Third party support is improved looking at what's confirmed, Wii U started good but going into the second year the was nothing much while Switch started softly and going into the second has a good line up.

A key difference to note is games being announced for Wii U had stopped while Switch it's the opposite.

I can understand some people don't care about the portability aspect and thus it does not factor in to the value for them personally. However, disregarding it completely and saying it offers no value at all if it's at the expense of graphics and performances is a bit narrow minded.

I simply don't have time to play games as much anymore because adulting is hard and time consuming. I've gotten many games for my PS4 that I just haven't been motivated to complete because it's such a commitment. My favorite genre is rpgs so the amount of free time sitting in front of a TV needed to finish just isn't feasible for me most of the time.

With the Switch, I've been able to take it out during my lunch time and play. Sometimes me and my coworkers will play a few rounds of Mario Kart and I've actually used the split Joycons in tabletop multiple times. More than I even expected to.

The Switch gives me more opportunities to actually play games, and, to me personally, that's more important than how a game looks or runs (to a reasonable degree). Not everyone's situations are the same, though. Just because I don't have much free time doesn't mean I'm going to call all games on the PS4 or XBox objectively worse because of the lack of portability, just like people shouldn't assume there is no value in getting a Switch version of a game even if the graphics and performance are worse.

I'm not sure I understand. What's the commitment? Playing an RPG a couple of hours per week will still allow you to finish it. Sure it took me 8 months to finish Witcher 3, but I still finished it. I understand that you value portability, but the point you're trying to make in the above quote is befuddling since there's no commitment needed other than turning on the TV/console and playing the game.

To sit in front of a TV playing a console takes a time commitment, because while I'm doing that, I can't be doing much of anything else. It might not be the biggest commitment ever, but it's still something I need to actively make time for unless I plan on constant interruptions and needing to pull my attention away from it. I think my PS4 spends more time on but unattended to than it does with me actually playing it.

I also spend a lot of time away from my home so I simply can't be on my PS4, and when I am home there are aspects of my life that pull me away from TV gaming constantly. With a Switch, I can easily take it with me when I travel, and I can bring it into the kitchen while I'm waiting for something in the oven or even when I'm on my stationary bike. I can be with my family while they're watching something on TV instead of holed up elsewhere with a different TV for console gaming. It's just far better for "I have fifteen minutes in this moment of downtime. I can play my switch". 

And frankly, I want to play more than one game every few months. The Switch better allows me to do that with ease and flexibility. 

Again, I fully understand that portability works for you. However, does your family also play video games? I've found a great deal of enjoyment in playing games with my family, but I can see why that wouldn't be possible if my family didn't play video games. So I can understand more clearly your situation, thank you for elaborating.

Most don't really play much. Sometimes they will for games like Mario Kart and they don't mind watching on occasion for easily digestible things like Mario Odyssey, but for long-ass jrpgs it's something I go alone on. I simply prefer playing long-form single player games by myself without a peanut gallery. And now I can do that in the same room while my sister watches her Hallmark Original Christmas movies and QVC. 

Edit: Also the TV we share is mainly used for sports and reality TV, and my consoles are hooked up to my own TV in my room, so it's not a fun process to move that stuff around.

Main reason why I like to buy games on initial release price, particularly for indie games, is so my purchase supports a developer I'd like to see more of.

While they may benefit from royalties related to Humble Sales, I think paying full $20 for something like Steamworld Dig 2 is absolutely reasonable.

I try to take in account the actual work going into these games, which is also why I follow developer editorials and interviews.

Also in the case of DOOM, not only did I really want a quality FPS on my Switch, I also want to see Bethesda bring more games to the Switch. They aint gonna be encouraged by folks purchasing the game at half price months later.

And on top of all this....when it comes to "why buy doom or skyrim on switch when you can have it on blah blah"

All I got is a switch, and I aint forking over another several hundred dollars + online fees so I can play certain games on that system.

But your opinion does not make for fact. Check it out:

1) I own Sonic All-Stars Racing Transformed and it is 5 players. Not to mention NintendoLand is up to 5 players as well. So, limited to 4 players is... untrue.

2) You kind of left out the main reason why I like multiplayer more on Wi U than Switch. Off-TV play.

Now, I am not saying it is not a step up from 3DS because it is. But a step up from Wii U? Nope. I cannot play Warriors Orochi 3 Hyper with my daughter the same way as before. We each had our own screen. Now, it feels like a step backward. You know my neighbors actually enjoyed playing 1v1 CoD on Wii U the most because... NO SCREEN CHEATING. That actually made the game more enjoyable than playing split-screen where we can see each other's respawn point. So, while you think it is a step over Wii U, I do not. And it is OK for you to have your reasons for believing so because, they are legitimate to you. But that does not mean I have to agree with your opinion because your opinion is not fact.