I was a wiiU owner and I don't feel like I got screwed. Heck I even bought a switch. Also if they did distroy their reputation, I doubt the switch would be selling so well...

You spent hard-earned money on my Wii U to earn the privilege of playing Nintendo games released on that console and you had that, that doesn't mean that some of those Wii U games cant be ported on future console. Nintendo didnt screwed Wii U owners because they are porting some of Wii U games to Switch, or when they ported some of GC games to Wii or when they ported some of Wii games to Switch, same like Sony didnt screwed PS3 owners by porting some PS3 games to PS4, Nintendo never said they will not port any of their game to newer hardware. Huge majority of people are happy because some of great Wii U games are being ported to Switch including Wii U owners, I am Wii U owner and I am glad because more people will able to play great Wii U games from failed console on Switch, and I will also bought some upgraded versions of Wii U games on Switch, its good decision in any case and they definitely didn't destroy anything, they are actually looking much better and much more healthier now than they did in last 6-7 years.

You really need to get over with it, if you buying consoles just from reason if all those games staying exclusive just for that console and not being ported to other consoles, you will never bouth any console again.

I understand that you don't like how Nintendo handled the Wii U, but it's not cool to hope for Switch owners to feel the same way as you.

Yes, you spent your hard earned cash on it, but just because you did that doesn't mean that Nintendo (or rather any company) should be obligated to keep their games on that system only.

BTW, didn't the mods tell you to stop making comments like that (as in making them in a non-constructive way)?

As a wii u owner I'm happy with the content provided but disappointed that so much of it is re-appearing on the Switch purely on the basis that it reduces my interest in Switch. At the moment for me there is nothing I want on Switch to play and the performance level of Switch again is a very low level hardly moving much from wii u and prices are very high so the whole package for me personally is very unappealing especially as I'm not a huge portable game player.

As for Switch hardware sales we are predicting huge success on the basis of a supply restricted product. It's pretty clear its a stronger product than wii u but there will be a drop off in demand and European sales are far below the USA.

There is also a false expectation of the performance level that you see in many threads, people claiming it's close to xbox one etc. It's nowhere near that and not even close to Tegra Shield box as the clocks are much reduced. As more games come out especially comparable games people will develop a better understanding of what it is capable of. It just feels we are in wii and wii u territory again with Nintendo fans making completely false claims about its performance level. There really does seem to be a gap between the perceived performance level of the Switch and what it's known spec is and how games are performing. You wonder if part of the launch success of Switch is down to such unrealistic expectations.

The thing is with the wii u we saw day 1 practically that it was delivering versions of games that were inferior to ps3 and xbox 360. Most of the multi-format games were inferior on so many levels, inferior controls, inferior frame rates, lower detail, slower loading, sometimes lower resolution (sonic all-star racing), poor online functionality. We aren't seeing that on Switch because it simply doesn't have such third party games, it's pretty much Nintendo's own games plus indie games, retro games and nothing that requires a high performance level. No easy way of making a direct performance comparison so a false perception of the performance level is likely to last much longer because that perception will go unchallenged for longer. However saying that the wii succeeded despite its performance level but that pulled in many casual players but the market seems different now.

As ever the Nintendo story will be interesting to watch with the Switch and hopefully I'll get my own Switch when there is 3-4 great original exclusive games on the format that will justify the purchase for me.

Nintendo always had lower sales in Europe compared to US, US was always strongest Nintendo market. You dont have any proof that demand for Switch droped in Europe, Europe is not one single market like US or Japan, in Europe you have 44 countries and they all have difrent sales, and actually it seems that Switch is still selling strong in strongest Europe countries like Germany, France, UK and Spain.

Nobody really saying that Switch is close to XB1 performance, but reality is that Switch is somewhere between Wii U and XB1 in performance.

I already wrote about comparison of Wii U and PS3/Xbox360 performance, if you really want to make comparison compare PS3/Xbox 360 1st year 3rd party games with Wii U 1st year 3rd party games, comparing 1st year PS3/Xbox 360 3rd party games and PS3/Xbox 360 3rd party games that are developed 7 years later makes night and day difference.

