Poll: How Much Internal Storage Would Be Reasonable For 'Switch 2'?

In this day and age, they'd better at least give us 256GB.

256GB SSD with the option for expandable storage would probably be a good balance of file size and associated costs. Even on Switch 2, I doubt file sizes will get as big as they do on the home consoles.

I voted 128GB, because I think that's a reasonable assumption for them to market. But my fondest wish would be at least double; 256gb. Maybe this time around they can cater to their hardcore fans and bring out larger storage capacity models, like they did with Wii U. Although I never understood their marketing there with the black and white model being tied to internal storage capacity...

@braincandy101 Nintendo: "Sure, as long as we can reasonably expect people to pay accordingly"

1TB or larger, preferably 2TB. SSDs are dirt cheap these days.

Or better yet 512GB and allow us to install a 2230 M.2 SSD. (like in the SteamDeck)

Depends on the size of the games. My RP3+ has 128gb internal and a 128gb micro SD of external space and the games that take up the most space are PSX, Dreamcast, PSP and NDS. I have about 40gb internal remaining and 10gb external. If most cellphones can store 1TB nowadays anything less for a modern console would be a compromise.

128 GB is the low bar that "Switch 2" can go, I'm expecting 256 GB

500gb should be reasonable this day and age. Storage is getting cheaper every year so there's no excuse.

Depends on what kind of storage it uses and how easily expanable it is, like if it's sd cards again I've few of them knocking about that wouldn't necessarily want to be paying more for more internal storage.
If it's an ssd you'd hope for about 500-800gb actually useable. Those xbox expansion cards are great in practice but so pricey

No less than 1tb

1 Terrabyte, preferably no less. Games are getting big despite Nintendo's zip wizardry, you need large internal storage specs.

They need at least 128GB. But it would be nice with more options.

128 or 256 would be enough for most owners bigger cartridge size would also solve a lot of promblems it al depens on the price of internal storage. SD cards dont cost a lot but internal storage does so if they want to keep the price down...

I’d just like to see a few variations that offer different HD size or something. And I hope it gets announced this year. I stopped myself a few times this week from buying a ASUS - ROG Ally on a super sale because I’d rather put the 400 towards the switch 2. As long as it’s got BC with the switch I will buy it whatever it costs.

actually i never thought only 32 gb was a limitation, you had to buy an Sd anywhere.. think the ps5 is a weird comparison.. .you're really forced to buy an expensive ssd sooner that you did with the og swithc.. the games are soo big..

It depends how big the games come in but in this day and age? 1TB would be on the safe side. I don’t expect they’ll be memory hogs like PS5 stuff but they won’t be small.

I’d be happy enough with 500GB if the expansion options are affordable.

I'll take more, but I'm not expecting more than 64GB. Nintendo has been notoriously stingy when it comes to internal storage, so I'm not expecting something crazy like 2TB.

128GB would be nice, although I don't care much about internal storage as long as we get good non-proprietary external solutions.

I hope it's not sdcard though since it's slow compared to ssd on ps5 or xbox series, maybe the switch 2 could get smaller ssd for it's external solution, although maybe even the smaller sdd is too big for the console.

That Ram would heavily cripple the thing before it even launches. A TB at least internal storage or there just being cheap. And let us store our games we aren’t playing on a portable Harddrive attached to the dock moving them from that to the internal as we wish. Steam deck already dose this and its solved my storage memory problem

Here's a thought: storage in the dock, or at least the option to add a micro-SD card or plug in a portable HDD.

Say you want to take a game on the go. Swap (or switch, arf arf) stuff from console to dock as you choose.

With just my guessing, I don't think it'll be more than 500GB or even that much. But 256GB, or about that, sounds possible. I think it'll be at least 128GB.

It's hard to tell what Nintendo will do this time. I'm guessing it depends on their thoughts on the file size of their future games for that console.

1TB would be great but Nintendo will have to had change their views and mindsets for Switch 2, for this. And that's possible and can happen. My guess is still less then that.

@Coffeemonstah exactly not letting us use the dock as a way to hook up portable harddrives is just dumb

Reasonable? In this day and age? Atleast 512gb!

But this is Nintendo we’re speaking of, so realistically it’s gonna be 32gb probably, 64gb at most.

A micro nvme solution as a "cartridge" would be my vote, nice and fast and cooler and would help with access speeds and exponential storage.

