X1 struggled because Microsoft fumbled on PR well ahead of its launch, and Sony capitalized on it in a masterful way. The "perceived value" had NOTHING to do with power, and everything to do with marketing, message and the perception of each manufacturer.

The vast majority of consumers don't give a crap about power. Go out and talk to random people on the street about the difference in power between X1 and PS4 and guage how much they really care. Ask random people why they chose their console of choice. I guarantee you very little of it has to do with the console's raw power.  Unless they are PC gamers or message board dwellers like us, they don't give a shit and they couldn't tell you a thing about screen tearing, resolutions, FLOPs, anti-aliasing, framerate or GPUs.

Getting back to the Switch, if it doesn't meet the expectations of customers, it will be because the games aren't there, not because Random Game A can only output in 900p on Switch instead of 1080p, or Random Game B has fewer shaders on the Switch than the other two.

Bullshit translator:

"Please buy our 3DS this holiday. Our new NS system that looks exactly like a tablet, has its own LCD display for portable play, has its own built in battery for portable play, a kick stand for portable play, a detachable spare controller for portable play situations is not a portable system. It's totally not a portable system. Why would you even think that? You might even call it a ... third pill -- aw fuck it. Please buy our 3DS portable game system this holiday. That is our portable system. Why don't you want a 3DS. Try it. Did I say 3DS is portable? Because it's portable. Not NS. Not until March 2017 anyway, ooops did I say that out loud? Just buy a 3DS ok? It has Pokemon. You'll love it, and we'll love having your money."

Holy crap! Could you be more condescending? Why do you think that someone disagrees with you they couldn't possibly understand or know the topic at hand as well as you? Do you think I'm completely unaware of why the Wii U sold? Do you think I've made numerous comments about the Nintendo Switch without taking 5 minutes to watch a trailer? Please try and be more respectful.

Moving on.

So you're main argument is that the Wii U was a great console that tens of millions of people actually wanted it, but didn't buy it realize how great it was because of poor marketing, poor naming, and high price - not because the concept was bad. I think that's ridiculous. There's plenty of electronics that have poor marketing and poor naming that sell incredibly well because it's a great product. The Wii U simply wasn't. The system was too underpowered. Third party games didn't look and play nearly as well, and after third party games sold terribly on the incredibly popular Wii, after initial third party games on the Wii U didn't sell well most gave up. Can you blame them. There was no reason to expect that time investment in the Wii U was worth the effort. The system also had features people didn't want. The second screen that wasn't in your line of vision was incredibly distracting for me, and the motion control of the control wasn't good enough to be used effectively. The system's "defining feature" made games worse for me.  However, the biggest reason why the Wii U sold terribly is because the core design of the Wii U was incredibly expensive to make. There was no real way to take advantages of economies of scale and technological advancement to make the cost of making a Wii U much cheaper, and thus lower the retail price. The Wii U came out in Nov. 2012 for $299 to October 216 at $229. That's $80 in 4 years. That's completely unacceptable, especially considering most people buy their consoles when they are $200 or less.

So now let's look at why you think the Switch is going to do better. In order to do that, you need to explain why the same expected release price ($300) went from being a "high price" with the Wii U to an "okay price" with the Switch. The PS3 was $279 when the Wii U was released, and the PS4 will be $299 when  the Switch is released. Does that $20 difference really make the Switch price that much more competiitve? Because I don't think it is. Why are third party games on the Switch going to play closer to the PS4/X1 counterparts than the Wii U did with PS3/X360 counterparts and why are going to sell better than they did on the Wii or Wii U? What makes it different this time based on what you have seen from Nintendo?  Now as for the design. The Switch might be in the same boat as the Wii U. They might not be able to scale that price down as prices get cheaper considering the design is actually just a more complicated Wii U. It might actually be harder to price cut this than the Wii U was. That remains to be seen.

As for poor marketing, how does putting in a third party game in your trailer that the creators are unwilling to so much as announce after the trailer is released. There's a very real chance that Skyrim will never come to the Nintendo Switch, so how exactly is Nintendo doing a better job of not misleading prospective buyers this time around? Theres already rumblings this console has far less under the hood than implied. On top of that, rumors are swirling that the Switch only has a 3 hour battery life.  It doesn't like that you'll be able to take this too far from home without tethering it to a wall outlet. Could that be why Nintendo is so insistent that this is a home console? I think so. This thing could be pretty useless out and about.

