This makes me wonder exactly how is the first year of the Switch going to be. Sure, a lot of devs seem to be developing their games for the console, but most of those rumoured to be there are ports of older games. The only difference between this 1st year and the WiiU's may just be a way more attractive console and way more ports, but we still need newer games from 3rd partie, or we're going to end up more or less the same.

I already said that they can use other card sizes. But it's the cost of those cards what will decide which one they would use.

It would be interesting to see how well this series would do on a Nintendo console.

I believe it's the successor to the 3DS, nothing else makes sense, that wasn't really the point.

I have no illusions that PS2 and DS level sales are the norm or that anything below is bad, I'd consider anything above 50 million sales a success, if I were to choose an arbitrary number. Trust me; I'm perhaps the biggest critic of lofty thinking in here and have been spending the last 3-4 years arguing against those who think the PS4 will sell 150 million units or more, citing several arguments as to why it's near impossible for consoles to do that in the modern market.

As for inheriting installed bases; whatever happened to the majority of handheld gamers from the 7th gen? Between them, the Vita and DS had about 230-240 million users, yet about 150 million or more of those seem to have simply disappeared. And the home consoles are in general and combined tally selling considerably slower than the 7th gen contenders as well, so they haven't jumped ship and landed there either. Whose to say this can't happen to a significant portion of the 3DS audience? Fringe consumers will find other pastures to graze, like the vast majority of the Wii's installed base did. You claim I see things in black and white, yet you don't realize that you yourself do that very thing by simply assuming that 3DS owners will jump into a proxy of the 3DS, despite massive and very recent evidence that handheld customers are seemingly more likely to go elsewhere. At this point; the Switch is looking like a tablet, why aren't typical Nintendo like games huge on existing tablets and why would handheld consumers want a hybrid? Why would more tech interested consumers want a 720p tablet or a home system that is considerably weaker than the competition? Why would Wii U fans automatically like the Switch? Who exactly are they aiming the Switch at? These are all relevant questions, and I fear that the Switch as a concept is making the same mistake the Wii U did; trying to appeal to widely different demographics with one single platform.

My point with the Wii success and lack of support was a simple one; developers talk, words are cheap, action speaks etc. Let's wait and see what they're actually going to offer and not go crazy over a list of logos and studio names, it means next to nothing.

Porting a 1 year old RPG (Dark Souls), porting a 5 year old RPG (Skyrim) and talking about "partnership" isn't ambiguous and vague? The Wii U had ports of Mass Effect 3, Assassin's Creed 3, Black Ops II, FIFA 13 and Batman: Arkham City, what happened next? FIFA 14 was scrapped, after both AC and AC4 tanked, they scrapped AC: Unity and other Ac titles on the platform, is the next Mass Effect available on Nintendo platforms, or even the two first ones? No, they're not. Batman games, none of the others appeared on Wii U (but the Telltale games actually appeared on iPad/iPhone, which says a lot on the situation). Call of Duty Black Ops III skipped the Wii U but appeared on the aging PS3 and 360, Advanced Warfare was the same story.

Are you seeing a pattern there? How about the Rayman debaccle when Ubi screwed Nintendo gamers over despite making sweet promises all along? My point is; one confirmed port of a 5 year old RPG and a rumor about a port of a 1 year old (will be one year since launch in March) tells us absolutely nothing about the level of commitment studios are willing to go into.

Ah, the portable factor, the very reason why 3rd party video game developers have been going nuts making and/or porting their main franchises and all their bigger efforts to tablets and phones. This isn't an incentive at all, and studios who have never or rarely worked on neither dedicated handhelds nor mobile devices are extremely unlikely to suddenly find this prospect enticing, especially with regards to their bigger efforts. As for the capabilities of the Switch; it doesn't appear to be able to do anything that most tablets, given attached controllers, won't also be able to do, probably even in higher resolutions and with more system resources and storage. And the choice to not flaunt online features and go for cartridges might not be a plus either, I hardly think that today's audiences are super excited about more gear and nick-nack's to carry around for the mobile devices and digital distribution is growing immensely large in the biggest markets. The one thing the Switch has over the others is Nintendo games, and that in and on itself is cool for the owner of a Switch, not so much a 3rd party developer.

Besides; "big gaming" in handheld form has already been attempted, it's called the PS Vita and we have first row tickets to its demise on this very site and forum, unless that somehow eluded you.

You claim I'm downplaying, but I want to flip the question back at you; what do we know besides one confirmed 5 year old port and one rumored 1 year old port and what does that say about future outlooks and efforts and why are people going nuts over a list of logos and names that tell us, in essence, nothing at worst and very little at best. Like I told another user; Nintendo have a Mario game for Apple devices now, making them a mobile gaming developer and Apple partner, does that mean they're going balls to the walls with support for Apple devices? No, and it's kind of in the same line of reasoning to claim so.

Ubisoft have said they have several Switch projects? What are these? Again, it's meaningless information, it could be anything, for better or for worse, and given Ubisoft's treatment of Nintendo platforms in the last 10 years or more, it's more than likely to be for the worse.

