High refresh screen and 4K support is a surprise to me, that’s very nice when it comes to Nintendo standards.
On the other hand, It’s very weird that they didn’t announce a price at the showcase… It sounds like this might be more expensive than what everybody’s expecting it to be.
It’s not similar to PC hardware; It uses a Tegra processor like the Switch 1. Which means it’s more like a phone with a less than laptop grade Nvidia graphics chipset thrown in. Unlike the Steam Deck, for instance, which uses an AMD Z processor, a scaled down version of what is in the Xbox and PS5.
That is entirely meaningless. That's not how performance works, it has no bearing on anything.
In practice, they showed a whole bunch of footage of comparable games, including Elden Ring, Cyberpunk. Hitman, Star Wars Outcasts and Split Fiction. At a glance, it seems fairly comparable to the current batch of PC handheld APUs and seems to be mostly running cross-gen PC games at lower resolutions and framerates but pretty solidly otherwise.
That puts it in a weaker spot than next-gen PC handhelds, but on par with most of the current batch. Or at least as on par as the Steam Deck is.
So in terms of pricing for the hardware it seems pretty consistent with what we're seeing elsewhere. The two Deck models seem to have the most comparable specs, and those are slightly cheaper for the LCD and slightly more expensive for the OLED. Other handhelds are marginally more powerful but also way more expensive. With the upcoing batch of high-end AMD APUs being also way more expensive than last gen, it seems the Switch 2 is price-competitive, at least until Valve decides it's time and tries to make another custom deal with AMD for a more powerful APU at scale.
I understand what you were saying. I'm saying it doesn't make a fundamental difference what architecture is being used and there are other aspects that impact performance, so you can't make assumptions based on that. Plus the GPU is very PC-like, or at least it was on the first Switch. Porting to these things is actually surprisingly straightforward.
there are other aspects that impact performance, so you can’t make assumptions based on that
That is literally what I have been trying to say this whole time in response to you saying it looks comparable. I genuinely have no idea what you are arguing against at this point.
I said "considering how similar hardware on PC handhelds stacks up", meaning the current batch of PC handhelds seem to get similar performance and visuals than what they showed today. You claimed that the hardware isn't similar because the CPU is an ARM device.
If you meant that to mean that the performance is the same despite the different architecture you have to walk me through how you thought I was going to interpret that from you caveating that the architecture is different with no additional context, but I guess I'll take it?
Your response was to Simple’s comment about price. From my reading it seemed that you were implying that the price was right because the performance was similar. I was agreeing with Simple and disagreeing with that perceived implication based on the fact that it uses a different and historically cheaper architecture. One that would typically make a dollar per hertz comparison useless, as you seem to have pointed out. Hence my confusion.
Yes, I am implying that the price is right because the performance is similar. ARM isn't fundamentally cheaper than x64, I don't know where you get that. The Switch was cheap because it was running a cheap, old, basically off-the-shelf part, not because that part had an ARM CPU. And indeed the Deck is running an older AMD APU as well at this point.
My laptop has an ARM CPU in it. I assure you it wasn't any cheaper than the equivalent x64 version with the same performance.
Then it seems we got off on the wrong foot when you called my disagreement meaningless.
RISC has always been fundamentally cheaper than x86 which is one reason why Nintendo has used a RISC processor in all of their handheld consoles since the original GameBoy.
Your last sentence is pretty much my point though. There is no reason for that. Look at the iPad and the Mac Mini, look at the Raspberry Pi… there is no reason for a RISC machine to cost more than an x86 machine.
This conversation is kinda surreal and I think I want it to stop.
Even if you were correct about this, and you are not, especially in modern times, this only applies to one part of the APU. The GPU is still your run of the mill CUDA-based Nvidia GPU, effectively a PC part. And this is a handheld, a lot of the cost is stuck in the display, controllers, storage and the rest of the hardware package. The CPU component of the APU is not going to be what sets the baseline for cost unless you're building in a super high-end part.