If I can't have a petabyte in my console, what's the point?

Basically something similar to the Series X|S solution without the price pain.

I just hope we aren't in the part of the Nintendo cycle of bespoke proprietary shenanigans.

And I at the end of the day I will still end up getting an extended storage device lol. I hope base comes with a good amount so I can hold off on it for a bit.

@JibberX Agree, they should put an expansion slot like PS5 or Xbox and let us pay for NVMe

256gb is my guess, but im prepared for 128 gb also. (Will not be 64gb, they need to make sure parents understand there is a difference between 1 and 2) I assume it will be possible to expand/add. I understand nintendo dosent wanna priorites storage when people can just buy extra if they need it. All the money is going into more important stuff so they can sell this for a «low» cost of 400 dollars with decent specs.

I can't see Nintendo giving us more than 128GB to be honest. The Big N hates giving away internal memory. It'll save 256GB for the OLED revision or something.

The real question is, how much would increased internal storage up the price?

More would be nice but micro SD cards are so cheap nowadays that I wouldn’t see 64GB as a problem. I got a 64GB Steam Deck and bought a 256GB card for £13- no problems having plenty of games on hand and that’s with PC file sizes which are generally way bigger than Switch files.

If they use larger game card sizes and cut the costs of them then they won't need a large internal storage. Only the gamers that go download only will need a minimum of 1 TB.

I hope we won't need to install our physical games on the Switch 2, as it is now. I really like this about the Switch, saves a lot of headache.

I've nearly filled up my 1.5TB micro sd, so I'm biased for more space.

That being said, if nintendo is going to make us have switch 2 for nearly a decade, more memory could only help.

Edit:

I originally started I had a 2 TB micro sd. It appears I was flat out wrong.

I suppose that means I still have storage hope, once 2 TB micro sds eventually come out.
(Sadly, I've heard that that's a high ad they'll be able to go, so I'm still a little nervous about storage)

Nintendo: "Don't you guys compress your files?"

Nothing less than 256, please.

I assume Nintendo would go on the low end of what's acceptable. So I am gonna say 128gb. I would be stunned if they went any higher. I would be extremely disappointed if they went any lower.

SSDs are dirt cheap nowadays. I assume memory technology could feasibly be on the cheap side for Nintendo, thus I think 500GB is doable.

1TB, baby, this is the future! And games are only getting bigger in file size.

They're going to give you 8 MB and you're going to buy it anyway.

I wanna say 128GB, if only to have enough space for what I strictly use the internal memory of the Switch, which is for the DLC and updates of the physical games I own and their supplementary downloads, such as the Pac-Man Vs. one of Namco Museum/Namco Museum Arcade Pac or Mega Man Legacy Collection 2. Digital games will be kept on the storage device, be it an HDD/SDD or microSD card. In my weird mind, they'll offer both options.

I was gonna say 64GB would be nice, but I'm starting to believe that those 64GB of internal memory for my eventual Switch OLED might not be enough for the 30 physical games I currently own. Starlink: Battle for Atlas alone takes almost 10GB and it's currently the biggest data of my physical games. After that the game with the most memory occupied is Super Smash Bros. Ultimate with almost 4GB.

I think it comes down to whether physical games are truly physical. Switch is the only current system where that's the case at the moment because in the PS4/XB1 era, Sony and Microsoft made physical games less physical by making every physical game have to be fully installed to the memory before use.

If Switch 2 is like Switch regarding physical games then 128GB is reasonable but if they go down the route of having to install physical games to the memory then 1TB is reasonable.

As for what size I think they'll go for, probably 500GB minimum in either case given that CoD is almost 300GB already according to the Xbox store. Not much point in agreeing to a 10 year CoD deal if you can't even play the game without extra accessories.

At least 512GB, I have started to run out of space just for save files that cant be moved. And please if it takes microsd make it so you don't have to turn it off to switch them and make the slot more accessible next to the cartidge slot. It is a pain to have to switch between 9 microsd cards. Or make it compatible with HDD or SSD when docked and just move the game to the console, sth like the Wii did with the SD Card.

Given the system is able to output a 4K picture (not saying games will actually run at that resolution), that means games will have higher res textures, even if they’re running at 1260p or something.

Given that, and the rising size of third party titles (and Nintendo titles if they support over 1080p resolution textures)… I’d say the minimum they could get away with to avoid insane backlash is 128gb.

