He never said halfway, he said middle. For example, 24-26 can be considered your mid-20s.
The Switch is 5 years old, there is no way the Switch 2 is coming in 2026/7. The "mid-point" stuff is part marketing to get people to keep buying Switches, and part technical truth in that the Switch probably won't be discontinued for another 5 years at least. Even if the Switch 2 came out at the end of this year, the original would remain very useful as an appealing budget device.
Nintendo: "We are introducing the Power Switch! It lets you play the Switch library of games with a bit more power! For those that want it!"
It's not that hard to introduce this concept. No headaches.
People had these same fears when the Xbox One X and ps4 pro were known to exist. It doesn't create confusion or headaches.
Its….confirmed in the Nvidia api data leaks that this thread is about…
Can you link me to this announcement?
Right, it will be treated by Nintendo as a mid gen upgrade. That's all I'm saying :)
Doesn't matter how other gamers or 3rd party devs view it.
He specifically said "mid-point". Which is, like, exactly halfway. It's not a term for generalization.
Mega-succesful platforms like the PS2 and the GBA have a long portion of their lifecycle after their successor has been released. When Nintendo introduces a Switch 2, they'll move development of their A-tier games like Mario and Zelda to Switch 2, while still supporting Switch in a much reduced capacity while third parties and indie devs continue supporting it until they either reach the point of not being able to make what they want to at Switch power level or until Switch 2 grows a large enough install base.
Switch is definitely in the tier of console that will continue to be supported for a long time after it's replaced. They'll phase it back, but it's not a Wii U or original Xbox situation where it's immediately taken behind the shed and shot dead.
No one knows what NVN2 really is though. As I said before it's all assumed.
occam's razor and all of that. unless you have a reason to believe it's something else
First, the ps2 is considered one of the most unconventional hardware lifecycles ever lol. I seriously doubt Furukawa was referring to ps2 when talking about conventional hardware lifecycle expectations.
Second, the ps3 was not released the same year Sony said the ps2 was "at the mid point of its lifecycle"…Sony people were saying that in 2004.
Which, really, brings us back to when people expect this new model to release.
People who definitively want to say this is a Switch 2 true successor type release and have to argue it's not releasing till after 2024…are wrong, because everything suggests this upgrade is coming sooner than later.
People who definitively want to say this 2022/2023 hardware is a Switch 2 true successor type release…are also wrong, because that goes directly against what Nintendo is saying about its own expectations of the Switch lifecycle and growth.
Microsoft stopped producing Xbox one and Xbox one X before Series S/X released. Sony stopped producing ps4 pros before the ps5 released and stopped production of the ps4 slim at the end of 2021 (they had to reverse that decision but that was the plan).
In the age of iterative, continuous console architecture and BC…this is what a conventional console lifecycle means now. It's no longer the age of the ps2 where it's a completely closed off system from its successor (ps3) allowing it a prolonged life as a place to ONLY play ps2 gaming libraries.
This upgrade model Nintendo is releasing will not have Nintendo stop making the current models by the end of 2023. It will not have them start focusing on the developing solely for this new model.
The beauty of utilizing DLSS in the new mode is that it greatly enhances the graphics/performance of the games it designs to work on the current models. They don't have to "shift over" focus of anything. Until the next power upgrade after this 4K model comes out lol
Almost certainly this is a Switch successor, (Switch 2 / Super Nintendo Switch / Switch Advance) and not merely a Pro/New upgrade model just meant to run Switch games in DLSS'ed 4k and better framerates (although it will do that also).
256 cuda gpu cores ----> 1536 cuda gpu cores is a BIG, next-gen leap, before we even account for Maxwell --> Ampere, DLSS 2.x and potential raytracing support.
I assume the specific CPU, RAM size and bandwidth is similarly/appropriately increased.
256 cuda gpu cores ----> 1536 cuda gpu cores is a BIG, next-gen leap, before we even account for Maxwell --> Ampere, DLSS 2.x and potential raytracing support.
I assume the specific CPU, RAM size and bandwidth is similarly/appropriately increased.
Last edited:
We know NVN refers to the current Switch gpu api and architecture…what would NVM2 refer to in your mind if not referring to an upgraded Switch hardware profile?
You can be skeptical about what the plans for this upgraded Switch hardware is, but you cannot be skeptical that it exists and has those specs.
I think this chip is the successor (when you've gone over 3x in power the previous system, you're effectively into new gen territory), but the decision to make this chip was made before COVID and before Nintendo saw the Switch's sales cycle is different from previous Nintendo systems.