I can't parse how you're looking at this, but I assure you that it doesn't counter the point that this thing seems to both perform similarly and cost about as much as the current batch of PC handhelds. I don't know how this is a back-and-forth thing.
This conversation is surreal because you don’t seem to understand how disagreement works. You said the price makes sense, I am saying it doesn’t. You are free to end the discussion there if you wish but I am going to keep responding to the person who keeps acting like their opinion is fact;
Tegra GPUs are specifically cost reduced, low power versions of previous generations of GeForce GPUs. The one in the Switch 2 has been rumored to be based on the 3000 series but I have not seen any confirmation of that as yet. I feel like you are making my point for me, you keep saying that everything else costs the same so why should this one cheaper part matter… and my response is because it’s cheaper. Note the lack of PCI and Thunderbolt for instance. There is also no Windows license to worry about.
If you don’t want to reply then don’t but seriously it seems like you are getting upset solely because somebody has a differing opinion.
I mean, go nuts. It will have cheaper games, a lot of the same cross-platform stuff and it trades blows on performance and display, from what I can see... but price isn't really the biggest difference here.
The price reductions on the nintendo eshop aren’t really that enticing in comparison. So you have to pay pretty high prices for games or have to search on the second hand market to buy games cheaper.
On Steam, Gog and Epic you get good deals every day. Those crazy 1000+ game collections from Steam users aren’t there without reason. Games are often so cheap on Steam that you buy them even when you have 10 other games in the backlog you would rather play before.
Yeah, well, that's not really a good thing in my book. You also arguably don't need a thousand games you're not gonna play. One of the things I'd like to see this gen on the Switch 2 is more curated discoverability and less shovelware.
I think your argument will make more or less sense depending on how the physical market eveolves. The price bump for physical is a bummer, but this generation it's been very easy to find cheap physical copies, both new and used.
At the end of the day, PC handhelds are like PCs, you tend to pay more for the hardware (only the very cheapest LCD version of the Deck is cheaper than the Switch 2, and multiple specs are actually worse) and on consoles you get more affordable hardware but typically more expensive games, at least day one.
So at worst the Switch 2 is... you know, a console. The pricing of the hardware is by far the least egregious pricing choice in this whole thing. If anything, the Switch 2 feels weirdly standard for Nintendo's typical strategy. They have a tendency to sell very old hardware at some profit instead of subsidizing it. This feels weirdly comparable to the PC handheld segment.
The Steam Deck is significantly cheaper when you take 🏴☠️ into account. Having cheaper hardware made having to deal with Nintendo’s walled garden worth it in the past. Plus the fact that there wasn’t anything else like the Switch when it launched.
Sure, anything is cheap if you don't pay for software. Kinda not how we measure the value of the hardware.
I mean, by that metric, and considering how Nintendo's software security has been, historically, the Switch 2 is probably going to get dirt cheap real soon, by your standards.
How open a platform is is high on the list of how I measure the value of hardware, but not how the general population does. I played my launch Switch way, way more after I jailbroke it. I was originally going to wait until the Switch 2 came out, but Nintendo pissed me off with their Yuzu crap last year. For most people that just wanna play games with less hassle, the Switch 2 compares much more favorably.
Yeah, sure, that's always the case for consoles. I have no objection to that train of thought. If you want versatility and an open platform you're going to be better off with a similarly specced PC handheld. At the cost of first party exclusives and a few other creature comforts, but if you're only going to buy one device and that's a priority that's clearly the way to go.
Looking at it in general and in the market and just looking at the hardware they're packing in, though, their proposition isn't super overpriced. The part that is a bummer is they seem to be shifting that extra cost to other places with the subscription, generational upgrade packs, higher physical game prices and so on.
It is quite a shift from how Nintendo’s been doing things since the Wii. They were always the weaker hardware at a lower price guys, so this is quite a change in their philosophy. I saw you said as much in another comment. They’ll be competing more directly with Sony and Microsoft than they have since the Gamecube. I’ll be interested to see how selling at top dollar does for them in the particularly unstable global market we have now.
Yep. This is a shockingly... Playstationy proposition. First party games aside I would have not been surprised to see a Vita revival be this exact console. I mean, they're basically shipping Bloodborne 2 and EyeToy.
