Sony says "Pro." Most say "NO!"

*exasperated sigh* .............

I don't even know where to start with this. I guess I'll start with the reasons why there is no logical reason for this console to even exist in the first place. The 7th generation was a weird one to be sure. It was the most competitive console generation of all time, and it produced some of greatest games of all time. Many of which that have been remade or remastered numerous times. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo made consoles that were great for the consumer, but all three companies ran into problems at the end. Obviously, the Nintendo Wii holds the champion belt from that era with 101 million consoles sold, but after the motion-control craze died out, so did the Wii along with it. Microsoft and Sony were not too far behind with 84 and 87 million consoles sold respectively with the XBOX 360 and the PlayStation 3, but MANY mistakes and missteps cost both companies hundreds of millions of dollars in losses despite selling a lot of hardware. As a result of taking such a massive L, both Microsoft and Sony chose to go off-the-shelf for the creation of the XBOX One and the PlayStation 4. This would ensure that profits could be made on the hardware either at launch or within a few months of launch. The downside to that however was that the PS4 and XB1 were already underpowered compared to where industry standards should have been at that time. This is why the PlayStation 4 Pro and XBOX One X were NECESSARY. Those mid-gen refreshes were the original-vision for both Microsoft and Sony for the 8th generation, but those were not risks they could afford to take at the beginning of that generation. Enter the 9th generation, which started with the Nintendo Switch. YES, THE NINTENDO SWITCH IS A 9TH-GENERATION CONSOLE. It irritates me when people suggest otherwise. Generations are determined by succession, not by power-level. The Wii was basically an overclocked Nintendo GameCube that was a little bit more powerful than the original XBOX, but no one calls that a "6th" generation console despite the PS3 and 360 being leaps and bounds more powerful. So, let this be the end to that ignorant and ridiculous line of thinking. Obviously, Nintendo choose the "Blue Ocean" strategy again with the Nintendo Switch, and it's worked like gang busters for them. Microsoft and Sony this time around took their time to create highly customized hardware with the XBOX Series family and the PS5 family. Now, mid-gen refreshes are not a new thing as they had been done long before Microsoft and Sony were doing them. In the 2nd generation, Atari had the 2600 or VCS, and then followed up with the 5200. Then, with the 3rd generation, they had the Atari 7800, and the Atari XEGS which was a computer/game console. In the 3rd generation, Sega had the SG-1000 and Sega Master System. After that in the 4th generation, they had the Sega Genesis, Sega CD, and Sega 32X. So, this is a movie most of us have seen before. However, I don't think Sony has watched that movie, because if they had, they would understand that making a mid-gen refresh just for the sake of doing so, or, to try and milk more money out of the consumer out of a spirit of greed............never works out. The mid-gen refreshes in the early 80s by Atari pretty much put them in a hole they couldn't come out of. The same thing with Sega. You can even throw Commodore in there as well with the numerous Commodore and Amiga computers in the 80s and early 90s. Same effect with them. Mid-gen refreshes only work when there is a ACTUAL problem that is being solved by more powerful hardware versus an imaginary problem created by that console manufacturer to try and pull a fast one. I listened to Mark Cerny's explanation and justification for the PS5 Pro, and after listening to that I feel like I have enough cow manure to plant crops all across America for 50 years. I guess that was his contribution to sustainability. I'm honestly insulted that they think we are that dumb. Tragically, there are some people out there that are. Being that the XBOX division is collapsing onto itself, and allegedly there was a mid-gen refresh for the XBOX Series X called the "Elite" that they were planning but cancelled, it seems like Sony thinks that they can do whatever they want without any consequences.

Now, an argument can be made that development studios asked Sony to give them a console that was powerful enough to handle their artistic vision to a point where it can be realized "faster" and thus the need for more powerful hardware, but despite all the technical jargon spewed by Cerny, the results were less than convincing, and that is being polite. We are literally just starting to scratch the surface of what the PS5 can do because now we are getting away from the cross-gen titles and into games built from the ground up on the PS5. Nothing they showed convinced me of why I would need this thing.

