It isn't towards you specifically, because I actually enjoy your posts, but I detest this idea that they "cheap out". People always say it in these threads, and it's never true. They'll target a level of performance and go with that. It's also true that "hardware" isn't "a catch-all term for the GPU", and it doesn't start and end at the graphics card. So, they'll consider other features. Low-power consumption products aren't "cheap", neither are the Joy-Con elements, nor smaller form factors, and their R&D certainly isn't. In the case of the Switch, they opted for industry-leading chips, and literally the best that they could fit into that form factor at that price.
Returning to the subject of how powerful a Switch successor can be, I have to disagree rather passionately with Zom3le's projections because they assume far too much, and don't consider the possibility of "behind the scenes" or different ideas. I wouldn't lend the same amount of credence to that "leak" from Foxconn, too. It's worth noting that multiple developers and publishers were consulted and involved in the development of the Switch - That was confirmed by EA last year. Getting them on board was an huge priority for Nintendo internally, and the Switch reveal was, in places, a statement of intent. Some of their partners would not support it at all, if there wasn't enough to meet the ambitions of their developers, and they wouldn't be there for the sake of one game, as it wouldn't be worth a publisher's while. To that end, if anything will influence and determine what is possible for the Switch's successor, I would seriously consider publishers such as Square-Enix and Bethesda. We know that TES V: Skyrim was successful on the Switch, and flagship Final Fantasy games are back on Nintendo platforms - It would be deeply lamentable for all parties if the next Final Fantasy and Elder Scrolls were not on their successors. Perhaps one could also add Capcom to that list, because Nintendo wouldn't want to miss a Monster Hunter title.
