If I wanted a portable gaming system I would get an Ipad, Android Tablet or a Surface Pro. I can't think think of a compelling reason to walk around with something that is just a gaming system. When for just a bit more, I could get something I could use in many other ways.
Plus, I think most of the kids I know that have tablets just use them for gaming, mostly. But that is not the excuse why parent buy them.
This seems like it is aimed exclusively at the Japanese gaming market.
So I'm just doing to end up stating a lot of obvious points, but there's a lot wrong with this post.
I get the sentiment that tablets offer a satisfying portable gaming experience, but they do not offer a parity of software or control with dedicated systems, which the Switch offers. Again, I get the sentiment, but for "a bit more," you'd be buying something completely different from a traditional console, not just in hardware, but in software.
The thing that's compelling about the Switch is that it's a PS4 that isn't tethered to your TV. It's an XBO that isn't tethered to your TV. It's a gaming rig that isn't tethered to your TV. Tablets are not that. They are big smartphones without a sim card, and while that is very cool, that is not what the Switch is. If you wanted a portable piece of tech that could play games, you absolutely could buy a traditional tablet and be satisfied, but if you wanted portable tech that could play the same games you can play on other dedicated gaming devices, you absolutely would not.
That being said, I am hopeful that the Switch will have an abundance of multimedia features and functionality. It's strong enough and has the right form factor beat out traditional tablets. No reason to think it'll only do games.
The biggest thing I don't agree with though is that this thing is being aimed at the Japanese market. I think you're misunderstanding the mass market a little bit. People like portability. Most people use their phones for computing tasks. If they don't, they're using a tablet or at most a laptop. Only professionals and enthusiasts use desktops because only enthusiasts and professionals care about power and performance more than convenience and flexability. It cannot be understated that no one has ever successfully implemented what Nintendo is doing.
A lot of people are still calling this a handheld, but it is not. Switch is much more akin to a laptop functionally, if you look at consoles as desktops. It is a weaker, more portable version of the same thing. It can not fit in your pocket, nor is it meant to. The expectations placed on it are that of a home console, and that is what it will be compared to because there are no other products like it on the market. It will not have a separate library of handheld games, it will have a shared library of home console games alongside other home consoles because that's what it is meant to be. A little home console. I'd call it a "portable" console, but that name is associated with handhelds. Most people call it a hybrid, but even though I don't like that name because it is not a hybrid of home and handheld, it at least communicates what it really is better than anything else.
There are home consoles and PC on the higher end. Those are your "desktops."
There are handhelds on you lower end. Those are yout "smartphones."
The Switch lies in between these two, which is why I compare it to a laptop.
It is not a mix between a desktop and a smartphone. It is not a like a handheld and it is not like a home console. It is something different that sits in the middle. In this climate, that has a lot of mass market appeal because, contrary to popular belief, most people don't care about performance. They don't even notice it. Most people can't tell the difference between the 360 version of Tomb Raider 2 and the PC version on ultra. Most people can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps. Most people don't know what screen tearing or shimmering. But everyone can tell the difference between playing a game on the TV while sitting formally in a chair and playing on your bed in your covers with the screen 16 inches away from your face because that how most people interact with every other piece of tech that they own. And they do that because they prefer the flexibility. That's not a Japanese thing, that's a mass market thing, and it's happening world wide. Especially in the west. Especially in the US.
Again, a lot of this is just stating the obvious. The trends away from desktops is well known, and the only reason that hasn't effected consoles is because there hasn't been a portable system that can play home console games yet. With the Switch, there is. If the GTA6 is released on the Switch, PS4, XBO, and PC, people aren't going to care that PC/PS4/Scorpio has the prettiest version. As long as the Switch version isn't this garbage version, and as long as Switch has modern online funtionality, the Switch version has little reason not to sell competitively, because it's GTA that you can take anywhere, but still play on the TV if you want. Even if you only undock GTA6 once, that is one more time than you can on the competing platforms, and that's huge. It's huge that Nintendo is the first to seemingly implement something like this successfully, because this is where the mass market is at. The "best" version of anything isn't the one with this highest quality, but with the easiest accessibility. That's what the Switch get's right.