So you can bring the console with you on the road. So what? What makes you think that in 2016, tens of millions of people are willing to carry around a  $300 7" tablet to play it at 15-20 minute intervals? This thing will not fit in your pocket. There is a 0% chance I'm bringing around a backpack or asking my wife to fire this in her purse just so I can play games while we're out - and I'm someone who still carries around his Vita with him. It easily fits in the front pocket of my coat. How many people do you see carrying iPads and other tablets around just to play games on while out and about. Not many in my experience. In order for this feature to be appealing, you have to think tens of millions of people are willing to do that. Otherwise it's just another home console, competing with PS4 and X1 for tv shelf space, and you can't believe this actually stands a better chance than the Wii U did going toe-to-toe with PS and Xbox consoles that were much more powerful.

Well I guess the PS4 Pro and Xbox Scorpio must be figments of my imagination. What are the odds the PS4 pro itself does better than the Wii U did lifetime? I'd say those odds are pretty good. But it's a good thing that would-be buyers don't care about power right?

I think you're wrong. Most would-be gamers do care about power when it comes to determining value, and they care more than ever. They don't need to know about anti-aliasing or screen tearing to know that PS4 games look objectively better than Xbox One games, that look dramatically better than Wii U games. It's a factor that helps people choose which console they're going to buy, especially when all of the prices are the same!. You're right in the sense that most Nintendo fans couldn't care less about power, but that's an incredibly easy argument to make when your console of choice isn't nearly as capable as the rest. I heard plenty of Nintendo fans toot about how much more powerful the Gamecube was compared to the PS2, and I bet you those are some of the same people that suddenly don't care nearly that much.

If that's the marginal difference you're referring to than your point might is valid, but from what's been leaking out, it's entirely possible that the Switch is actually less powerful than the Wii U. Just let that sink in. Think about how hard it will be to sell a system to developers that's actially less capable than its predecessor, when the competition has gotten many times stronger. The difference is going to be stark. Making a PS4 game run on a console less powerful than the Wii U For example, imagine two display booths in a store like BestBuy. In my local store they're literally all right next to each other X1 - PS4 - Wii U. All in a Row. In the middle, you havePS4 pro that does native 4K, and then not 6 feet away, you have the Switch that does native 720p upscaled to 1080p, the is absolutely zero chance that the games from the switch aren't dramatically worse, and they're selling for the exact same price.

There's no way you can't objectively look at that and realize it's a really hard sell.

Ofcourse if there is barketing, high price, not appealing gimmick, not must have games, weak support...that average consumer will not want to buy it.

Actually PS3/Xbo360 were around $249 and people really didn't had any reason to buy Wii U instead of them because reasons I mention.

Like I wrote, message about Switch from trailer is very simple and clear, there is no any confusion out there, so totally different than Wii U. Ofcourse that Skyrim is coming to Switch, Bethesda confimred partnersihp and suport for Switch, and there is zero chanche that Nintendo would show 3rd party game runing on system if they are not 100% sure that game is coming on system. It's very obvious that Nintendo holding all amendments of games for later date. Why Switch will have better 3rd party than Wii U!? Because of better sales, main reason why 3rd party abandoned Wii U in 1st year is catastrophic sales of Wii U. Thats only one rumour about battery, other rumor saying mediocre batter while Nintendo said "that the whole thing was designed so that users could play as long as possible, “comfortably”, even in places where you don’t have access to a power outlet."

Actually tablet is around 6". Well tens of millions of people caring tablets and phablets. No, definatyl not aiming directly same consumers like PS4/XB1, like I wrote aiming NIntendo fans, mobile users, casuals, kids and families, secondary console for PS4/XB1 users.. Lol of course that will stand incompatible much better than Wii U, even now after just one trailer has much more positive reaction than Wii U, not to mention Wii U mistakes..

Way to pick a strawman for your argument. The Wii U was doomed to failure from jump, for reasons everyone here has discussed ad infinitum: horrible name that confused consumers, poor messaging that confused customers, horrible and practically nonexistant marketing, a concept that didn't capture that lightning in the way that Nintendo hoped, and a barren wasteland as far as game releases go. Comparing it to the PS4 means nothing. PS3 and 360 were outselling Wii U: is that because they are more powerful? Vita and Wii U were competing pretty closely; maybe they still are for all I know. Is the Vita more powerful? Everything not named Virtual Boy would outsell the Wii U. Power has nothing to do with it. Nintendo fucked up, and power is only a fraction of the reason why.

I can't believe I have to resort to these tired old facts, but here we go:

Wii outsold the PS3 and 360: was it more powerful than those two? By the way, the Wii to PS3 gap is probably the largest one in a console generation history. That was the last time you could grab some random Joe off the street and he could defitively tell you the difference. Yet, the Wii is the sales king.

PS2 outsold the GCN and XB: was it more powerful than those two? Nope.