That said, 256gb - 500gb would be way more optimal. My guess is on 256gb with the obvious SD card expansion slot.

With current game sizes 256GB is okay. Also we have to consider how much the system will cost as a result. Ideally 500gb.

Let's be honest, it's going to be 128GB.

for Nintendo Switch sucessor be able to run/get next gen games such as Monster Hunter Wild/GTA VI, the console would require 256GB of Internal memory and 16GB of RAM memory

1-2 TB. But if they've got physical cartridges with the full game like with Switch on them I'm fine with less.

128 at the bare minimum.

32gb with free cloud storage - why should Nintendo create a preventive for people buying more games?

If I have to guess, 128 GB.

Everyone that can afford a 350-400 dollar console will also be able to afford a Micro SD card, so I think Nintendo will definitely see this as a saving option — at least in the first iteration of their console.

I don't really care, SD cards are cheap.

They should give two options 256 and the 500 option. Same as Steam Deck has done. With how big games are becoming.

I know Nintendo will look to keep costs down, so I don't think 256GB would be unreasonable. But knowing Nintendo they will likely go with 128GB. I "wish" they'd go with 500GB, but I don't see it... love to be wrong though. The mistake I won't be doing this time though is aiming for a smaller SD card-- My 128GB has actually gotten me quite far since I archive what I don't play anymore, but I'm aaaalmost at peak capacity now.

It depends on game size, but I think 256GB would be the sweet spot without getting too pricey, and you could always buy a microSD card if you need more storage, as they’re extremely cheap and, when bought from a trusted brand, are actually pretty reliable. Most Xbox One and PS4 games are around 20 to 50 gigs, but considering how good Nintendo’s compression tools are, I could see the average first party game being closer to 10-30GB. Maybe more for big open worlds. 256GB would be small enough to keep an affordable price but big enough to be able to store plenty of smaller games here and there.

I’ve been looking at phones recently, well really almost always as I’m responsible for my family of 4, and 256 seems to be becoming the norm in the $200-$400 range so I’m going with 256 in a $400 console.

Of course they’re Nintendo so they could cheap out and go 128, especially if they already set the specs a year or so ago, but if that’s the case they should call the console the Nintendo 128 as a follow up to the Nintendo 64.😂

64 gig would be sufficient if it was an ssd, but seeing as the switch will likely still use the slower sd cards then it is unlikely that they will move on from harddrive

Higher resolution gaming scales the game size massively. Maybe Nintendo adopts some sort of AI upscaler to get 4K to keep games compact but my understanding is that few companies do it well outside of NVIDIA. 1 TB NVME SSD is pretty affordable these days. At this point, much cheaper than having to get an equivalent SD card.

Nintendo themselves are historically good at compressing their games to small file sizes but with the sizes of some 3rd party games these days I'd say 1TB is the bare minimum

@sanderev SSD's are cheap, but not for Apple. 1 TB of additional storage costs as much as almost 2 Switch consoles in Apple's universe XD

The games, even with Nintendo's compression magic they've been using since the GCN days, will require a bit more room. Now, crazy full installs won't be an issue as accessing the cartridge (if there is one...) should help with that. However, partial installs will be expected, and I cannot see anything less than 128GB being ideal. To me this is literally the bare minimum. Of course, Nintendo does Nintendo, and if they can save $20.00 per unit by going with 64GB, they'll do it!

It only needs to be enough for saves, a few games, updates, and other system minutiae… 128 seems reasonable to me. Twice the current Switch should scale up nicely with the assumed larger size games on the nextgen console.
Most of us are going to get external storage, and I’d rather shop around for it than pay Nintendo at a premium.

256GB feels like the minimum if we're expecting 4k fidelity games on the NG Switch. Assume 50GB to 100GB per "big" game?

I would expect 128gb as a minimum but this is Nintendo so it’ll probably be 32gb 🤣

I want 1tb. Totally unrealistic I know.

Doesn't matter if it's 128gb, 256gb, or 512gb internal storage as long as they used SSD instead of eMMC and had 8gb of Ram. I'm getting tired of those outdated slow loading write/read speed with them eMMC storage that are currently in all the Nintendo Switch models.

Here's a comparison of how slow eMMC are compare to SSD.