So I think Nintendo is kind of in a weird spot ... they have a new leadership and are (probably rightfully so given their history) nervous about a cold reset generational shift going from 100 million+ users back to starting from 0. But they have this newer chip which was probably greenlit around 2019/2020 to be ready for around late 2022/2023 under the assumption that Switch sales would slow by then and a successor would be needed. So that train left the station a long time ago.
What I think they will do is basically just keep their core development all on Switch 1 for the next 3-4 years and then see how this model sells. If it amasses a large userbase, then it is the successor, if not, then it's just another Switch model. I don't think Nintendo is really in any mad rush to have higher development costs on PS4/PS5 budget sized games, so keeping assets at the Switch 1 level but just having them run at 4K with a little more gloss on them probably suits them just fine.
So I think Nintendo is kind of in a weird spot ... they have a new leadership and are (probably rightfully so given their history) nervous about a cold reset generational shift going from 100 million+ users back to starting from 0. But they have this newer chip which was probably greenlit around 2019/2020 to be ready for around late 2022/2023 under the assumption that Switch sales would slow by then and a successor would be needed. So that train left the station a long time ago.
What I think they will do is basically just keep their core development all on Switch 1 for the next 3-4 years and then see how this model sells. If it amasses a large userbase, then it is the successor, if not, then it's just another Switch model. I don't think Nintendo is really in any mad rush to have higher development costs on PS4/PS5 budget sized games, so keeping assets at the Switch 1 level but just having them run at 4K with a little more gloss on them probably suits them just fine.
If anything, I'd argue NVN2 is the biggest piece of evidence that this is the successor we're looking at here. I don't think there's any need for a v2 of the NVN dialect of Vulkan if it's also supposed to run on a regular Switch, Nvidia would just call it v1.10 or whatever.
I would expect NVN1 code will run on a Switch 2. That said, I could see NVN2 being a superset of NVN1 (to add support for raytracing, for example).
I would expect NVN1 code will run on a Switch 2. That said, I could see NVN2 being a superset of NVN1 (to add support for raytracing, for example).
Is this based off the 12 SMs found in the GPU?
What if some of them are disabled, and the unit has 8 or even 6 SMs that devs can use? Or what if the GPU is clocked far slower than expected?
Or maybe it's lacking in other areas, like RAM and CPU. I mean what if we get a quad-core CPU setup with just two A78 cores and two A57 cores.
I'm pretty sure Nintendo knew the Switch was a success even before COVID. It was trending in that way. I wasn't some revelation of the last year or two
There is no question the power differential is "next gen successor" levels, to be sure.
The question is will Nintendo treat and position the the model as such. I say no. They will treat it more like mid gen upgrade model to lengthen the Switch engagement for another few years.
Nothing suggests to me why they would treat it any other way, everything they say/do suggests to me they don't plan on winding down on the current Switch any time soon.
I do believe Nintendo when they keep lamenting how they didn't shift towards HD development sooner during the Wii years and how maybe the Wii lifecycle could have been strengthened by a "Wii HD" type release ~2010.
So, for me, I see this chip upgrade as specifically addressing that for the Switch system. Having all future development "keep 4K in mind".
This Power Switch will be positioned how they feel a "Wii HD" should have been positioned, imo. Nothing more, nothing less. Giving that 4K/ray tracing option for Nintendo gaming to where the industry finds itself currently in.
With all the release timing and "pro model" vs "successor" discussion I got a little curious about Nintendo's history and made these. It's widely available information but maybe put like this they'll be helpful for someone else too.
I know patterns aren't set in stone and etc., but late 2022/early 2023 for a release would at least make sense given the average timing for the more modern Nintendo platforms, given today is Switch's 5 year anniversary.
*Counted Game Boy Color separate from Game Boy although Nintendo does not; forgot Virtual Boy but I think so would do Nintendo; and all release dates were gathered from Wikipedia, so sorry if there are any inaccuracies
I know patterns aren't set in stone and etc., but late 2022/early 2023 for a release would at least make sense given the average timing for the more modern Nintendo platforms, given today is Switch's 5 year anniversary.
*Counted Game Boy Color separate from Game Boy although Nintendo does not; forgot Virtual Boy but I think so would do Nintendo; and all release dates were gathered from Wikipedia, so sorry if there are any inaccuracies
It's not a stretch to say though no one could have forseen massive things that have happened since then though like COVID, which in effect basically gave the Switch a free year+ of super high sales, they released basically nothing but Animal Crossing and experienced record breaking sales with no major release except for a Pokemon remake for 12 calendar months.
