That's just an excuse ... (3 of Switch's biggest blockbusters aren't even keeping up with the current hardware sales attach rates anymore) 

If people are going to liken the similarities between the Switch and Wii/DS then a meaningful comparison of the legs of each library should be compared as well ... 

All of Nintendo's games released so far on the Switch are on track sell 70% of it's lifetime units within the given 18 month window if NPD rankings are to be believed ... (3 of which are currently getting beaten by a 4 year old GTA V as we speak so you can already tell that Switch's games aren't going to match the legs of either Wii/DS counterparts if their short term performance isn't good) 

For the PS2 I think there was an announcement for 1.5B SW and over 150M HW, but I can't find the link anymore..  Sources for HW numbers are inconsistent (even from Sony), with one source saying one number, while another Sony source will say a different number for the same time period.  So the 155M HW is a guesstimate and not official, but it should be in that ballpark.   

For the PS3 SW the link is here. - http://scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataps3soft_sale_e.html

For the PS3 HW the link is here. - http://scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataps3_sale_e.html

The links have been erased by Sony so you have to use "Web Archive" to access them.

The Nintendo numbers are given here. - https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/finance/hard_soft/

If the PS3 HW decreased at a faster rate than the PS3 SW decrease, than the attach rate may be higher in the end.

But we would still need solid numbers to know for sure either way and these official numbers give us a good idea of the PS3 attach rate in its prime.

No anyone who can read can discern I was saying it's plausible.

"I agree with what he said in that in future its possible all platforms used the hybrid form factor."

Unless you don't understand the word possible don't make up untrue replies, want to know how the price can be be lowered look up progression in tech and how fast it's happening we have a portable device now that's playing HD games of the likes of Skyrim and respectable ports from the likes of the PS4 and X1 something which a generation ago was not even seen as possible. The Switch doesn't even use the latest Tegra based tech and architecture either.

As new tech comes along old tech becomes cheaper because and faster progression makes this happens at a more rapid rate this is one reason PC gaming is doing as well as it is because mid to higher end PCs can be built for much cheaper then what they could have been years ago.

That's just an excuse ... (3 of Switch's biggest blockbusters aren't even keeping up with the current hardware sales attach rates anymore) 

If people are going to liken the similarities between the Switch and Wii/DS then a meaningful comparison of the legs of each library should be compared as well ... 

All of Nintendo's games released so far on the Switch are on track sell 70% of it's lifetime units within the given 18 month window if NPD rankings are to be believed ... (3 of which are currently getting beaten by a 4 year old GTA V as we speak so you can already tell that Switch's games aren't going to match the legs of either Wii/DS counterparts if their short term performance isn't good) 

Ok my bad on understanding you put as the likely future.

On the price, doesn't matter the technology, anything added will add cost. So not having battery and display will cost less to make than adding both. Also doesn't matter how much tech improve using same tech making the card bigger will also generate more power.

Yes very respectable..... people will abbandon their X1 and PS4 to buy Switch and play the portable versions.

PC being cheaper to make also means cheaper consoles.

That's just an excuse ... (3 of Switch's biggest blockbusters aren't even keeping up with the current hardware sales attach rates anymore) 

If people are going to liken the similarities between the Switch and Wii/DS then a meaningful comparison of the legs of each library should be compared as well ... 

All of Nintendo's games released so far on the Switch are on track sell 70% of it's lifetime units within the given 18 month window if NPD rankings are to be believed ... (3 of which are currently getting beaten by a 4 year old GTA V as we speak so you can already tell that Switch's games aren't going to match the legs of either Wii/DS counterparts if their short term performance isn't good) 

Its not an excuse, its completely valid.

Your entire post is garbage and nothing about it makes any sense, you came to the conclusion that Switch 1st party games will likely have bad legs based on absolutely nothing.

Well i doubt Mk8D will match MKWii numbers but regardless is doing and will do well for a port. I have no doubt BOTW will surpass Twilight Princess and there is nothing on Wii to compare Splatoon with but again there is no doubt it will absolutely crush its predecessor in sales. So i guess you are 33% right.

I don't think you get what is being said here the speculation isn't on the Switch it's on all future platforms adopting the same or similar form factor, you're not reading the posts properly I assume you're only skimming over them because the latest tech is never used in platforms that's the point the will be several progressions between the release of a new platform and its successor the new cards being bigger aren't an issue because they're not used straight away much like consoles never use the last GPU tech either.

This rate of progression lowers the costs of the tech before it for example PS4 level performance or performance close to it is already around in mobile tech but not viable as it's costly and power consuming but over the next 6-7 years progression will make such tech easily viable to the point that tech above PS4 performance may be viable when the Switch's successor is on the way similar to how Switch itself was still able to be in the middle of Wii U and X1 performance wise despite being a hybrid platform.

Errr you are assuming I don't know how to read for the second time, ok... I'm not assuming the speculation is about Switch. I'm talking about next iterations. The point is that doesn't matter how much tecnology progress having a display will cost more than not having a display, or will we get to a point where TVs will be donated by TV makers? Same consideration for battery. Sure there can be a time a lot of people will be satisfied by whatever console is released on a portable formfactory and wouldn't mind the additional performance they would get if it was a table, but the assumption that it will be the norm and will replace table consoles isn't necessarily right.

And again, same architeture, same tech, same all, small chip versus big chip...big chip will have more computational units and therefore will be more powerfull.

Yes in 7 years you'll have stronger than even PS4Pro portable HW. The thing is that you'll also have something even stronger and cheaper to produce for your table.

The problem with your argument is that having a certain component cost more stops being an issue when progression has made it that the cost of having it is a non issue a HDD or internal storage is an example of this it cost more to have it but now every platforms has it the same will happen to having a display so that's not really a concrete argument against progression. It can be the norm in the scenario he speculates because the is no real reason for it not to if the tech progress to the point in his speculation.

This is why I'm asking about your reading, the PS4P portable performance level would be the cheaper option the more expensive option would be between that and PS5 performance going by the rate of progression today.