Forget storage what about replacing those stupid joycon with something actually comfortable

I mean what they can get away with vs. what I would want are two different things. I think as little as 128gb or even 64 like the OLED could be “acceptable” to Nintendo. I don’t think it would necessarily harm sakes that much. But me personally I would like at least 512gb. I just upgraded to a 1.5tb card for my switch so assuming file size goes up at all anything less than 512 will definitely get filled up fast

I think I barely used the SD Card I purchased for the Switch when it first came out.

The lovely thing about the Switch was that, as long as you bought physical, storage wasn't used that much - I know there are a few more notorious games out there, by and large everything is on the cartridge and the need for installs is a minimum.

That being said, 256GB with expandable storage will probably be the solution Nintendo goes with assuming that Nintendo can do better with cartridge sizes for the next system.

I want 256GB or more, I think 128GB is reasonable but I expect it to be 64GB because of, well, Nintendo being Nintendo sometimes.

I voted for 128gb. While a larger amount would be nice but I'd prefer them to keep cost down. Besides a decent 512gb Micro SD cost only about £30.

800 quadrillion bits. I demand nothing less than Lt Commander Data's memory capacity.

I'd say 256GB, because even PS4 era games are often 50GB+ on my Steam Deck.

I got a 256GB card for my 64GB Steam Deck, because it was the sweet spot when I got my Steam Deck back in september 2022.
I think 512GB cards were 3 times as expensive.

What I plan to do with the Switch 2, is that I will migrate my 256GB Steam Deck card to the Switch 2 and then buy a 512GB one for my Steam Deck (I think 512GB is probably the sweet spot price wise now).

256 gb as a minimum..

New standard for this gen is 12gb ram, so it would be reasonable to have a bough storage for at least 10big games. I would go with at least 400gb.

I say 256gb because anymore would make the Switch 2 unaffordable to the masses. If they want a return in investment 256gb seems reasonable but they should have a option to expand that memory to 512gb as well to insure future proof.

@shgamer You got microSD card confused with internal memory storage. Those are two different animals here. Internal Switch memory storage can't be expanded and this is import because saved data is stored there not on the MicroSD that can store both eShop games and DLC/Updates on there.

128GB at least, I hope... Also, seems like people forgot one thing – more internal storage = more expensive console.
@Lightsiyd Yeah! I wanted to say the similar thing.

@SwitchForce No, I'm talking about microSD cards. For Switch 2 it's my plan to have (hopefully) 256GB internal memory and then a 256GB microSD card as well.

Nintendo is likely going to give us a 512 GB storage option. The only reason I'm saying that is because a lot more AAA games are gonna come to Switch 2 and since we're expecting them to have better graphics, those game files are going to be massive and we'll need as much storage as possible. Also, we can expect the system to support up to a 2TB microSD card and we might can add our own NVMe SSDs into the system.

Companies shoot for less than ideal so that they can upcharge you. So ideal would be 1TB which means they likely will go with 256GB and hopefully have SKU's for 512GB & 1TB. If this will allow full backwards compatibility, they need to account for people's large libraries and large file sizes for future NSO games (like Game Cube or Wii). Hopefully they'll drop the Micro SDXC and move to M.2 SSD's for expansion.

@Kiwi_Unlimited Where the hell did you get a 2-tera card? Didn't even know they were available! I just plunked a 1.5 in my Switch as my 1-tera was full...

1TB at the very least, games are getting bigger and bigger so yeah anything less won't be ideal. Anyone picking 256gb clearly doesn't own other consoles.

Alot of people here are confusing the discussion about Internal Memory Switch storage that stores game data that can't be stored onto a MicroSD. Having a bigger Internal Memory storage is what is talked about here - shouldn't be mixed up with having a bigger MicroSD. Having a 1tb MicroSD is the largest external storage Switch can use but now they have 1.5tb available not cheap right now. The talk is Internal storage as that is where saved game data is saved and can't be moved to a MicroSD which would be great but won't any time soon happen. What we want is if we get 2546gb Internal storage that it can be expanded to 512gb of Internal storage this would help save data but having external storage 1tb-1.5tb for eShop game download helps when you factor DLC/Updates to game will take up space as well but the TOPIC is about the Switch Internal storage since that is where saved data goes and if you have Cloud NSO Subscription that helps but there are games that don't allow Cloud so that is where having much Internal RAM storage as possible will help here.