In 2019/2020, Switch was successful but it kinda made sense that you would want a new chip ready for late 2022/2023 probably by then just in case sales started to falter.
The thing is COVID has thrown this Switch cycle an entire loop, it's selling more like a system that's still in its peak-prime and Nintendo I think in the last couple of years has realized they want to ride this gravy train for a long, long time, not start back at 0 like a traditional console cycle even if they were thinking more along those lines 3 years ago.
This thing is way overpowered for just running Switch games at 4K as others have noted. This is definitely a full generational leap over the Switch, maybe even more than that when factoring in the implications of DLSS.
Nintendo probably was too cheap to commit to a "half-stop" Pro style redesign, since Nvidia probably is also not down for giving up their tech for cheap (you want a custom design, even one that's lower powered, Nvidia wants their $$$$ either way, AMD maybe gives Sony/MS better pricing on custom designs for PS4 Pro and XB1S).
So in 2019/2020 they probably committed to this chip to be the Switch 2 basically, if you're going to spend money on a new chip design, it might as well cover you for your successor system, which they assumed around 2019 they might need by late 2022/2023 (makes sense, 6 years or so post-Switch 1).
But a lot has changed since 2019/2020 too ... now I think Nintendo is not so eager or more accurately not eager at all to let go of the money train they have with the existing Switch generation. It's in Nintendo's best interests to keep the Switch 1 marketplace vibrant and keep making money off that huge userbase as long as possible. But this successor chip was already coming no matter what because it was given the go ahead years ago and it's now ready to go it seems like.
How many more times powerful (excluding DLSS) is it than the current Switch given what you expect to be the clock speeds?
It's purpose appears to be able to run Switch games at 4K when docked, add some ray tracing and graphics effects, and better performance across the board.
I don't think it "adds" anything else than that?
You are right, it helps Switch games stay relevant for another 4-5 years…but I think 2030 for a successor to the Switch is overboard :P
This upgrade means Nintendo doesn't need another power upgrade device till around 2027 or so, I'd say.
Yes, it's good to assume this device's theoretical power wont be pushed by Nintendo lol. Playing the Switch library at 4K + ray tracing + 60fps when docked and 720p + ray tracing + 60fps when mobile is all it needs to do to achieve its goals.
Like the OG Switch, I can see Nintendo restricting how far developers are allowed to push this thing when it launches.
The advantage of 12 SM's (I can't wait to see how Nvidia has been able to achieve that in a SoC for the form factor of the Switch) is that Nintendo can severely lower clocks while still maintaining enough power to utilize tensor/rt cores if they choose.
If it were 6 SM's, for example, you'd have to be pushing up clocks…and heat and battery usage…to get to similar power.
Not only am I shocked that fitting 12 SM's into a Switch sized SoC was doable, I'm shocked Nintendo went the more expensive route to achieve the goals (but is absolutely the better solution)
Again, I expect this thing to be relatively expensive tbh.
Assuming the 12SM bit is what they're using and it's clocked about the same as the current Switch (400-500 MHz undocked, 770 MHz docked) ... you're talking like more than a 5x increase in performance (not factoring in obvious architectural improvements which are vast and DLSS), it's basically the same difference between PS4 and PS5 in raw power, now add DLSS on top of that.
If this is the chip Nintendo chose, then it's fairly unambiguous that it was chosen to be the successor to the Switch 1, not some mid-cycle medium upgrade. I've said many times, Nintendo is probably too cheap to want to pay Nvidia big $$$ for both a "Pro" design and a successor design, so they probably only paid for a successor design and this is it.
Now the interesting thing is, Nintendo may just use it like a glorified Pro model in some or many respects even though the chipset is a full blown successor because they want to keep that sweet, sweet 100+ million userbase money flowing in. I think they've realized now that they have a userbase this lucrative (it's not just the sheer size of the Switch userbase, but the amount of software that sells on Switch dwarfs even Wii or DS and also Nintendo Online subs on top of that) and they don't want to do the usual console transition even if they were kinda thinking that around 2019.
ThanksWith all the release timing and "pro model" vs "successor" discussion I got a little curious about Nintendo's history and made these. It's widely available information but maybe put like this they'll be helpful for someone else too.
I know patterns aren't set in stone and etc., but late 2022/early 2023 for a release would at least make sense given the average timing for the more modern Nintendo platforms, given today is Switch's 5 year anniversary.
