resident Evil main titles, etc?}

^{O think the Switch has earned Nintendo that opportunity again. Just please do not do them dirty like with the Wii U and give the Switch the least amount of effort possible.}

^{What do you all think?}

https://www.gonintendo.com/contents/39422-amazon-games-ceo-says-they-plan-to-develop-for-switch-successor

Technically speaking, I think yes - if anything, Hogwarts Legacy running on Switch is proof that if you strip the game down enough, it can run on quite weak hardware. Switch 2 being significant step up (presumably) from Switch should handle ports just fine.

As for anything else - it's anyone's guess what major 3rd party publishers (apart from Ubisoft, I guess) will choose to port to Switch 2.

Perm is more adept at talking about this. It will still be lightyears behind even a PS5. Tho with modern feature sets and DLSS and Nintendo buying the Hogwarts Legacy port studio. Probably sees more ports than Switch and looks roughly like a PS4 version of said game.

S2 will get a bunch of ps4 ports and some early gen ps5 ports. I do not think it will get many newer games due to weaker hardware.

The ps5 struggles with Black Myth. Rumor has it Wilds will top out at 30 fps on consoles.  

The ps5 has 448 gb/s while the S2 (at most) will be 112 gb/s. Meaning the S2 will not run modern games very well.

DLSS helps, but isn't magic. It doesn't take 540p and make a good image. It doesn't take 20 fps and make a stable 30 fps.

People misunderstand DLSS.  It takes 1080p and makes a reasonable 1440p image (or 1440p to 4k).  It takes 60 to 80 fps and generates 100 to 120 fps.  For DLSS to work well it has to have significant data input.  

 leak shows S2 at 120GB

You are talking hard-drive.  I'm talking memory bandwidth.  The S2 will be 112 gb/s max.

Edit

For those who care, memory bandwidth is how much data a gpu can load on and off the vram.  We don't play full motion videos, but rather a bunch of still shots.  The more still shots (e.g. fps) the smoother a game looks and the more accurate the controls.

Using easy math, say each still shot is 10 gb.

30 fps x 10 gb each is 300 gb/s

60 fps x 10 gb each is 600 gb/s

120 fps x 10 gb each is 1200 gb/s

The S2 will require downgrades of new games because it will be 112 gb/s docked.  The ps5 is struggling at 60 fps on the newest games because it is 448 gb/s.  A 4090 is 1006 gb/s, thus can push most (not all) games close to 120 fps.

Best way to reduce memory bandwidth is reduce image quality via resolution, textures, lighting, shadows, volumetric, etc.

I mean on the theorical level of performances, the Switch successor is gonna be armed with an NVIDIA chipset, meaning it's performance would outweight what would similarly be in the AMD park of performances, while delivering about the same modern set features you see on current generation. DLSS is only a thing if you take into the getgo that the succ has a feature set that will steamroll the one on PS4-PS4Pro which aren't present. Bandwidth will be lacking due to the form factor employed, but performance will punch above it's weigh due to much better available tools and resources for it. 

So as you say, a reduce in image quality via lower resolutions (which will be taken back by DLSS anyway) and lower texture work(4K textures are not a necessity for good looking games knowadays and bloats game sizes), etc ... 

Games are proven to be much more modular with their engines as proven numerous times by the OG Switch and ports of current gen games to the PS4/Xbone so to me, it's at least inevitable it will be about the same for the Switch 2 at the very least.

It's not as simple as that I am afraid.

Some rendering techniques require more bandwidth than others... And there is an efficiency curve of bandwidth vs resolution as well, each GPU architecture has an optimal resolution for the resources it has.

100-150GB/s is definitely optimal for 720P and a little above, with around 200-250GB/s being ideal for 1080P, that's not to say you won't get more performance with more memory bandwidth, but that's certainly enough "fillrate" to get the job done competently at those targets.

The other things is that... Modern GPU's now break down a scene into tiles, then the GPU looks at the differences between neighboring pixels... Aka. The delta between those pixels, then it compares it to a pattern library to explain those deltas which ultimately results in significant reduction in bandwidth requirements and L2 cache usage and texture mapping unit usage due to a reduction in reading back compressed render targets.
And the more modern a GPU architecture is, the more patterns it has to compare it to, which means more significant gains.

More modern architectures are also able to more effectively eject polygons and textures from being rendered that aren't visible as well.

Some techniques like alpha effects also demand more memory bandwidth... So on consoles with oodles of memory bandwidth developers can go silly with alpha effects like with the Xbox 360 and it's eDRAM setup... Verses the Playstation 3... But on consoles with less memory bandwidth you can strip some of that away and maintain higher resolutions.

Which is why Switch games tend to avoid using lots of Alpha effects.

As for the comparisons to the Playstation 5 and Series X... Remember developers of today are pushing Ray Tracing, AMD's implementation of Ray Tracing is to put bluntly... Absolute garbage.

The Playstation 5 and Series X lack hardware capability to do BVH/Ray/Triangle intersection calculations due to their reliance on AMD technology, which means the hypothetical nVidia powered Switch 2.0 would be more efficient and faster at Ray Tracing, this will be a significant advantage that can't really be understated.

Sorry to say that arbitrary numbers like 30fps @ 10gb each requires 300GB/s is just not accurate.

I cannot understate how far ahead nVidia is compared to AMD in regards to efficiency, AMD is generations behind.
Is the Switch going to be a beast? For a handheld, absolutely, for a fixed console it's going to be competent... And that's all that matters.

I think you worry too much about being the smartest in the room and lose sight of illustrations.  And you are right, I am sure it is more complex than I made out, most things are.

But my illustration is still fine.  Increasing fps requires jumps in memory bandwidth.  The Switch is likely stuck at 30 fps max, and will need sacrifices to hit 30 fps, that was the point.  

Sometimes I think you should ask yourself "what are they trying to illustrate" before replying to people.  

As a simple question, is the memory bandwidth of the switch 2 going to be a bottle neck for modern third-party games?  

For me it boils down to 3 main questions; can, will and how.  

Can games be ported to the switch 2?  Sure.  Time, money and fidelity sacrifices.  Nothing new here, this has always been the case.  

Will games be ported to the switch 2?  Hard to say without sales, final specs and final price.  But I suspect it will be hit or miss.  I see, out of the gates, a bunch of ps4 ports.  I would be stunned if RE4 remake isn't a launch title.  New games like Black Myth, I think will be hit or miss.  Some companies will put in the effort, some won't.  

How will games be ported is the biggest question.  Carts are expensive, games are large, and most developers are cheap.  I would not be surprised if most developers go digital only on the switch 2.