It’s Nintendo so expect 16gb and get 32gb

If game sizes are around double the switch for heavy hitters I would say 256 or 500 because that is a nice marketing number. I have 2TB of cards in use on mine (with a 1.5 TB in reserve for when I do my final library run) and I have about 400 GB free and around 8,000 pictures and somewhere around 300-400 games installed (my 700+ game library is mixed) plus save files and DLC.

But honestly I would say 256… microsd cards have gone down significantly in price since the switch launch that I wouldn’t blink at buying a 1 or 1.5TB card along with a few launch games. Waiting on sandisk to release a 2TB card.

You know they gonna give us 32

Using my Steam Deck as a point of comparison for an all-digital library, 512GB SSD + 1TB micro SD was "manageable", but absolutely not possible to have all games I might want to play installed at the same time, let alone my entire library. There's a reason I put a 2TB SSD into the OLED model when I upgraded. Also, at present, high-capacity SSD's are noticeably cheaper to purchase than high-capacity micro SD cards, so there's not much reason a company shouldn't maximize internal storage for users, ESPECIALLY if they don't intend to let users replace the internal memory themselves.

With a large physical cart presence for my Switch OLED collection and equipped with a 1TB micro SD (so, 64GB internal + 1TB external), I have my entire library accessible on the system at present, with less than 100GB remaining.

From a "new user" perspective to a new Switch model, I feel like 512GB internal memory should be the bare minimum. From a "returning user" perspective, there is still an expectation the system would be backwards compatible, and by extension I'd want options much larger than that so I could still have both my existing library, in addition to whatever new things come to the system.

It's supposedly confirmed to be coming in September, Altec Lansing spoiled it

People need to temper expectations. If it is going to hit at about £400 with something on par with the Steam Deck, dropping SSDs are a quick win for Nintendo to keep costs down around this price point. I would wager 128, 256 at a push but no more.

Given that mobile phones are still having 128gb as the standard offering (with 256gb offerings being a lot more expensive) I think it's pretty wild to expect or request Nintendo to provide anything more than that in their next console while keeping the price way south of £400

As much as I'd love to have mass internal storage, that will increase the price quickly. Unless they are designing the system in a similar fashion like Series X and PS5 for rapid transfer, I don't see the advantage of mass internal storage vs allowing SD like we have today. Unless the system is going to be able really utilize either lots of or very high rez textures, I'm not sure a portable system would need that kind of technology. I'd rather have them invest in being able to deliver rock solid 60fps and longer battery life than rapid or large internal storage.

That is unless that's where they're going and 1st party games are already going to push a 32/64gb design to the limit. I just don't see it, especially if they want to keep below $500, which they need to for a portable system. I'd say $399 max. So, what ever storage size fits into that product cost range.

I'm not expecting much, nor do I really care tbh, I know I'm going to buy an SD card either way.

@pipes Why do you want to get rid of the microSDXC? It's the eMMC that they need to replace. MicroSDXC is an external storage so those could be upgrade by you the user at any time but the eMMC once installed can't be taken out easily unless you want to void your warranty but if they used an SSD instead of eMMC replacing the SSD would be simple not to mention SSD makes things process faster, it allows you to load, download, transfer, and even organize things within your system/game without too much lagging, loading, or buffering which the current Switch is currently suffering from. With an eMMC even with a 1tb or 2tb microSDXC you will still had to suffer waiting for things to transfer from one place to another and it create too much loading times in between level/data progression in-game.

The only downside to SSD is that if you used the wrong one, there's a likely chance that it may fry your system just like the Steam Deck according to StopDrop&Retro of YouTube, but if you used one from well-known brand name then you should be okay. SSD makes things overheat faster too but installing a good cooling device within should fix the issue temporarily. Don't frit though cause eMMC could also fry the system too if installed the wrong one but if we know Nintendo they already installed the correct one in there already so Switch should be okay.

Here's StopDrop&Retro's video of the SSD issue with his Steam Deck.

Anything below 256gb would be ridiculous.

Especially when high end 512gb SSDs go for 50 euro here and cheap ones below 37 euro.

256gb as minimal sounds fine, but then again PS5 comes with 1TB so a 512gb Switch followup makes more sense.

However knowing Nintendo they trow in 64gb and call it a day.

I have no idea. I leave that to Nintendo lol.

I would love more, but it all depends on the average game size as well as if I can just transfer over my current SD Card.

If they take a RoG Ally approach, load from an SSD but allow you to run certain games from Micro SD/Transfer over to SSD then I’m fine with 128gb, tho 256 would be better.