Again with the list of partners, it's a useless tidbit they've thrown out to cause hype, but it holds absolutely nothing by way of useful information. A list of names tells us nothing. From Software and Bethesda are talking about porting one game each, a 1 year old and a 5 year old port respectively, and the former is even just a rumor. This does in no way suggest that either studio is "on board" with the Switch, it sounds more very, very careful testing of the waters, which is better than nothing, granted.

Look, once again, I'm not trying to be evil or make anyone feel bad, but look at Nintendo's relation with 3rd parties over the decades and look at the big picture, words spoken versus action taken and try to take it with a grain of salt. We need actual, tangible information, dedications and confirmation of actual big efforts from the studios on this proverbial list for it to mean anything. For now, we are all Jon Snow, and know nothing.

I'd buy that. that would be amazing to have on a portable

It has always been a good fit, given that Dark Souls borrows quite a bit from Zelda and Castlevania. Is going to be familiar ground for Nintendo fans and the difficulty of the game is not really NES hard. Also, the game saves everywhere so it could be very portable friendly as you don't need to get to the next "Save Point".

People need to remember the Switch is a hybrid and so gets the developers who normally do portable games and those that do home console Nintendo games working on it. Not only that it will be easy to do enhanced versions of android and ios games and its powerful enough to get some triple A titles if Switch sales merit it. The console is at a performance level which is a perfect fit for fantastic games which have cartoon graphics.

Not only that in portable mode it is probably about the same performance as last gen plus a bit so any ps3, 360 and wii u games can be converted to it. We now know the Switch is powerful enough to emulate up to gamecube level according to the virtual console info and wii is only 50% more powerful using exactly the same cpu and gpu arrangement as gamecube so optimisations there may bring wii emulation too.

There will be games, it can scrape the best games from many sources.

However what is isn't is a direct competitor to pc, ps4, ps4 pro, xbone or scorpio.

I also still think there is a chance of a VR visor/headset for the Switch tablet too to open up a huge range of further game possibilities.

You'll be buying a Switch for awesome Nintendo games and you'll also have a wide range of other filler games.

Imagine if Skyrim on Switch supported VR and you slid the tablet into the visor and away you go. That would be an incredibly convenient way of playing such games in VR. Imagine many ps3, 360 and wii u games done with VR in mind on Switch. It's capable of it. I'd love to play Fallout 3 in virtual reality on switch.

Even if Switch doesn't launch with VR its an easy later product as its a 6" tablet with removable wireless controllers absolutely ideal for VR.

Here's dark souls 3 as VR (a mod not a geniune game mode)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUGZW2x-hhw

from software actually has released a game in 3ds, and trust me you dont want to knw what is. DS series is not the only game they develop

Well 3x 16GB or 2x 32GB cards currently are not cheaper than one 64GB.

For now, Just Dance 2017, Mario and Rabbids, and Beyond of Good and Evil.

Like I wrote, you missing a point, fact is that all around Switch is way more postive than it was for Wii U, even that list of partners and supporters is bigger than Wii Us list. Fact that Switch has Bethesda and From Software on board is very positive for Switch, Wii U didnt had them or any previous Nintendo platform.

Great one game on handheld from NES, that really doesn't change anything, they didn't consider releasing DS on Wii U for instance.

Sales of all formats are down from 7th gen because the 7th gen itself was an anomaly because of the premature jump to HD as well as the blue ocean explosion which brought in tonnes of new gamers into the market. Gen 8 is simply the market normalizing as the gen's performance is in line with all other gen, the evidence you're citing isn't consumers looking elsewhere it's simply the market returning to it's usual size.

Why would handheld gamers want a hybrid? Because it gives them one unified library and access to the console offerings with out the need of having to go out and purchase another platform, the library output essentially increases. Your question about Nintendo games not being popular on tablets and such is odd because Pokemon Go highlighted the first party having strong effects on such devices, you ask why tech minded consumers would pick it over the competition because the competition already lack the portability feature who knows what else the platform does. The simple prospect of playing console like games such as Skyrim or even Dark Souls conveniently on the go in itself is a potential huge factor. Why would Wii U fans like the Switch? The same reason they bought any other Nintendo platform it's the only place to get the games they're after, who Switch is aimed at? Anyone who is a potential gamer in both home and portable gaming.

Wii U's mistake wasn't trying to appeal to different demographics far from it, the mistake was the overall handling of the platform, if you watch DYK Gaming's video of it you realize Nintendo weren't sure on what to do with it in the run up to release. This was because Nintendo were handling the platform based on what other entities were saying they should do and not doing their usual approach of doing their own thing, this lead to wayward pricing, consumer confusion and non existent marketing all of which were on top of the struggle of them developing for two separate gaming platforms. You can already see in the Switch the is a vast improvement, all you need for a reference is watch the Wii U reveal and then watch the Switch reveal, the difference is as clear as day in the handling.

Your point about the Wii is undermined because no developer back then even had talk for it, the platform's success took everyone by surprise, it's far more beneficial for developers to be on board early on to test the waters then miss thew gravy train after it has left the platform and try and catch up with it. At least if the platform doesn't take off it's far less costly to just continue on as normal then try and switch approaches to jump on a success you had no plans for.