Like I alreade wrote in other thread: "Of Course they struggled Wii U multi platform games struggled when when devs were doing 7 years games for PS3/Xbox360 while Wii U was brand new console they didnt know (look PS3/Xbox360 games at launch). But again you had some 3rd party games on Wii U that were better than they were on PS3/Xbox360. Also Wii U architecture was very different compared to PS3/Xbox360, PS3/Xbox360 had strong CPUs (especially PS3) but they had week GPU and they had very small amount of RAM, while Wii U had weaker CPU but stronger and more capable GPU and much more RAM, and multi platform devs ofcourse didn't had enuf time to make most of Wii U hardware like they did with PS3/Xbox360 because they left platform in 1st year. Switch has stronger and much more capable CPU than Xbox360, PS3 CPU is totally different story because it was crazy strong, PS3 CPU is stronger even compared to PS4 CPU if you comparing core with core in single in some operations, but Switch CPU is much more better for modern games that are using much more effectively multi core CPUs than PS3s CPU. And thats only about CPU, Switch GPU is few times more capable and stronger, you have 6x more usable RAM, and not to mention architecture and tech gains. Reality is that even in portable mode Switch is stronger and more capable than Wii U not to mention PS3/Xbox360, thats why Switch even in portable mode is runing Zelda BotW better than Wii U, thats why MK8D is runing at 1080p/60fps on Switch compared to 720p on Wii U, you need around 2.5x stronger hardware to run 720p game at 1080p resolution."

it looks like Switch will have a great first year!

But I don't want Pokémon, Animal just yet or what else will be left for 20188/19?

Obviously I'm taking Europe as an average we all know some markets are taking to the Switch more strongly than others. As for european hardware sales from memory, you might need to correct me but home console sales tend to be lower for Nintendo in Europe but fairly close for portable sales.

Again  your view which is more fair than some that Switch is between wii u and xb1 in performance still gives a false impression. It's very much close to the wii u side and in comparison with the ps3 and 360 has significantly less cpu and memory bandwidth resources.

The wii u didn't have significantly more gpu resources than 360 or ps3 those have areas of superiority. The wii u had a slighter later feature set but a low 176 gflops performance. The gflops figure is still important even between generations.

I don't agree with your comments at the end they are more defensive than realistic. No the Switch doesn't have more cpu resources than 360, admittedly its more close than the ps3 comparison but the 360 still has signficantly more. 

As for 720p to 1080p increased native rendering that is all the docked boost is used for. It's the same game and assets just an increased resolution. About 200 gflops to 400 gflops is all that its doing. It's exactly the same game. The core game engine always has to run with a 13,000 mips cpu resources and a maximum of 200 gflops compatible gpu requirements for the game engine itself even if it gets resolution boost when docked. Most games are nearer 150 gflops to enable decent battery life.  That's its base level performance, signficantly less cpu resources than ps3 and 360 but more than wii u. Roughly about equal gpu gflops, 150-200 gflops vs 176gflops plus up to 24gflops of wii gpu assist and 60GB/s of 32MB memory, 200 gflops plus cell assist, 240-250 gflops with 10MB of 256GB/s ultrafast memory for frame buffer.  Yes it has more memory which is a huge boost and there are features of the gpu the older generation consoles don't have but it still overall is a performance level which can be beaten by ps3 and 360 for many types of games. 

Again we simply aren't seeing hardware pushing games on Switch currently. It's pretty lightweight cartoon graphics and even with those the Switch can struggle with resolution, lack of anti-aliasing and frame rates. It is at an extremely low performance level even with those games and the evidence is over-whelming. The Switch is struggling to perform much beyond wii u and there is no surprises in that based on its Tegra X1 and use of very low clocks for cpu especially.

What's more on my linx vision gaming tablet I often stream from my low performance Athlon 5350 small form factor pc under my tv. It's not great performance to say the least on the Athlon. To run Fallout 4 well I reduce the resolution to 720p and detail to low levels. On my tv this looks like crap but on my 8" 720p linx vision screen streaming it actually looks really good as the lack of anti-aliasing, lower texture quality and other issues can't really be seen on such a small screen, its very forgiving. On the even smaller Switch screen it will be even more forgiving. My point is you can get away with poor quality visuals on a portable. Even my Linx Vision has signficantly more cpu performance than Switch. 

Again no excuses this time when multiformat games like Skyrim and Payday 2 come out. With the ease of development on Switch there is no reason to believe these games won't make maximum use of the hardware and we will have multiformat games that we can compare to their versions on other hardware.  While these games are old they are resource hungry enough to push the 360 and ps3 hardware. We won't have to estimate the performance level anymore we will have the evidence. Whether that means my estimates for the Switch performance level goes up or others go down is another matter. I just hope we don't have all the normal Nintendo excuses from the fanboys. If its higher than I expected I will obviously realise the gpu architecture improvements and tile based rendering made a signficant boost and accept it, no question but I also hope if it shows signficant weaknesses in the Switch versions the Switch performance level reality will be accepted by others.