I’m also going to hazard a guess and say there won’t be any 4k texture and asset packs to deal with, only 1080p with possible DLSS upscaling. If that’s the case then the file sizes shouldn’t bloat much over what they already are on Switch. Maybe a 20% increase. If this is the case then we can manage with 128gb internal and micro SDs.

It largely depends on if game will need to load from SSD or can also run from Micro SD, as well as file sizes and backwards compatibility. All this factors in. But if things largely remain the same as Switch 1, things should be fine with 128gb internal. Would also be nice if we could upgrade it manually without needing a proprietary SSD.

@Serpenterror I believe we are thinking along the same lines. The whole system needs to be revamped and take advantage of proven/common standards. It can't just be a spec bump with a faster processor. The Super Switch needs to be an improvement on the Switch and needs to stay relevant for another 5 to 10 years. It would be a shame if they stick with slower tech as the whole system was essentially outdated when it came out. It's amazing what they've done with what they have but they would bring more developers onboard if the system was more capable. I was honestly shocked when I found out it had USB-C when it first came out.

This is gonna sound crazy, but hear me out. How bout we just not have a system that forces you to buy expensive chips for extra storage?

256 seems like a decent sweet spot. Obviously more would be great, but this is Nintendo we're talking about and they'll want to keep prices low.

The more storage the better. I'd prefer 500, but no less than 256.

@Servbot_EJ The more storage the better. I'd prefer 500, but no less than 256.
The more the merry is the way for Switch and save data from those games will eventually take space and if you have screenshots even those will take up valuable space. But having at least min 256gb Storage space would help alot. And alot is the cost of those memory chips for Switch to use for Storage will cost to get more I just hope they have a slot where you can buy the chip and expand Internal memory to 512gb that would be nice. But we have to factor a cost of Switch with 512gb internal would be expensive as well. So to keep at $400usd something has to give and we got LCD only for not so that goes to show there is a cut off point.

It depends on several factors. Will compression techniques be as good as they are for the Switch, because Nintendo has great compression even when you look at multiplatform games the size differences are often extreme between a Switch version and even a PS/XBO version.

Another factor is will Switch 2, for lack of a better word, games be all digital? I’ve heard rumors that even if it has a cartridge reader that it will only be used for backward compatibility. If we are forced to buy all our games digitally we will need more on board storage.

And finally will physical games be forced to fully install as they do on PS and Xbox.

I would say low ball 256gb but if we are going to an all digital generation, or mandatory installs, or poor compression 1tb minimum would be necessary

I think the next Nintendo console would do well to house a slot for an upgradable M.2 (2230 form factor) SSD. The console could come with a cheapass 128GB version as standard but allow users to upgrade to a 2TB version if they choose to later on.

I mean we're in the age where AAA games can take up to 80GB of storage space. Even Switch 1 titles like TotK take up 18GB right off the bat.

Rumor has it that there will be 2 models at launch, if that end being true, 512 gb for the all digital model is mandatory, with that in mind, you can't expect the more premium option to have any less than that so thats why I went with 500. Realistically thou, we are talking Nintendo so expect 128 at most :/

@Coffeemonstah

Holy crap, you're right!

Mind only a 1.5. I'm edit my previous statement accordingly.

Good catch.

I'd say 256 should be easy for their budget.

@themightyant I have an ONEXPlayer mini, which is about twice the size (thick) as a Nintendo Switch but overall not much larger. That has a full size 80mm M.2 SSD. Going for a 2230 M.2 SSD is literally no issue. It would be a little bit thicker than a Switch, but that would also allow for better cooling and a larger battery. (The ONEXPlayer runs Windows on a i7 13gen CPU and my configuration has a 2TB SSD)

And if you compare the eMMC 64GB SteamDeck to a 256GB / 512GB / 1TB one (which does have an SSD), you'll see that the MicroSD slot is absolutely slower compared to the SSD on the higher end models.

As much as I'd like to see 500GB - 1TB, Nintendo is not likely to go higher than 256GB if they want to keep the price down. Internal storage is not as cheap as external.

@beartown Even for Apple SSDs are dirt cheap Only because of their huge margins it's not the same for their customers.

Also the Apple storage is more expensive because they use only the best yields for their SSDs. And then solder them to the mainboard.

it really depends how big the games are, but either way i think we'll probably get multiple models

Reasonable - 256GB but that is assuming game file sizes are only 2x the size of their current format.