*Counted Game Boy Color separate from Game Boy although Nintendo does not; forgot Virtual Boy but I think so would do Nintendo; and all release dates were gathered from Wikipedia, so sorry if there are any inaccuracies
I guess it's about that time again isn't it, maybe another year with this thing
They could always decide to make this one longer, playstation tends to have longer times between for example (like ~7 iirc) and nintendo does seem to give a little extra time to the big hits. but past experience would suggest we're just about there
I just need the succ to be backwards compatible with switch carts/software and I'm good, with that I'd be perfectly content to pick up a succ at the end of the year
As others have mentioned, keeping this existing userbase would be great because switch is still thriving
It's not overpowered to run games at 4K/60fps/ray tracing. Not at all. Not sure why people are saying that?
I don't believe this at all.
Nvidia probably approached Nintendo in ~2018 and told them what their new mobile SoC (Orin) is expected to do, what it can do for gaming. Told them all about the value of DLSS and tensor cores.
Just like they approached them with the Tegra X1 in ~2015.
Nintendo saw the value it could add to Switch gaming. Nvidia worked with them to design something that is cutting edge for a mobile device when it comes to gaming, and that would fit within the Switch ecosystem.
Switch success was roubust and limitless in 2018/2019 and in no way was Nintendo looking beyond the ecosystem then. When they finalized in ~2019/2020 what the chip would be and how it would be used, it was to be a Switch power upgrade model for a mid gen release. Hence, putting out devkits in 2020.
I think people underestimate how much Nvidia wants to profile their mobile SoC tech (always been behind AMD on that front) especially in areas outside of automotive, like gaming.
They wouldn't let Nintendo "half ass it" or release what's supposed to show the current tech of Nvidia mobile…that isn't. Nvidia has a specific investment in this. They aren't overcharging Nintendo.
Counterpoint:
If you now plan on supporting a system with games longer than 10 years (what a conventional console lifecycle is), you design a model to keep engagement in Switch gaming for another ~4 years to keep people in the ecosystem who might otherwise drop out due to "aging".
Exactly how "pro" mid gen upgrades are explained to why they exists (see ps4 pro and xbox one X)
The money spent will reflect in the price of this DLSS Switch, to be sure.
Another reason why Nintendo would be comfortable releasing such an expensive console…it's not a replacement for anything, they don't expect everyone to have moved to it the next two years. (What console makers do expect when they release a successor) They expect it to be the lowest selling hybrid Switch model. (Just like the more expensive mid gen upgrades to the xboxone and ps4 pro were the lowest selling models)
It's going to be released as for "those who want this option" not as "this will be the only option for Switch gaming two years from now"
To run the games in 4K, especially when you factor in it has DLSS ... I don't think you need this kind of horsepower.
Ray tracing can cripple any chip though, so yeah, but I don't think Nintendo honestly is even that interested in ray tracing.
Nintendo greenlit this chip likely around 2019, in 2019 it made perfect sense that by 2023 or so (6 years into the Switch cycle), they would need a Switch 2 chip. What would a Switch 2 need to be in order to be a full generational leap ... probably around 5x-6x more powerful than the current Switch. Well it looks like this chip lines up to that exactly, probably more in the end if you factor in DLSS.
The curve ball here is likely that Nintendo did not forsee COVID completely causing the "usual Nintendo hardware cycle of decline by year 5/6" to fall apart nor do I think they imagined (frankly) the Switch being *this* successful overall, so now they don't want to restart from 0.
But this chip is ready because those wheels were put into motion years ago ... it's going to be interesting how Nintendo treats it.
The conventional console life cycle is closer to seven or eight years these days (there's no Indian summer once the replacements are out, unlike with the PS1 and PS2), and Nintendo specifically has been very consistent in releasing new home consoles every five years (give a year in the case of the Wii, take a year for the WiiU).
Nintendo's cycle has settled into a fairly steady 6 year cycle for successful systems, so in 2019 there was really no reason not to think they would need a new successor system chip by late 2022/early 2023.
I think at some point especially in the COVID sales boom for Switch, they began to say "well, why are we doing the whole starting at 0 again with a new system? Do well really need to do that?" type thing. Which I mean from a business POV I can't really say they're wrong.
Aye, which would line up with launching alongside BotW 2.
Basically, it's either happening in this upcoming financial year, or it's going to be 2024 at the earliest.
