50%

Either it is.

Or it isn’t.

It's Nintendo so they will probably try to get you to pay for Mario Cart again

@WestyFlyer With how long first party games are taking to bring to market these days, it almost has to be backwards compatible, just for the sake of having a playable library at launch.

I’m guessing it will be backwards compatible. The Wii, Wii U, DS, and 3DS all had backwards compatibility, and the only reason the Switch didn’t is because it has a vastly different architecture from the Wii U (and no space for a disk drive). I can’t imagine that the Switch 2’s architecture will be vastly different from the Switch, and they’ll both presumably use cartridges, so I’d say there’s a very good chance of backwards compatibility.

It should be. If it's just a more powerful Switch with a similar design then there'd be no reason not to. It'd really hinder adoption if everyone had to replace their console and still keep Switch 1 around. The Wii U was backwards compatible with Wii games even though it changed up the format a bit.

The only times a Nintendo console wasn’t backwards compatible at least one generation was when they changed the hardware that Roms ran on. GC played on Wii which played on WiiU. As long as new switch keeps the cartridges it should be compatible.

Let's look at the track record.

Backwards compatible handhelds:

• GameBoy Colour (to GB)
• Gameboy Advance (to GBC)
• Nintendo DS (to GBA)
• Nintendo 3DS (to DS)

Home consoles:

• Wii (to GC)
• Wii U (to Wii)

Not backwards compatible:

• SNES
• VirtualBoy
• Nintendo 64
• GameCube
• Switch

Lack of backwards compatibility to the previous generation has usually followed from a change in media format, and even then there has been a willingness to make an effort (the DS with its two slots being the prime example). Backwards compatibility seems to be a good way to ensure a wide selection of games at launch, and the negative aspect (not being able to sell the re-releases of the same games yet again to those desperate enough) seems to be outweighed by the positive (availability of games at launch; maintained interest in games from previous generation).

There's no real reason for Switch cartridges to grow any smaller, and I doubt they'll go back to discs. So I would say there's a pretty good chance of backward compatibility.

Assuming it’s built on the same Tegra line of chips, there could be issues with back compat according to MVG. But there are ways around that that Nintendo could take, and they have a lot of incentive to make it backwards compatibile

Nintendo has been quite keen on backwards compatibility across quite a few devices, particularly those based around the same general architecture. If this rumored Switch 2 A) exists, and B) has physical capabilities the same or comparable to the Switch (using Joy Cons and controller compatibility, being able to function in docked and handheld modes, etc.) it’s a pretty good bet that it will also be able to play Switch games.

We can hope, perhaps, that in its backwards compatibility mode it might even be able to get Tears of the Kingdom to run at a decent frame rate. The fanboys will hit the moon if so.

The Gameboy Advance could play Gameboy games. The DS could play Gameboy Advance games. The 3DS could play normal DS games. (And DSi games, but no one cared about those.) The Wii could play Gamecube games. The WiiU could play regular Wii games. Nintendo’s track record on backwards compatibility, at least across a single system generation, has historically been quite good.

100.0%. There is just no benefit whatsoever to rocking that boat. The Switch is a converted Android gizmo, ARM is still the only sane answer for high-performance mobile platforms, and their video hardware is from the company that bought ARM. To say nothing of the PR shitstorm it would be to slice their market in half.

That said, you’ll still have to buy Virtual Console games separately, because Nintendo.