It's too early to judge because we don't have any context on game sizes. Pragmatically, 512 GB would be great for a base model and 1tb for a premium model considering storage costs these days (relatively cheap).

I guess I wouldn't quite expect a terabyte....but I would like to see it being on the larger side, like 500GB.

@Bizzyb

Your information is out of date. Going with exclusively major brand names and higher grade memory, prices are basically identical, even not taking into consideration shopping in areas other than Amazon, or waiting for any sales.

Also note that even going higher grade, Micro SD cards bottleneck hard, with read/write speeds consistently 1/5th what an internal drive is capable of. Even Nintendo themselves has already told people to install to internal memory for certain games with the current Switch, when they can. So relying on Micro SD long term is clearly a problem.

Here's some proof:
256GB Samsung internal = $20
https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-256GB-Internal-Solid-Factor/dp/B09NF1MV2P/
256GB Samsung external = $30 standard pricing
https://www.amazon.com/SAMSUNG-microSD-MicroSDXC-MB-MD256SA-AM/dp/B0C1PPWTWT/
512GB Samsung internal = $45-55
https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-PM991a-MZ9LQ512HBLU-Surface-Ultrabook/dp/B0BDWCC47L/
512GB Samsung external = $50
https://www.amazon.com/SAMSUNG-microSD-MicroSDXC-MB-MD512SA-AM/dp/B0C1PRYPYX/
1TB Samsung internal = $95-$100
https://www.amazon.com/SAMSUNG-PM991a-MZ9LQ1T0HBLB-Surface-Ultrabook/dp/B0B86JFXR2/
1TB Sandisk external = $95-100
https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Extreme-microSDXC-Memory-Adapter/dp/B09X7MPX8L/
2TB Sabrent internal = $200, or about $10 per 100GB
https://www.amazon.com/SABRENT-Rocket-Performance-Compatible-SB-213Q-2TB/dp/B0C5YS3QY4/
1.5TB Sandisk external = $150, or about $10 per 100GB. Also has slower read/write than smaller cards.
https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-1-5TB-microSDXC-Memory-Adapter/dp/B0CJMRW771/

Such a useless topic!!!! More important is what RAM will be on Switch si history doesn’t repeat itself in a few years like what happened now with Arkham Knight

32gb is already perfect for me.

SD cards have been around for a while…

@EriXz Rumour mills seems dead on that two model currently. As for any Lite model that seemed to be shelved without a ETA in sight. It's better if one model with storage expansion if it comes 256g expand to 512g. That would be something to see.

It should be 256 GB, that’s reasonable but 128 GB would be the bare minimum acceptable and the most likely option.

Knowing Nintendo it'll be very small.

Oh yeah and have 3D nand carts for future games that will increase Switch game from the dreaded 18g carts and download rest. This will help with Internal memory for game saves.

I'm guessing 64Gb, but flash storage is dirt cheap so it doesn't even remotely matter. You can get a 1Tb microsd card for $80.

They could handle it like the Steam Deck and release multiple versions with different storage spaces. But at a minimum, I think 256GB console storage, with the ability to add on, is reasonable.

3% voted for more than 2TB. Better chance of having my former landlord return my Wii and all its games / irreplaceable save data that he stole.

Update on Switch 2 hardware.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XjiIMtbNiE

@rjejr genius

256 GB minimum. We are now in the year 2024 and Activision will be bringing COD to Nintendo platforms. They are going to need the space.

I think 256 is ideal and reasonable but i can see nintendo going with 128 which should be the bear minimum in my opinion. But ultimately I grab micro SD like I have for my switch if the quality and quantity of games are equal to the current system.

Just like with Switch, i believe Nintendo will opt for less onboard RAM with a focus on games on cart while allowing for large SD card capacity for people that prefer to download their libraries. i voted for 128 GB, but i could see them offering between 64 and 256.

People will whine and bitch just like they did with the Switch, but the reality is it costs far less to support large SD cards than to put in an expensive SSD or similar long-term storage. Would you really rather have a console that costs $500+ like their competitors if it means you get a TB or two of space? SD card storage is cheap and expandable.

@themightyant I used a MicroSD to run Windows for a while on the SteamDeck. It was really slow, especially compared to running Windows off of its SSD.

And yes it doesn't really matter in most games (especially smaller games). But does matter in a few large games, for example I had issues playing Hogwarts Legacy or Baldur's Gate 3 off of the MicroSD.

