And it's odd that something below expected specs being mentioned gets that response, and I agree some of the takes are ridiculous but still, not really warranting the thread to get so out of hand because of a remark one person made.
For what it's worth, I don't think pages need to be spent quoting a single person. I agree that it doesn't need to be dragged out further. And I empathize with the anxiety one can feel of being responded to a lot.
I don't think anyone has been ridiculed for simply suggesting low ball specs. If it has, then I missed it. (And this could lead into a whole side tangent about tone on the internet but I'll speak for myself, that when I consider an
idea to be ridiculous or unlikely, I am not holding anything against the person. If I laugh at someone suggesting the Switch 2 will be as strong as an Xbox One docked, I'm giggling at the idea and not the person bringing it up, after all I don't really know any of you. We are talking about video games at the end of the day). What I see interrogated is the reasoning behind it.
In this instance, this poster was already familiar with why 8 GB may be unlikely - since there was already a pages long discussion earlier where they suggested it. And to be honest, it wasn't completely unreasonable. Nintendo wanting to keep costs low and devs making the most of low-spec hardware are common beliefs based in some truth, the PS4 had 8 GB, and it'd still be twice the amount of the current Switch. These are not inherently ridiculous points and are worth talking about, and people did engage in a conversation with that poster pages earlier. I said this earlier but it's still worth engaging with good faith at the very least as a learning tool.
But then the outcome of no Direct today has resulted in posts where because the insiders were incorrect in today's prediction, that means certain information relayed must also be false - including 8 GB and no backwards compatibility. The reasoning there seems faulty and the jumping to conclusions is questionable. That is what I personally find to be a little silly. Especially the no BC part. It feels dismissive of the quality of discussion we've had in this thread, and instead casts our speculation as being entirely reliant on insiders.
I just thought I'd add some context here. I doubt people are frothing at the mouth at the mere mention of specs. And it is true that none of us know the final outcome. But I think some are tired of the common refrain that existing expectations are unrealistic, when they've been grounded in credible leaked data, and the leaked information is plausible. So that when someone suggests something incongruent with it, there's a higher burden of explanation. It's not simply what is an 'approved' idea or not. We have had a very solid source for informed speculation for over a year, it will take convincing to shift from it. Which is why if, let's say, someone says 'the next Switch will have 512 CUDA cores' most people will most likely laugh it off and explain why it's unlikely. Whereas information not in the leak - RAM, storage, clock speeds - have had pages of debate with no solid consensus.
Also ugh, I typed way too much on this. At least the migraine is gone.