DS outsold the PSP: Is it more powerful than that? Hell naw. PSP even had Monster Hunter that gen.

3DS outsold the Vita: Is it more powerful than that? Lol.

GBA outsold the N-Gage: Have you ever even heard of the N-Gage?

So yep, most buyers don't care about power. In most instances, it's negligible. The gap between the X1 and PS4 is negligible. The gap between the PS360 was negligible. The people who care about power are message board nerds like us and, like a friend of mine said in another thread, the "I need to compensate for my small wiener" crowd.

I think you're wrong. Most would-be gamers do care about power when it comes to determining value, and they care more than ever. They don't need to know about anti-aliasing or screen tearing to know that PS4 games look objectively better than Xbox One games, that look dramatically better than Wii U games.

We can disagree. I have no problem with that. But I'm telling you, if you go find random people with and ask them tell you which version of most multiplats look better, they won't really be able to spot the difference. If you try to have a conversation about console power and capability with anyone other than your hardcore gaming friends, you will bore them to death. The demographic you and I are in don't represent the majority of consumers. That is fact.

It's a factor that helps people choose which console they're going to buy, especially when all of the prices are the same!

It's a pretty small piece of the pie. Most people choose a console based on price, games they want, what their friends have, and any other luxuries like media capabilities before they consider power. The guy who only plays consoles for Cawd isn't going to choose a PS4 or PC if his friends are already gaming on X1. The woman who loves Uncharted isn't going to buy a Scorpio if it's not getting Uncharted.

You're right in the sense that most Nintendo fans couldn't care less about power, but that's an incredibly easy argument to make when your console of choice isn't nearly as capable as the rest. I heard plenty of Nintendo fans toot about how much more powerful the Gamecube was compared to the PS2, and I bet you those are some of the same people that suddenly don't care nearly that much.

You only need to look within this very thread and others on this site to see that there a lot of Nintendo fans who care about power. It looks very petty of you to have to have to resort to strawman arguments. You're starting to sound like DonFerrarri; I don't recommend taking after that guy.

But just to let you know, the GameCube is more powerful than the PS2. It ate the PS2 for lunch in terms of power, and that's before we even get to the Xbox. I'm glad you brought it up, because guess what? The PS2 is arguably the greatest console of all time, and the undisputed popularity champion. So like I said earlier, if power is what people cared about, why did the Xbox and GC get destroyed by the PS2? Your own logic betrays you.

If that's the marginal difference you're referring to than your point might is valid, but from what's been leaking out, it's entirely possible that the Switch is actually less powerful than the Wii U. Just let that sink in. Think about how hard it will be to sell a system to developers that's actially less capable than its predecessor, when the competition has gotten many times stronger. The difference is going to be stark. Making a PS4 game run on a console less powerful than the Wii U For example, imagine two display booths in a store like BestBuy. In my local store they're literally all right next to each other X1 - PS4 - Wii U. All in a Row. In the middle, you havePS4 pro that does native 4K, and then not 6 feet away, you have the Switch that does native 720p upscaled to 1080p, the is absolutely zero chance that the games from the switch aren't dramatically worse, and they're selling for the exact same price.

There's no way you can't objectively look at that and realize it's a really hard sell.

Dude, rumors are all over the fucking place. Show me a thread posting a rumor saing the Switch is weaker than a Wii U, I'll show you three more saying the Switch is double the Wii U, triple the Wii U, half the X1, in the ballpark of X1, slightly stronger than X1, between X1 and PS4, and slightly stronger than the PS4. Unless you have sources, that paragraph doesn't mean jack. When we have actual information to go on, then I will be glad to have this discussion.

I acutally looked up the price of PS3s when the Wii U came out. They were $299.

If you think this console is totally different than WIi U, then we don't really have anything to discuss because that's ridiculous. Moving the processing of the console from the base to the controller does not make it totally different.

Bethesda refused to confirm that Skyrim was coming to Switch. That's a fact. It's currently not known whether Skyrim will ever be playable on Switch.

If Switch is going to have better third party support  than Wii U because of sales, why didn't Wii have better third party supprt? The wii sold better than the Switch ever will. Third parties abandoned the Wii U because of catastrophic sales of third party games on the Wii U. Nintendo has had no trouble churning out million + selling Wii U games on that small sales bases, but Third party games sold terribly in comparison. Why was that? Why will this time be different?

The main concept they tried to sell with the WiiU was dual screen play. The Switch totally moved away from that. Yeah, it's definitely a quite different concept. 

this is absolutely absurd to say these consoles are "different concepts". That's like saying that a main feature of the dualshock was vibration, but the six axis has motion controls and no vibration, so the six axis is a totally different controller than the dual shock.