>>714277776
>For the Switch 2, they intentionally chose a shitty screen to later sell the OLED version
I don't think that's the explanation.
The fact is that the Switch 2 screen isn't bad in terms of image quality. It has 100% of the sRGB gamut, for example, according to a Japanese test I found, and that's already better than the Switch 1 screen, which clearly doesn't have the entire gamut.
What it seems to me is that Nintendo was obsessed with making a screen whose image quality, colors, etc., weren't too bad compared to OLED, because they didn't want negative comparisons. To do this, they significantly compromised the response time. IPS monitors for digital art often have the same problem: they go strong on image quality but fall short when it comes to gaming, because making a screen that is both beautiful and fast is more expensive than just one or the other.
Side note: it seems to me that in an attempt to make the Switch 2's image more attractive, Nintendo also screwed up the color calibration. The Switch 1 is well calibrated, even though it doesn't have a very good screen. The Switch 2, it seems to me, is leaning much more towards blue, something that corporations often do because a bluer screen looks brighter and more vivid, even if the color fidelity is worse.