I use 500GB cart now and I still have to juggle games. Games are growing in size. 1TB would be a nice start. Nintendo being Nintendo and they don’t want to loose any money on hardware. So it probably will be 64GB…

Keeping expectations realistic with Nintendo and pricing etc I would say, 128GB minimum but ideally 256GB

I can see Nintendo providing just a 256gb Micro SD card rather than internal storage. It would cut cost massively.

It doesn’t matter, it won’t be big enough and you will run out of space and have to start juggling what you want downloaded. My steamdeck with its 1tb still can only hold so much when baldurs gate 3 takes 137gb. My switch is no different. Since the n64 days, I’ve been deleting saves to free up blocks and that will never change. Every device I’ve ever had, pcs too, run out of storage and either you need to upgrade, or start deleting.

Onboard storage, I don't really care how much there is. It's other options that I want. Like an empty m.2 slot in conjunction with an SD card slot. Let me pick out the storage I need and want.

@Pillowpants When Wii U was released, I wanted a white model with big storage and Nintendoland bundeled, because I find the black model ugly and the white model with small storage and without game overpriced. The result: I never got a Wii U. Hopefully Nintendo learned their lesson.

It seems again people are confusing again INTERNAL storage with MicroSD storage. It has nothing to do with MicroSD and all to do with Switch Internal storage as Saved Game Data and ACNH don't save to MicroSD. This is the discussion at hand-can we return to the Topic at hand and not go off tangent here.

It's gonna be 64GB with a microSD slot, which is okay, if you ask me. Most Nintendo-made games are below 10GB anyways.

256GB should be the minimum storage for any handheld gaming console on the market. The switch isn't a phone where you can rock 128GB and be confident you won't full it anytime soon. With the size of modern games skyrocketing, DLC and updates you're definitely gonna need that extra storage. Better to be safe than sorry. People also need to remember 8ts not just Nintendo IPs that will be on Switch 2. Not every third party developer will make their games under 10GB.

Late last year I was looking to get a new phone 📱, and like some people have pointed here, there is a range of memory options usually in 128 to 2tb range. That being said, something I notice is that as you go up the range it's gets harder to get those models. I wanted a 256gb version of the phone I ended up buying and it had to be special ordered. I asked the sales person why it's like that and they said higher memory thus higher cost so they make models with higher memory in extreme low quantities. We're probably getting 256 gb at the most is what I took away from that experience.

@TrixieSparkle Sorry I should have clarified, those are consumer based internal storage solutions, years after being on the market. Console manufacturers usually use newer forms of specialized internal solutions that aren't available off the shelf and can be extremely pricey.

For example SSDs recently became available to upgrade internally for PS5 and can be as expensive as $300 for a 4TB and $1,000 for an 8TB. For Nintendo, putting in a new, specialized internal HDD could be as expensive as $100-150 for 1TB. That's a lot to pass onto the consumer just for storage.

I think if we get 256g storage it will be on-board without expansion option since it will have to custom chip considering the size of Switch and how much room they can have in it. And giving us a 512g might or come OLED will become out of reach for most general gamers including Family whom would like to have more then one Switch. So getting more hardware will become outofreach for most but the core or first plunge gamers to get the new hardware. Even if they give up expansion for the storage the space is so constrained already form factor. Expanding RAM and Storage would be a great appeal but that will come with a cost for $$$. But that option expanding RAM and Storage would be a first on a Hybrid console to be had. But if we get a Storage like mSATA SSD or smaller then we will need hardware/software the a PC can use to backup and move to a bigger storage mSATA SSD or likes to keep from loosing game data unless you use Cloud which in itself doesn't cost much but you have to be subscribed to have this backup feature. Those small storage M2 or longer will have limit space to use in the Switch since the Switch is already compact already.

Hopefully the storage tech that they use is much faster than the tech they used in the original switch It is very slow.

@HatesCheese Thanks. 😁

I think we will be forced to get a micro SD card, got a 400gb one slapped on my switch. No need to have all your games downloaded so 256 is reasonable, but are Nintendo Reasonable?

Not terribly concerned, MicroSD cards even at the TB range are cheap. I'd rather the console be affordable and very widely adopted.

3DS had iirc 16G, Wii U had up to 32G, Switch is 64G, so I'd expect the NextN to have at least 128G.