The US site lists May 8. Preorders also seem to be invite-only in the beginning?
From the US site:
Invitation emails will be prioritized on a first-come, first-served basis to registrants who have purchased a Nintendo Switch Online membership with a minimum of 12 months of paid membership and a minimum of 50 total gameplay hours, as of April 2, 2025. Once invitation emails have been sent to all registrants meeting the priority criteria, invitations will be sent to remaining eligible registrants on a first-come, first-served basis.
The German site lists April 8, but requires you two have a Nintendo online subscription for the last two years.
I would have bet real money if you had asked me yesterday that it would have been limited to 1080p to reduce cost. I am very curious to know more about how it actually performs in each setting, how much of it is upscaling, etc. I imagine that most 4k games won’t have much in the way of better graphics than the Switch 1, the higher memory bandwidth could help with higher res textures though.
There’s not going to be a single worthwhile game that will run natively at 4k. And i have my doubts about 1080@120 too. Maybe they can keep their polygons so low they can actually reach it, but then what’s the point?
Something I’ve seen far less reaction to than I expected? While the Switch 2 looks like it takes standard MicroSD cards, it DOESN’T. It takes the fairly obscure MicroSD Express standard! I can’t even BUY an SD Express card locally right now! It seems likely, at launch, that Nintendo’s branded cards will be the only ones people can get that will work with it!
The Switch 2 has 256GB of onboard storage, much more than the Switch, it is true. But it’s also backwards compatible with the Switch, and lets users bring their old digital library over with them. I have a 256GB card in my Switch, it’s nearly full, and it doesn’t have my whole library on it! If I got a Switch 2, I’d have it filled up on day 1!
And the MicroSD card issue won’t be obvious to most buyers. Parents will get their kids Switch 2s, and wonder why their old card won’t work with it. It’ll look to them like the Switch 2 or the card is broken, unless they implement a physical lock against incompatible cards, and I don’t know if SD cards even support those. Also, SD Express cards are more expensive than standard ones.
This could end up being a debacle almost on the scale of the price (which, as others have noted, isn’t even Nintendo’s fault entirely).
One thing I can believe is that AAA games have gotten really expensive to make, so it’s not surprising that companies have broken that sort of soft $60 limit that we had for a while. I’m not even against paying more for a good game. When an indie game for $20 can provide over 100 hours of enjoyment, it’s just getting to be a tough sell.
Because they are one of the most consumer hostile gaming companies. The only redeeming quality is their games are usually top notch. I personally refuse to give them any more money.
Nintendo has been pushing the limits of how far it can make things worse for their customers, and people are still locked in because of some of the first party franchises. (Zelda, Mario, Pokémon, etc.)
Frankly, I’m surprised that Nintendo fans aren’t more mad.
I wanna see what the price is and what reviewers think of the screen and I might get one and sell my Switch OLED.
However, with these game prices I sure as hell am not getting any games, I‘ll play through my backlog games which I‘ll also check whether and which will get updates. It‘d be really nice if the games I have that play at 30 fps would play at 60 and at 1080p native. Maybe I’ll get physical copies of Switch 2 games heavily discounted later on.
Maybe I’ll get physical copies of Switch 2 games heavily discounted later on.
Later on, as in, in like 30 years? Assuming physical Switch 2 games don’t become prized collector’s items like every other Nintendo consoles’ physical games
seriously though, Nintendo knows what they’re doing with their new limited scarcity tactics with trying to stay relevant. I think you’ll be able to find physical SNES games easier than switch 2 games in 30 years.
and I gotta be honest I kinda wanna play rimworld, emulated stuff and stardew valley mainly. I just rlly like the idea of it being run on linux and me owning the fucking games forever.
You can download and keep the installers forever in your personal storage somewhere, and install them without the need of Internet connection.
When you buy a game from GOG you’re buying without DRM and have all the installers available to download as backups. Regardless of what the fine print may say, this is effectively owning your games forever.
