Well as a hybrid, it is both and therefore applies to either situation at any given time sooooo...

Example, they are talking about 1st party games.  These are Nintendo's console caliber games and therefore get classified as console software sales.  However you can play them portably, so Hybrid would work as well.

Many multiplats however have portability as the only real selling point (barring games with exclusive content) and therefore it is safe to say that this is the handheld version of these games.  Even so however, the core gameplay is exactly the same and the save files work as a console or on the go, so it can classified as a hybrid in this case as well.

The Switch is a Hybrid.

But I'd say it's mostly a home console, than it is a handheld.

I've had to explain this many times, but I'm gonna try again. The $299 price point, games at $60, marketed at young adults(instead of children). Games with extensive campaigns. The Switch was shaped the whole way as a Home console primarily, that you can take anywhere. NOT as a handheld that you can connect to the TV.

I would say their signature handheld at the moment is the 3DS, still.

I dont know if Nintendo has ever actually used the term hybrid. They have always described it as a home console that you can take anywhere.

I dont know if Nintendo has ever actually used the term hybrid. They have always described it as a home console that you can take anywhere.

I disagree. Many of the discussions in VGC come exactly due to changing Switch from one to the other depending on the props or con someone want to talk about. I do accept it as a hybrid with both pros and cons of being console and hh, but with Nintendo treating it as a console we also should do it.

But this is the type of PR we can see spin smell... like instead of fastest selling videogame (or in this case SW) they point out Nintendo and console, which would indicate that there are non-Nintendo that are above as well as Nintendo HH that also sold most. We have seem this done many times before on MS and probably Sony as well.

So as a home console, you admit that it is directly competing with the PS4 and X1 then, correct?

Nope, because they aren't taking away sales from them, but I won't enter in the same discussion of the other thread.

I mean you just said we should treat it as a console since Nintendo is saying the same thing.  This also means that the fact that you can take console games on the go with the Switch, it is arguable that one might choose the Switch version for the option of portability while remaining a home console overall and any difference in power is simply the trade off to utilize such a feature effectively.

Yes someone could (and we know some do, but in here we have only seem Nintendo fans taking this approach and praise) but most of the demanding console games still haven't (and possibly won't) get released on Switch so most of time there isn't a trade-off to make.

I just want to make sure we are on the same page, because what you just said completely contradicted something that you argued not that long ago in another thread.  But I guess only Nintendo fans lable the Switch one way or another based on what the topic is, right?

My point here is that we have to go to a consensus and that even Nintendo flip about what they consider Switch (and most probably they don't want to admit Switch is 3DS replacement because they are still sucking some juice out of it). But sure I have no problem if everyone decides to treat it as a console, and thus not make excuses for its low power, and that wouldn't change the fact of direct or indirect competition. Wii was a home console (even if very weak compared to competitors) and still didn't directly compete as it was in a blue ocean, switch at the moment is craving a blue ocean by allowing playing in the go. When their sales or the competitor get affect great time by one another then I may consider they as direct competitor.

1. Your wrong, but I agree lets not revisit a conversation from another thread.

ok

2. Well that is false, because anyone who knows me knows that I have clearly been a Sony Fanboy from the PS2 all the way up until the Switch released and I sing those praises.  It is why the Switch is now my primary console afterall.

There are exceptions, besides I wouldn't call someone a fanboy anyway, had you bought PS4?

3. No, it is still a trade off.  I am choosing to play one current gen console game in Valkeria Chronicles 4 on the go instead of my copy of Red Dead Redemption 2 because I only want to play one game at a time.  Just because they are different games does not make one more current gen than the other.  At the end of the day, I am playing a current gen console multiplat on Switch and therefore I have passed on buying certain games on PS4.  They are directly competing as the Switch has impacted the sales of PS4 games on my part, and many others as well.  This is only one example of many situations mind you.

Well one day you'll understand about replacement products and indirect competition and that not because you have one behavior others also have it. I couldn't care less about portable gaming but still I wouldn't think it doesn't matter to most people.

4. Nintendo never once said that the Switch is anything but a home console or a hybrid.  Never once did they say it was a handheld successor. I have just acknowledge they haven't named Switch the 3DS successor, mostly because they are still getting profits there, but if they don't ever release a named successor to 3DS won't you consider that it's a successor to 3DS? And again as I said, even if Switch was a regular game console I wouldn't consider a direct competitor (as I don't consider Wii not even WiiU - Nintendo may even have tried to directly compete and get hardcore gamers, but since I don't see they getting the same market as PS4 and X1 I wouldn't consider it direct competitor and for the cause for WiiU lack of sales don't have anything to do with PS4 or X1 existing but own mistakes by Nintendo namely lack of flagship games on a consistent basis).