30 fps v. 60 fps is a large enough difference to affect gameplay enjoyment. The resolution and texture clarity is not nearly as important as fluidity and responsiveness in controls.
There are a handful of Switch games that reach 60 fps, so it has a ton of promise, but a 2.0 release would certainly be great.
People say that and yet most of the PS1 and PS2 games were 30fps or lower. One of the top games on the PS2, GTA3 (and Vice City, and San Andreas) were all 30fps or less. N64 games as well.
Basically if the game is fun, no one cares. If the game is not fun then they look for random excuses as to why.
Note: I'm not saying they wouldn't be better at 60. Rather Im saying they were multi-million unit sellers and made lots of people happy playing them and yet they were 30. So being 60 is not a requirement for being good.
SNES platformers ran at 60 fps in almost every game, and definitely every Mario game, SM64 was the sole exception. SMO was also 60 fps.
There is no category of games that would not improve in playability from 30 to 60 fps.
Not trying to be argumentative here. As mentioned upthread, I own 2 Switch consoles and the difference between 30 and 60 fps when running the same or similar games are stark. Perhaps i'm more sensitive than others.
My favorite racing game ever is Wipeout 2097 on the PlayStation. Needless to say, it didn't run at more than 30fps (in fact, since I was in France, it was probably even 25fps). Gran Turismo on the PlayStation 2 was also fine at 25/30fps.
There are a handful of Switch games that reach 60 fps, so it has a ton of promise, but a 2.0 release would certainly be great.