Regardless of what the fine print may say, this is effectively owning your games forever.
However, if you don’t ignore the contract you signed, this is effectively piracy. Which is fine, don’t get me wrong. But you still don’t own anything. BTW Steam has plenty of DRM-free games which you can run without Steam; backing them up is a more manual process but the end result is the same.
Yup. Install either Heroic or Lutris (though Heroic is a little better). I think there’s also a plugin to allow you to access Heroic through the Steam frintend, but in Desktop Mode, when installing a game through Heroic, it’ll add it to your Steam library, which means you can access it in Game Mode too.
They also flat out said it will be a long time before they even consider a 2nd version. Performance efficiency and battery tech need to make some leaps to make it practical.
For $50 less, you get a similarly capable machine in terms of specs but more comfortable to hold, with an immensely larger library, and an operating system far more respectful of your authority to do what you want with the machine you bought.
I’d encourage you to utilize those limited funds legally by buying games on deep discounts, if you were implying piracy, but even legitimately, being able to sideload all the old PC games you have is a massive plus. GOG and Epic give away great games for free on the regular, and an Amazon Prime subscription has recently been filled with some bangers that you get to keep via both of them.
I don’t think we know the specs yet, it might be way more powerful than the Steam Deck. I agree though that the Steam Deck is a better value considering the amount of games and their prices.
“$450 is an insanely high price for a new console, so I’m going to buy a $400 2 year old console instead.”
It’s a 60Hz vs 120Hz screen, and it’s got true 1080p resolution. It’s certainly on-par with the Steam Deck in terms of performance and performance per dollar. The price isn’t ridiculous by any stretch.
“$450 is an insanely high price for a new console, so I’m going to buy a $400 2 year old console instead.”
Sure. But it’s also a choice between a library that will forever cost $70 00-$90.00 per game, and a game library infamous for game sales so good that an average player cannot finish their library because the seasonal sales are too good to pass up.
A $400 2 year old console that I can sideload games onto, yes. Nintendo’s strength has been “weaker hardware, cheaper price” since the Wii. Now they want to price themselves alongside Sony and Microsoft? No thanks.
The thing for me is: The Switch is only a closed-down console. You can only buy games through the nintendo store. The Steam Deck is open. I can play my older games, even physical games via external optical drive, on my Steam Deck.
The Steam Deck is getting long in the tooth. New triple A games don’t run very well on it or aren’t even playable. It’s fine if you wan tot run older games or indie games, but otherwise you might have to look for one of the competitors.
For sure. It’s a great machine. I have one. But I’m trying to keep expectations down. Some people might be surprised to know that it isn’t a latest gen machine. Some people might have too high expectations because of all the rave it gets.
I don’t think I’ve played a new triple A game in over 5 years. If the steam deck can play modded Minecraft it will have more hours than the switch oled I got right after they released.
The reporting I'm seeing puts it at 40 if you buy the console bundle. Which... I mean, why wouldn't you?
I'm not sure what the deal is with the physical version, I have to assume it's some collector's edition deal with an Amiibo or something. Can't imagine they straight up double the price if you want to buy the card in a box instead of bundled with the console. Waiting on official prices for all of it, in any case.
Here’s the link to the French store: store.nintendo.fr/fr/nintendo-switch-2 all regional stores have similar prices in their own currencies. No details on what’s inside the box.
Got it, thanks. Yeah, it seems it's a 10 euro extra for physical. I get why, those Switch carts were expensive, and it seems like they've moved to even more expensive, faster storage, but it REALLY sucks. Puts the "virtual card" stuff they announced in perspective.
It just seems crazier for MK specifically because... well, it's forty bucks with the bundle, and the bundle is digital-only. Makes physical 2x the cost, which is nuts.
They're really milking this launch on a number of avenues I'm not cool with, and I'm not sure the offering justifies it. Some of those current-gen ports looked rough.
The 10 FPS screenshare feature didn’t entice you? And like cmon, gamechat. Nothing else has gamechat. And you will never even have to use a mouse ever again cuz u can just take your joycon to work and scratch it over the desk.