On GrubbSnax, Jeff Grubb predicts that this is early 2024 at earliest, with late 2024 feeling more likely to him.
Nintendo is still going to be relevant with the new Pokémon, Wii Sports, Mario Kart, and BotW2. There's no way Nintendo goes out of vogue between now and then.
Nintendo is still going to be relevant with the new Pokémon, Wii Sports, Mario Kart, and BotW2. There's no way Nintendo goes out of vogue between now and then.
I think something different is going to happen ... this is supposed to be Switch 2, but now Nintendo doesn't feel like ending or even curbing/slowing the Switch 1's momentum ... so even though they basically made the Switch 2 ... they will treat it more like a Game Boy Color to Game Boy even though spec wise it has GBA to OG GB type power difference.
Nintendo I think internally is fine making Wii U tier visuals for a lot longer, so they'll just continue making games in that tier of visuals but letting the Super Switch run them at 4K. I don't think ray tracing was anything Nintendo cared much about, but if you have that much performance overhead just being unused maybe they'll throw in some ray tracing in their games too to make the chip break a sweat.
3rd parties they'll sort of just let them do what they want I guess.
As for it's release I'll just say it -- early March 2023 with BOTW2 launching day and date. 4K + other effects exclusive to Super Switch, regular Switch users get 540p + 720p or whatever. But it will be supply constrained for a long while.
Nintendo I think internally is fine making Wii U tier visuals for a lot longer, so they'll just continue making games in that tier of visuals but letting the Super Switch run them at 4K. I don't think ray tracing was anything Nintendo cared much about, but if you have that much performance overhead just being unused maybe they'll throw in some ray tracing in their games too to make the chip break a sweat.
3rd parties they'll sort of just let them do what they want I guess.
As for it's release I'll just say it -- early March 2023 with BOTW2 launching day and date. 4K + other effects exclusive to Super Switch, regular Switch users get 540p + 720p or whatever. But it will be supply constrained for a long while.
Last edited:
I'm still going with late 2022/early 2023. Both Nate and Bloomberg seemed to have sources indicating as much as far back as last year and I doubt they would give out dev kits for a 2024 console release in 2020. Not to mention there are games scheduled for this console by 3rd parties slated for a late 2022 release apparently. They even have an excellent launch window line up for it with XB3, Pokemon SV, and BOTW2
For all the discussion on midgen refresh vs next gen Switch it kind of seems like we need to discuss specifics more so than just those terms.
For example, will it have exclusives, backwards compatibility, play current Switch games at higher resolutions, etc…
For example, will it have exclusives, backwards compatibility, play current Switch games at higher resolutions, etc…
I agree. I don't see Nintendo having a new concept for hardware until 2028. It's been said countless times over the years that Nintendo uses a concept for 2 generations before moving to something different,
NES-->SNES (2D sprite era, Famicom era)
N64-->Gamecube (3D polygon era)
Wii-->Wii U (Motion era)
Switch --> Switch Next? (Hybrid era)
Although, one can make the argument that Switch is perfecting what Nintendo tried to do with the Wii U but tech wasnt ready for a true hybrid console in WiiU for the early to mid 2010s
I think this is a weird situation where the successor chip is basically ready, but manufacturing may be an issue and also Nintendo doesn't want to end or even slow the current Switch.
So kinda imagine if Nintendo had greenlit the SNES but then by late 1989 decided they don't want to replace or slow down the NES at all, lol. But the SNES chip is already finished basically and it is a full generational leap over the NES no doubt about it. So maybe in an alternate time line they release ... NES/Famicom Turbo or something?
So kinda imagine if Nintendo had greenlit the SNES but then by late 1989 decided they don't want to replace or slow down the NES at all, lol. But the SNES chip is already finished basically and it is a full generational leap over the NES no doubt about it. So maybe in an alternate time line they release ... NES/Famicom Turbo or something?
Last edited:
it absolutely will not be GDDRx. sucks down way too much power. LPDDR4x or LPDDR5 are the only options really. since it's based on Orin, it's likely LPDDR5
Utilizing tensor cores and RT cores take power though. Not to mention Nintendo will have to do this with as low of a power draw as possible.
The gpu described in the link is similar to the GTX 1660 Ti…1536 CUDA cores…but without the tensor and RT cores added.
That gpu needed 120W to run and native 4K performance ran at 20-40fps on average.
While the use of DLSS and tensor cores will certainly help get to 4K/60fps gaming, the fact that the power draw will need to be severely less AND needs to allocate power to the cores to assist DLSS/RT functions…it's not really overkill.