The first problem is that too many of the examples that they showed for the reasons to JUSTIFY the PS5 Pro were cross-gen titles like Horizon: Forbidden West, Last Of Us 2, and Gran Turismo 7. The second problem is that ground-up PS5 titles like Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart and Spider-Man 2 did not look like they took advantage much of the extra horsepower other than minuscule improvements in lighting and shadows that in action-packed games such as those, you aren't going to be paying attention to anyway. What Sony SHOULD have done is show us games that we haven't SEEN yet that were built from the ground up on the PS5 with the PS5 Pro in mind to tell the consumer, THIS is why you need a PS5 Pro. THIS is why it is worth $700. Sony should have worked out something with Rockstar to show an extended gameplay trailer of Grand Theft Auto VI. Sony also should have had at least two major 1st-party IP games to show off regardless on their stage of development. The last problem is that Sony has already announced that the PlayStation 6 will be coming in 2026. What logical sense does it make for ANYONE (even the enthusiasts) to invest $700 dollars into a piece of hardware in late 2024 knowing that the PS6 is coming in two years? Especially with NO GAMES, NO DISC DRIVE, and NO STAND for crying out loud. For $700 dollars you can't even give me a stand? If you don't have a PS5 already, by the time you get through paying for the PS5 Pro itself, the disc drive, the stand, and a $70 game, plus tax, you are literally looking at around $930 dollars (depending on your local and state tax rates.) I'm not even exaggerating. I'm DEAD SERIOUS.

Naw, Sony is trippin' on this one. For real. This could be one of those moments in history where you look back and say, "This is what broke them." $700 dollars is not worth Sony supposedly "closing the gap" between graphical-fidelity and performance. They can miss me with that. The PS5 Pro seems like a solution to a non-existent problem, and an answer to a question nobody asked. I know that they are gonna do their own thing when they feel like it, but if I was Nintendo, I'd drop the Switch 2 teaser-trailer in the next few days. If the Switch 2 has specs that don't measure up to the rumored specs, or if there is some crazy gimmick, the sheer consternation and disgust people have for Sony right now will allow them to get away with it. However, they too need to be careful with that price. Most people are thinking $400 and are comfortable with that. Stick with it.

Nintendo Switch "2" could have double meaning

Before I get started I just want to make sure that we are on the same page.

I am not in any way, shape, or form saying to suggesting that this IS what Nintendo IS going to do. This is just a hypothesis based on available information and history. My motto for Nintendo has always been the same. To quote two famous professional wrestlers, as the Icon, Sting once said, "The only thing for sure, is that nothing's for sure," and what the late Rowdy Roddy Piper used to say, "Just when you think you have all the answers, they change the questions." The point is that Nintendo is liable to pull virtually (pun intended) ANYTHING out of their hat. However, I think I have some ideas that make pretty good sense. The first idea as you can see above is that the Switch 2 may literally be a Switch "2." Meaning a dual-screen version of the Switch. It's something no one else is doing right now to my knowledge to have a hybrid-system with dual screens and even if they are, it is not making a lot of noise to be sure. Now, why would Nintendo give us a dual-screen Switch? Well, let me explain. While the Switch has been the most successful "home console" they have ever released, the most success Nintendo has ever had was in the portable market which is why they made their home console portable. More to the point, the Nintendo DS is the most successful piece of hardware Nintendo has produced (as of NOW) selling 154 million units worldwide. Nintendo followed that up with the 3DS which sold about half that at 75 million. Not as successful by itself, but between the two devices Nintendo sold over 230 million devices. That is a lot of people. There were many people that were disappointed that they had to give up that dual screen experience, but with the Switch, Nintendo couldn't afford to get too cute with the gimmicks. They needed something that had clear and concise messaging, and was affordable in order to recoup the losses from the Wii U. I think Nintendo wants to bring that dual-screen experience back, and here are a few images of filed patents by Nintendo that support that...

Now, these are crude examples, but often with patent-filings they just want to get the gist of it across. There are many people that would love to have the dual-screen feature back. No 3D, just a dual-screen. So, that is one idea. Here is another idea. Nintendo has filed numerous patents for at least the past 3 years if not longer for something in the VR space. They refer to it as a "Virtual Camera." They don't just talk about it like it is a proof-of-concept. They talk about it like it is matter-of-fact. In many patents they mention it just as casually as they would the CPU, or DRAM, or flash memory, or accelerometer along with those things. The image I want to share with you now is this one.

That is pretty straight-forward if you ask me. Now someone is saying, "Well if you put the Switch in a VR-type headset, you still need a unit to process the actual game itself that the headset is connected to." I agree. This is where the second-screen comes into play. It is POSSIBLE............that the second-screen can "detach" from the Switch 2. One screen you would place inside the Virtual Camera headset, and the other screen will go in the dock and this would be done wirelessly.

You also have the option of placing one of the screens in the dock, slapping the Joy-Cons on the other, and now you have the ability to stream games to your Switch similar to what the PlayStation Portal does, and what the Wii U was SUPPOSED to do. Instead of having the drop off in performance and frame-rate going to portal-mode, not you can retain most of the graphical-fidelity that you get when it is docked. Speaking of the dock. It is interesting that in patent-filings they do not refer to it as a "dock." They refer to it as a "cradle" which is intriguing. Here are a few more pictures.