Don't quote me, but I think they will ship a plastic guard to use for the mouse, just like the Lenovo Legion Go does. Don't knock it til you try it, it does work.
For the record, it's weird to see Nintendo stumble upon the incredible concepts of Kinect and Discord in the year of our lord 2025. But hey, every Nintendo console needs a gimmick you can proceed to ignore, and this one will at least be useful to... somebody? At least it's a gesture that online games aren't an afterthought anymore.
What I'm not sure about at all is the pricing model for games and backwards compatibility as it is. And while the hardware is perfectly acceptable for a modern handheld and very comparable to the current batch of PC handhelds it's the target for the next decade, presumably, so it's at best as outdated as the original Switch was while not being the only game in town to play some of those HD ports.
I don't think it's an underwhelming propostion at this point, and you can't deny the first party software on display. I don't think it's nearly as exciting as the first Switch, though. We'll see how it does with mainstream audiences, I suppose.
I really did love my Switch for the past many years but I thought the switch 2 looked underwhelming. You are right about the software though. Nintendo knows how to sell consoles with games and the hardware while not revolutionary does look good.
Yep, agreed. I mean, revolutionizing the entire concept of home consoles and starting an entire new hardware segment is a hard act to follow, I wasn't expecting to be blown away by an iteration on the same idea.
I seriously think the new big thing is gonna be steamOS or something very similar to it. That was kind of unthinkable 10 years ago but I believe we are gonna see a shift in the industry.
I don't know about that. Reception to most of this Direct seems to be positive, they have a literal 10x sales advantage and 150 million people already in the ecosystem.
I wouldn't be surprised if it sold a lot slower, but half as fast as the Switch 1 is still faster than the PS5 and much faster than the Steam Deck.
Will PC handhelds gain some ground? Maybe, I'm curious to see.
Oh yeah sure the deck isnt gonna be a real danger to nintendo anytime soon but steamOS as an operating system is doing great things for gaming on linux and other hardware developers might use it too. SteamOS or at least proton is gonna be bigger than the steamdeck.
But you know that’s not gonna be the only $80 game. The next Zelda and 3D Mario are guaranteed to be $80, too, because they know people will pay it. Just like TotK’s $70 price point.
Depends on the customer really, we do not live in times where everyone can buy food or even think about raising another family member. Mind the release sales of the switch 1 were pre covid.
This might flop due to 2-class conflict, although Id love to see the switch 2 to succeed
120 and 4K are often claimed on console specs but are rarely achieved within games. At best it will be capable of that when playing Netflix or streaming.
They announced Metroid Prime 4 will be able to run at 1080p 120fps or 4K 60fps when docked. It doesn’t have the most impressive graphics or anything, but it sounds like they’re actually going to try doing it for a few games.
The real advantage of a 120 Hz screen is that you get a much more graceful degradation if you dip below your fps target for a bit. If you’re targeting 30 fps but drop to 25, it still feels pretty smooth on a high-refresh screen, whereas that’s appallingly clunky on a low-refresh one. A “poor man’s gsync”, if you will.
This is what a lot of people don’t understand. Higher refresh rate even with lower fps makes games feel more responsive. I can play 30 fps games much easier on a refresh rate higher than 60hz.
Or it’s actually running at 720p30 and being FSR/framegenned into a blurry shimmery mess. There’s no way Nintendo managed to cram a chip powerful enough to render its own Switch 1 games at true 4k120 into a tablet.
Or it’s actually running at 720p30 and being FSR/framegenned into a blurry shimmery mess. There’s no way Nintendo managed to cram a chip powerful enough to render its own Switch 1 games at true 1080p120 into a tablet.
That asshole company everyone* cares about. My hatred of Nintendo runs deep. But I still watched the direct. I’m so excited for the innovative new features, and the new Mario Kart looks sick. I am disgusted that they will use the money to go after fans. I need help
Yup, new lawsuits, good hackers in jail just for helping retards like me to play a game when we feel like it…me, once a year maybe? Why would I buy a console if I only play once a year?
wccftech.com
Aktywne