Diminishing returns and scalability is making mind-blowing graphical leaps a thing of the past, PlayStation & Xbox have the same issue. This generation is seeing higher resolutions, higher/more stable FPS, faster load times, better lighting/particle effects/textures/draw distances, bigger/more interactive worlds, higher player count, etc. things that can make the experience more enjoyable but don’t necessarily seem like massive improvements when looking at screenshots or watching gameplay videos on YouTube. The days of breathtaking jumps like 2D to 3D or SD to HD are long gone.

As for blue ocean, Nintendo went with this strategy out of necessity. Their home consoles had seen consistent decline and their marketshare was becoming negligible so they had to find a way to appeal to new audiences and not compete directly with PS/XB. Their handheld line was still very popular but with Sony entering the fray, they wanted to make sure PSP didn’t steal their thunder like PS1/PS2 did. Nintendo didn’t go with motion controls & touch controls for the sake of doing something new, they did it to make gaming more accessible and open to new demographics that weren’t being targeted by PS/XB.

Wii U & 3DS show what happens when you do new for the sake of new. Nintendo went from their highest selling generation to their lowest selling generation largely because they added new, undesirable features that were the focus of the systems yet added almost nothing of value and because big jump in graphics made software droughts a persistent issue. Switch then did something new but like Wii & DS, it has a purpose and made gaming more accessible. The hybrid aspect and the versatility of the Joy-Cons gave people the freedom to play how, where & when they want and also had the benefit of combining their software output into a single device to have a steadier stream of major releases.

Switch 2 follows the same formula because there is no need to fix what isn’t broken. Switch is their most successful platform ever and people genuinely enjoy what it offered. A more powerful version with a few new features is all they needed to do.

I understand all of that, but it doesn't work for me. Again, I come from a different time. I am use to a new Nintendo console doing drastically different things to what the prior one did. SMB3 to DKC, DKC to OOT, OOT to Metroid Prime, Metroid Prime to Wii Sports, Wii Sports to Splatoon etc. Every step of the way, it was all like wow, look at that! They did it again! Over and over again.

Until Switch 2.

There's definitely a huge double standard; people have been paying $500 or more for consoles or PC handhelds for years now, but Switch 2 at $450 is "oVeRPriCeD".Â

I don't think others being terrible makes it better for Nintendo to be terrible too. It just means that Nintendo's terribleness doesn't stand out as much.

No. I have OG-Nintendo Syndrome, which is the condition of having lived through a time where each new Nintendo console either provided such a drastic graphical leap as to render my mind blown, or to have experienced true blue-ocean gaming like motion controls and the game pad. I remember when buying a new Nintendo console meant change so drastic that you literally could not play their new machine and have it not feel wholly fresh, wholly new.

The Switch 2 is, imo, a Switch Pro re-branded... which is great for those that wanted that. But I didn't want that. I expected Nintendo to do what they've always done, which was to provide me with something that felt completely new.

Hopefully they do that next round, because if they release Switch 3 and it's exactly the same thing again... sigh.

I don't align with this post--I'm good with the refinement of a winning formula--but I can certainly respect it, especially when I remember a LOT of people saying that the main thing they liked about Nintendo was that it changed into something new every generation.

Kudos for sticking to your beliefs when others are clearly fine with whatever they're given and will switch answers accordingly.

Also, sorry, but probably the only way you're going to get something other than a Switch 3 is if Switch 2 trails off badly, so ... yeah.

$450 for a Switch 2 isn't "terrible". You're getting one of the more capable and featured portable gaming systems on the market, with likely 8 years or more of software support. Not at all a bad deal.

I could probably use a similar justification for a lot of things and still feel bad about the price. More importantly, I fully expect each Switch 2 console to be more profitable to Nintendo than each Switch console was at launch. If anyone has proper data on this, I certainly wouldn't mind being proven wrong though (the only result a very quick search yielded was a Reddit post that seemed unclear on whether the comparison was being made to the Swich 1 launch situation or its current situation).