This certainly does not look like the dock used for the current Switch. Usually once a concept has been released on the market, when referencing it in patents they just go ahead and show what it looks like exactly rather than a general idea. So, this dock or cradle is different. I have no idea why. It almost looks like it is resting up "against it" rather than resting inside of it. I wonder if there is some significance to this? So, to summarize all of this highly speculative banter that is just to have fun and not to take too seriously, you basically have a console that is an amalgamation of every successful and failed idea that Nintendo ever had. Nintendo really took it on the chin with the Virtual Boy and the Wii U. I don't think they ever forgot that. The Switch 2 might actually avenge those failures. At the end of the day, the Switch successor might really turn out to be the "Switch" in every since of the word.

Is Nintendo going to announce a "Bundle" instead of Switch Successor?

There has been a lot of chatter as of late as to the imminent unveiling of Nintendo's next-generation device that most of dubbed with the moniker of "Switch 2." At this time, Nintendo has not given us a name or even a code-name for the Switch successor other than just that. "Switch successor." There are a few things that I want to discuss. First off, a post made by Billbil-kun on dealabs.com states that Nintendo will soon announce a new bundle for the OLED Nintendo Switch which would pack-in Super Mario Wonder. Credit: Billbil-kun https://x.com/billbil_kun/status/1831963584404013314 More than likely if true, this bundle would be available for the Holiday rush. Billbil-kun also goes on to say that this bundle is the "announcement" that Nintendo is preparing for in September and NOT the reveal of their Switch successor.

Now, this is entirely possible, and I want to go on record that I'm not saying this WON'T be the case, but while I agree that another Holiday bundle is probable from Nintendo because it's kind of a standard practice with them almost every year, I do have some push back on this. While these claims cannot be confirmed, the part where I break company on this is the whole "instead of" aspect. Billbil-kun is suggesting that "instead of" an announcement for the Switch successor, we will get an announcement for the OLED Super Mario Wonder Switch bundle. First of all, there is no reason why Nintendo cannot do both. One has nothing to do with the other, and I'll explain why. Some people tend to think that if you announce the Switch successor too soon, that will greatly impede if not kill the sales of the incumbent product. Historically, that is incorrect. Many people erroneously refer to the "Osborne Effect" in these types of cases. That principle does not apply here and people that try to use this did not properly research just exactly happened with the Osborne. In Laymen's terms, the Switch has far exceeded what Nintendo could have ever hoped or even dreamed with this hardware. Plus, they gave a market-cap of 13 trillion YEN which exchanges currently to 91 billion US dollars with 14 billion cash-on-hand. In short, they are in no danger of bankruptcy which is what ultimately doomed the Osborne company. To add to that, historically, consoles that have been this successful have continued to have consistent sales into the next-generation. Currently, the PlayStation 4 at 117 million units is still selling, while at an infinitesimal rate. However, because of the chip shortages a few years ago for the PlayStation 5 and XBOX Series family, it was still selling pretty well. While we are on the subject of the PlayStation, let's look at the best example. The PlayStation 2. That console launched in the year 2000, and did not cease production until January of 2013 which was only 9 months away from the PlayStation 4. The PS2 stayed on the market for two complete console generations having inferior tech compared to all three major consoles each generation. Only the Sega Dreamcast was less powerful, but we know what happened to that. Furthermore, the PS2 sold more than the GameCube and Wii combined and respectively sold more than the XBOX and XBOX 360 combined. The point is that the announcement of the Switch Successor is not going to hurt sales of the current Switch that much, if at all. Consumers already know that the Switch successor is coming. It's not like it's a surprise. Knowing "when" it is coming is not going to stop someone from buying a Switch bundle or a Switch period that already had their mind made up to buy one at this point going into it's eighth-year or being on the market. It's not like back in 1983 when you didn't have internet and social media and you got your news from the TV, radio, tech magazines and newspapers. You weren't privy to every single development by a company, or could easily track their activities. Outside of special circumstances, we all learned about new tech at the same time. There also is no advantage for Nintendo to basically carpet-bomb us with Nintendo Directs in late August with 3 of them within the span of two weeks (which is something they have NEVER done before,) just to have a Nintendo Direct discussing a bundle, which as I stated earlier is something they do almost every year. Do I think there will be a Super Mario Wonder OLED Switch bundle announced soon? Possibly. Probably.

Do I think it necessarily has to happen in September? No. Business-wise, it doesn't make a lot of sense to announce it so far away from Black Friday. You've already announced all the games coming to the Switch this year. What else would you have to announce FOR Black Friday if you announce the bundle now? It doesn't make since to have put any effort into anymore MAJOR 1st-party IPs just to put them on a console on it's way out the door. Those games should be on the Switch Successor whether it be a new Zelda, F-Zero, StarFox, or even remakes of previous first party gems. Save that for the Switch successor. Do I think it will be "instead of" rather than "in addition to" a teaser-trailer for the Switch successor? NO.