I was looking back at the history of the Wii U, and began wondering why Nintendo didn't just release something like the Switch to immediately suceed the Wii. The more I thought about it, the more of an image came to mind.

Looking at the Switch hardware, a lot of it had equivalents that would have been available back in the day. For example, instead of using the Tegra X1, a 2012-era Switch might have used either a Tegra 2 or Tegra 3. The Tegra 3 is obviously weaker than the Tegra X1, but would at least still be able to compete with the PS3 and Xbox 360 (Quad-Core CPU, 520MHz GPU, 2 GB of memory, etc). This sort of proto-Switch might have had some other technical weaknesses, like having a GamePad-like resolution undocked, using standard sized SD cards for storage and games, and more simple tech behind the JoyCons.

So in short, I'm thinking that Nintendo could have, with minimal trouble, made a Switch-like device by 2013 with capabilities similar to the PS3 and Xbox 360.

------

Could the Switch have been as popular in 2012 or 2013 as it is in 2017? A lot of it would depend on Nintendo. If they still released the 3DS in 2011, there could potentially be a lot of competition for similar games. Alternatively, maybe Nintendo would choose to prolong the life of the DS to give their new hybrid system their full attention?

Honestly, I could easily imagine the 3DS being butterflied away and Nintendo having a very different recent history. Some of the early 3DS lineup might never have been made, like New Super Mario Bros 2 and 3D Land, having been made redundant. Some might have been latter DS releases, like Pilotwings and Steel Diver. Games like Wonderful 101, Mario Kart 7, Animal Crossing: New Leaf, and Kid Icarus: Uprising could have ended up being part of either the early Switch lineup or the late Wii lineup.

------

My Guess:

This earlier Switch would have been a largely positive thing for Nintendo. Though they wouldn't be able to have the 3DS, at least with the degree of success we recognize, this would be balanced out by having a more sucessful console. Furthermore, having a single platform would help certain games that would might require multiple ports or have mixed fanbases on consoles and handhelds. It would also likely do far better than the Wii U at getting 3rd party support, though it would still lack the quanity of AAA releases on the PS4 and X1. It might get some of the same games that the Vita attracted.

Nintendo Lineup

• 2012 - New Super Mario Bros 2/U/Switch
• 2013 - Mario Kart 7, Pikmin 3, Animal Crossing New Leaf, Luigi's Mansion 2, Super Mario 3D World, Pokemon XY
• 2014 - Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze, Fire Emblem, Kirby 3D, Mario Golf, Hyrule Warriors, Super Smash Bros 4
• 2015 -Mario Party 10, Splatoon, Rhythm Heaven 4, Pokemon ORAS, Mario Maker, Xenoblade X
• 2016 - Kirby Planet Robobot, Federation Force, Pokemon Sun/Moon, Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Paper Mario 5
• 2017 - Mario Party 100, Arms

Because it would have cost hundreds more/wasn't physically possible at the time given the tech.

The Tegra 3 was slower than the SoCs in an iPad 2 or a PS Vita: https://www.anandtech.com/show/5163/asus-eee-pad-transformer-prime-nvidia-tegra-3-review/3

The Tegra 2 was much slower.

I agree that such a thing could have been possible. The notion that comes to my mind about why it didn't is that the Wii U was a small and manageable step in that direction and Nintendo moves cautiously. It took a full re-organization of their company structure to produce the hybrid. Plus the partnerships for the switch needed to be formed. It was a huge switch for them to make and they had to plan it out carefully.

If they had released it back then it could have helped the sales of the vita just through promoting the "console quality" handheld market.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-how-powerful-is-tegra-3

"But what of Ouya, the Tegra 3 driven micro-console? How suitable is Tegra 3 for the job? Based on the games we've played, the overall feeling we get is that we're looking at technology roughly equivalent to the capabilities of the last-gen Xbox (predecessor of Xbox 360), embellished with higher resolutions and more modern graphical features. It is categorically not on the same level as the PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360 - nowhere near."

"Running GTA3 at full-spec can cause some frequent frame-rate and juddering problems on the Nexus 7, but by dialling down these graphical settings we were able reduce this significantly. While a consistent 30FPS update is still off the cards, we were able to get a noticeable performance boost allowing for smoother gameplay with more responsive controls."

The Tegra 3 had even problems to play GTA 3 with 30 fps, the 360 and PS3 could handle GTA 4 + 5.

Technology wasn’t really there yet.

The reason they didn't release a Switch back then is because they still figured they could sell dedicated handhelds.

It probably wouldn't do well

Not being powerful enough, it would be a newer GBA following the NDS, but would be more expensive than the launch price of the 3DS

I've been told.

I think an underpowered Switch would have failed in 2013. What they needed to do was to make a powerful console, on par with PS4 and no gamepad. Get rid of the Power PC architecture and move on to something that is easier to program for. That's what they should have done back in 2013. Ohh and get rid of the stupid Wii name!