It's more or less exactly what is needed in a portable system to achieve proper 4kDLSS upscaling and ray tracing functions while keeping low power draws and keeping heat disappated.
I see it more as the smarter, albeit more expensive, solution to get such a thing to work on a mobile than it is overkill.
I argue when it comes to anything in terms of graphical effects Nintendo values over anything, it's lighting.
I just refuse to believe Nintendo sent out devkits in 2020 for a system they planned on releasing 3 years later.
I also refuse to believe Nintendo thought the Switch system was "losing Steam" when they sent those devkits out thinking they needed to act as a successor.
The n3ds was released ~4 years after the 3ds. They planned on the "Switch Pro" releasing ~4.5 years after the Switch. The manufacturing issues pushed it to 5.5 years later. I don't see a disconnect with this. Considering they feel the Switch lifecycle will last much longer then the 3ds, pushing the "mid gen" model an extra year later or so makes sense.
I think they probably do have a "new idea" for this new Switch, but I would probably bet on some kind of VR integration. They tested the waters with Labo VR, Nintendo usually follows through on stuff like that which begins in an experimental form into something bigger later.
I mean this chip wouldn't be ready to be mass produced in 2020 even if Nintendo wanted to release it then.
It's only probably being taped out like now (early 2022)? So late 2022, 2023 was probably always going to be the planned release date.
This is basically the successor chip, you have to start these things years in advance.
I don't think Nintendo ever planned a Switch Pro. The Redbox Mariko Switch is basically your Switch Pro or Switch OLED at best. The reason they couldn't do New 3DS type chipset upgrade there is likely because Nvidia is more strict on their chip designs, if you want to tweak things you have to pony up big money as it's considered a new design and that costs real money, whereas I think ARM was more willing to let Nintendo upgrade the dated DS and 3DS chips.
some cores being disabled is a possibility. but cutting down 12 to 8/6? then this chip never would have been made. they're better off making an 8SM chip to start with. as for clocking lower than expected, I wouldn't expect any lower clocks than the current switch. so 768MHz docked and 384MHz handheld.
a lot. whatever the difference between PS4 and the switch is (in docked mode)
there's only so long they can continue to support the switch given it's 2012 CPU. maybe if they're ok with their games running at 540p/30 and having a Pokemon Legends level draw distance. third parties are jumping ship immediately. and I'm not even talking about the ones whom are porting a game from the Series S
While they might do that, I can't see them blocking third-parties from making Switch 2 exclusives even if they wanted to avoid it themselves. There are quite a few modern games that ain't gonna run on the original model - though I suppose they could all go with Cloud releases so they wouldn't technically be exclusive.
Nintendo has never disallowed devs from making exclusives. the GBC had a bunch of exclusives, the DSi had a couple (digital mostly), the n3DS also had some. Drake will definitely have exclusives given the massive leap in cpu performance
I think Nintendo will let 3rd parties do what they want, more or less. Maybe try to encourage some titles to be Switch also (like probably Dragon Quest XII), but for games that won't run on the OG Switch, they'll let them make them anyway.
I think it could develop a bit like the Game Boy Color did, which did have a bunch of exclusive games the original Game Boy couldn't play.
But this situation would just be a bit different because GBC wasn't a real generation upgrade from the Game Boy, this would be.
At this point it feels like the difference between a pro and a successor model is pretty nebulous. I do hope Nintendo treats it as a successor and actually makes games for it, though - letting that massive increase in power go to waste would be unfortunate.
A successor would probably have a different looking OS, even if it's the same basis, and distinctive new features. It wouldn't just be a power upgrade
Yeah, it will have __[insert feature here]___ for sure. It will be so distinctive from the previous Switch OS, we couldn't help but say, it's different.
My feature is FOLDERS.
I don't know - Nintendo does often tend to go wildly different with their new consoles, but the success of the Switch concept makes me think this could be an exception. Just a new Switch but with 6x the power and DLSS, presented as the premium model for those who want the best experience. Not a mid-gen upgrade exactly, but differenciated only by exclusives and the power leap being more than any normal mid-gen machine.
Not going wildly different with HW doesn't mean it'll literally be the same software with stronger HW. A successor will look distinctive from a HW and OS perspective.
Every other generation. The next console is all but certain to be another hybrid with Switch branding.
Sounds smart for Nintendo to release a new console in the middle of a chip shortage, look how much Sony and Microsoft are struggling to put inventory out.