I guess skyrim indicators that the Switch is sub 360/ps3 performance would be less than native resolution while portable, obviously low frame rate issues, simplified game world somehow, reduced content, reduced texture quality to those of a very low level that even some windows tablets can run.  Reduced non player characters, reduced weather effects, simplifed character animations or other tweaks to increase performance. Missing fine detail like the little ants running across the tree stumps. Pop-in or texture pop-in plus reduced view distance. Lots of variables. The main weakness in the Switch is cpu performance so I would expect Bethesda to prioritise the physics engine and remove cpu generated weather effects and perhaps thin the game slightly of NPC's. 

Again lets not forget the Switch is signficantly lower performance than the Shield box and this a summary of how the Shield compares to 360 and PS3.

The Shield isn’t completely devoid of mainstream fare, either. It’s powerful enough to handle some games from the previous console generation, including Borderlands 2, Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance, Portal, Half-Life 2, and Resident Evil: 5. Unfortunately, there aren’t many of these games, and their visual quality doesn’t quite hold up to their original console versions. If your primary goal is to revel in last-gen gaming, consider picking up an Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 on the cheap.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3162366/software-games/how-the-nvidia-shield-tv-holds-up-as-a-game-console.html

As you can see below 360 on left, Shield on right, shadows and lighting quality reduced on Shield and that's with double the cpu resources of Switch and somewhere between 2-3x the gpu resources of Switch as the Shield operates at full gpu speed and doesn't have to downclock for a portable mode.

I'm just making the point my predictions are based on the evidence, those who are claiming the Switch is higher performance are those making the stretch. We already know the much more powerful Shield box struggles to match ps3 and 360. This is hardly that surprising its a mobile chipset with low cpu resources. 

Ye, you'd have to imagine those two are next year. I mean we've already had Mario Kart, Zelda and soon 3d Mario and Splatoon 2. What major franchises are left? Pokemon, Animal Crossing, Smash Bros.... it's actually going to be really interesting to see the Switch get all Major titles so early, raises a lot of question marks for 2019!

You dont know what are you talking, Switch in capabilities is somewhere between Wii U and XB1 (not to mentione PS3/Xbox360), but in tech/ architecture Switch is even more advanced than XB1.

Wii U GPU didn't had significantly more GPU resources than 360 or PS3 but it was more capable GPU in any case. The gflops are not nearly important if you comparing different generations, tech and architecture. 360/PS3 GPU is from Nvidia tech/architecture from 2004/2005, Wii U GPU is AMD/Radeon GPU tech/architecture from 2008/2009. Also you completely ignoring fact that Wii U 4x more RAM than PS3/Xbox360, so like I wrote, Wii U had slower CPU but more capable GPU and more RAM.

You do realise that ARM A57 core on same clock is stronger than PS4 Jaguar CPU!? ARM A57 is modern tech and architecture and its quite capable CPU, its definitely much more capable than Xbox360 CPU, while PS3 CPU is totally different story, PS3 CPU is even stronger than PS4 CPU in some operations.

Point is that Switch has so much more power that is able to run MK8D at 1080p/60fps on Switch compared to 720p on Wii U and thats Wii U game not from ground made Switch game, you need around 2.5x stronger hardware to run 720p game at 1080p resolution. Switch has power that could run any PS3/Xbox360 game at 1080p with better frame rate. Are you relly trying to compare gflops from Nvidia tech/architecture from 2004/2005 and 2nd generation of Nvidia Tegra tech/architecture from 2015 and taking that like proof of power!? Thats crazy, Switch GPU even in handheld mode is more stronger and capable than PS3/Xbox360 GPUs. Also interesting how you completely ignored fact that Switch even in handheld mode has 4x more memory than Wii U and 8x more memory than PS3/Xbox360 (one of biggest bottleneck for PS3/Xbox 360).

Fact that Switch is able to run MK8D in 1080p, fact that ARMS runs at 1080p/60FPS, fact that few multplatform games comparisons (Lego City, Thumper, or Snake Pass) tells us how much stronger and more capable Switch is compared to PS3/Xbox360/WiiU. And like you wrote, we still didnt saw games that push Switch hardware that will really show for what Switch really is capable.

You need to understand that Nvidia made new tools, system design, system software and APIs specifikly for Switch that will use most of Switch hardware, games will much more optimised for Switch and they will use much more from hardware than they ever did for Shield. Comparing Shield and Switch is like you comparing PS4 and PC with similar specs, of course that PS4 will have far more optimized games that will use much better power from PS4 hardware compared to PC.

People couldn't hold themselves, right? I know, I know, Nintendo success is really hard to swallow, so derailing the thread is necessary