Would those devs know for certain that a home console was coming, or are they anticipating just another hybrid and handheld? They won't change their minds if they find out there's a home console in the mix now? If the console is spec'd the same or very similar to the hybrid, then they have little to worry about, but if its even somewhat competitive with PS5 and XBSX, then they've got a much bigger decision to make. If those devs aren't happy about having to deal with both the XBSX and XBSS hardware and performance gap, then a powerful Switch 2 home console would be just that much worse. Then there's the fact they would hafta still support PS5, PS5 Pro, XBSS, XBSX, plus SW2 Home, SW2 Hybrid, and SW2 Lite now.

It's not going to be so clear for third parties to just automatically support Switch 2 if a powerful home console was involved.

My point is - if you've decided you're going to make a Switch 2 port, it is handheld mode that's your primary target you need to worry about, cause that is decision maker/breaker. Everything else, docked and/or Switch 2 Home are more powerful than that and it's easier to ramp up quality from lowest, handheld mode, than going the other way.

I get it, but you're assuming devs will just automatically decide to do the extra work. Will they? Can they? Not all devs have unlimited resources to just do whatever they want. Did they all ramp up and make sure their PS3 games met their deadlines, while being the same quality if not better than 360? 

Maybe Nin and Nvidia would go to the trouble of doing everything they could to make this relatively easy, or easy enough, but if they didn't, kinda like how SNY didn't with PS3, then devs aren't automatically going to be able to properly support a powerful home console. What you'd get worst case, is Nin would have to be lenient when it came to game upgrades, so some games could simply just be the hybrid version playing on the home console, with no extra benefits.

That's how it would likely end up to be honest, you'd get a portable version that ran at 720p, and a home console that just played the portable version at 1440p-4K on the big screen. If you were lucky maybe you'd get a few tweaks to draw distance, shadows, etc but the core experience would be limited by the bones of the portable version, as such it'd be a tough sell to those who care about graphics as its game would look significantly less pretty than PS/Xbox.

Bigger devs would probably make a reasonable effort to improve the games overall presentation on a powerful Switch 2 home console, but I think there would end up a fair amount of devs that would do very little for the home console version if they were allowed.

So you're mostly right I'd say. It would make it a much harder sell to those who want a powerful Nin home console, because they obviously want the benefits of owning a piece of hardware like that, and only getting those benefits some of the time may not be enough. At that point, buying the hybrid instead might make more sense for them, so then why even make the powerhouse console?

I'm happy with nintendo being how it is. The good side is games with no tlaa and heavy motion blur. The downside is when the switch 2 arrives, i expect they'll be pushing for more photo realism, so motion blur incoming,

They won't; Nintendo has gone through large leaps in graphical power before and it didn't stop the majority of their games pursuing stylized graphics. The Wii U was a huge leap over the Wii graphically, yet they didn't suddenly make Mario or Zelda or Donkey Kong attempt realism.

Higher rendering resolution/frame rate/better DLSS/view distance/physics/AA/RT/LOD...more power, more goodies, and that all pretty much autoscales once put in place.

Even without going into other things, that alone is worth a lot.

I'd say Switch already is a fairly conventional Nintendo console.

But I understand that you mean it is a PlayStation-like console, except by Nintendo.

What I want is a Nintendo console, not a Sony imitation brand. And when the whole "Polaris blah blah" thing kept getting pushed in this forum, that was exactly my line. I got what I wanted, and Nintendo clearly picked right; many, many more people wanted a Switch than a PS2 imitation like GameCube.

But the question is moot, anyway. Nintendo would have to be insane to make a PlayStation-style console, because:

1. They'd go from being a market leader to an imitation brand.
2. They'd go from being alone in the largest segment of the dedicated console space to competing in a smaller and shrinking iterative PS2-style home console space.
3. They'd lose their edge and the ability to grow their business, which is innovation and advancing their hardware - generally speaking, industry homogenization is bad for consumers and bad for innovation; and, in a luxury space with a lot of parallel competition (PC, iOS/Android, and other platform types), it means the slow death of said industry.

These are just the big, obvious things.

In my opinion, the only company that has the power to grow in the Playstation 2-style space, is Sony. Sony knows what they're doing through sheer experience. The only way competitors grow is if Sony flubs.

Agreed with Jumpin; if you imitate the competition, people will generally just stick with the brand they already know and like rather than the imitation. 

On the other hand, if you offer something different that you can't get from PS/Xbox, as the Switch has done, then give people a reason to buy your system over the competition.