I never suggested otherwise.

I am so baffled by this response because it does nothing to address the substance of my post.

Stated plainly, the situation you are describing of being able to play Switch 2 games directly off the physical cart thus saving storage space on the console appears to be the rare exception rather than the means by which most Switch 2 games will be played. Unless the situation reverses and more publishers release their games fully on the cart.

Yes and today HDR games need 10 bit textures (if done properly) instead of 8 bit and can't simply be chroma subsampled to save space.

The GameCube used S3TC texture compression
https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/gamecubes-s3tc-how-does-it-work.27976/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S3_Texture_Compression

It's a lossy compression technique, outdated now.

Plus back then extra space of the disc was used for cut scenes and extras, ps2 still ran all games from disc and wasn't afraid to ship games on multiple discs. The move to digital removed that space luxury, hence hardly any extras anymore and pre-rendered cut scenes fell out of style.

10 bit 4K textures take up a lot of space and for example Starfield has over 70 hours of voice acting. The biggest space save for Nintendo is still no 4K and no voice acting. (Upscaled to 4K in the dock, but not made for 4K monitors viewed from up close)

Depends on what you plan on playing. As others have pointed out the majority of third parties have opted for the 1GB key cards which will utterly destroy the Switch 2's 256GB of storage.

I personally only plan on buying Nintendo first party games on my Switch 2, and only the occasional third party game as long as it's on card (currently I'm only interested in CP2077 which is confirmed to be 100% on the card including the expansion)

Meanwhile on my PS5, I very quickly ran out of storage after installing just a handful of games despite having the games physically. Remember, it wasn't actually 825GB of available storage. It was 667GB. You lost 150GB right out of the box due to the OS.

Remains to be seen as to how much storage the Switch 2 OS will take up, but with the kind of games I plan on buying for the system, the Switch 2's 256GB of internal storage will vastly outlast the PS5's original 825GB of storage for the entirety of my Switch 2's life.

No, it was 825GB (Gigabyte) of storage, which is 768 GiB (Gibibyte).

The system shows 667 GiB (Gibibyte) available store, which is 716 GB (Gigabyte).

So you only lost ~100 GiB (or ~110 GB) right out of the box due to the OS, not 150.

Really? Did Sony forget to add an i to their storage fonts? Because I just checked and it's definitely showing GB. Not GiB. 

I haven't been playing my PS5 lately, so I didn't have any anything installed. But that's pretty clearly 667 GB.

Updated poll to be more accurate cause 825gb is not accurate at all, that OS is really, really beefy ffs. Just realised my slim only has 848gb, perhaps they should put that on the box instead of advertising as 1TB. I can't imagine the Nintendo OS which is basically unchanged asides from the chat features will take thst much of a percentage. I could be wrong but I very much doubt it. That's an insane loss. 667gb is so, so much worse than the PS4s 500gb which had 420gb usable space comparatively with the size of games. 

I don't think so. My slim definitely has only 848 usable GB only from a 1TB drive. 

Yeah which 1TB is equivalent to 1,024 gigabytes. So that's definitely not adding up lol

Generally, 1.01TB on an M.2 drive. The math doesn't add up right between the slim and the launch model on the size the OS is taking so perhaps Conina is right but at the end of the day it's the usable space that's what matters and it's definitely 677GB which is the same metric as the games, you aren't fitting 716GB worth of games on it. 

Microsoft started to use the wrong measurement units. Sony, Nintendo and many others followed.