Ok fine you did not mean to insult me, let us forget that part. Sorry for getting a bit carried away.

And I think I made it clear previously or maybe I forgot, I don't know but the 900p thing ONLY bothers me cause I am sure that if Nintendo had made a home dedicated system that this would not have been an issue. A home dedicated system which is all I'm trying to defend here. And it's not just that, it's things like aliasing which again could have been dealt with if Nintendo had made a dedicated home system. Those issues are not as important on portable mode and I can understand that but a dedicated home system by Nintendo would have dealt with those issues I'm sure.

As for the PS4, I don't know what you mean by powerhouse or not a powerhouse but if you take all the systems EVER available, from the very primitive Magnavox Odyssey back in the early 70's all the way to the most powerful gaming ultra high end PC's of today, the PS4 Pro is only behind the Xbox one X and those ultra high end PC's. So the 4.2 Tflops of raw power it yields are not exactly something you could call weak. They can of course be improved upon and that's what I hope for the future PS5 but the truth is that more and more games have options to be played at 60fps and even 4K for some and up-scaled 4K for others which I dare anyone to see the difference with their naked eyes only.

So maybe it's a matter of opinion or perspective, I don't know but I don't think one can call the Pro a weak system. And to answer your question I chose the Pro as a compromise as it yields a very respectable level of power which you can see in games like Horizon or Doom and the soon to be released remake Shadow of the Colossus seems to be a great example of that. A compromise between the practicability of a console which suits me and a certain level of power which as I just explained is fairly respectable in the Pro.

A dedicated home system by Nintendo would have suited me too which since Nintendo chose not to make, is as someone said, my loss.

When Zelda came out I still felt burned by Wii U and was far from sold on Switch, fearing that like its predecessor it would suffer from delays, droughts, and a lack of ambitious games. But I wanted desperately to play Zelda, so I just got it for the system I already had. It wasn't until October that I felt reassured enough that Nintendo had learned their lessons to bite the bullet and buy a Switch.

And yeah, it did just over a million on Wii U in it's first month, so probably about 1.5m lifetime, similar to Twilight Princess on Gamecube.

I want to play them at 4k/60fps on the go, any option?

Well, compared to the Magnavox Odyssey even the Switch is a powerhouse. I'm not calling the PS4 Pro a weak console btw, far from it. It's a mid-range system and it has many great looking games. PS4 and Xbox One are comparable to an entry-level PC. When you crave power, resolution and framerate, PC is the way to go.

But Nintendo did create a home console.. As I said before, mine has barely left its dock and is stationary behind the TV.

Anytime I want to play the switch I go over, disconnect the two joycon and turn the console on, then I turn on the TV, sit on my couch and play amazing looking games on my brand new 50 inch TV.

And they look stunning, they didn't need more graphics power for several reasons.

1. The art style most Nintendo developers use mean that not as much graphical work is needed, the titles still look stunning.

2. Graphics are not everything, I can enjoy the game play and story of BOTW without link looking like he is stood across the room from me, I can enjoy it without seeing minute detail of his face, or individual hairs, it does not detract at all from the world I am enjoying. And if the game is at all immersive, these things are just a side distraction, I have a friend who loved horizon, and was constantly talking about the animation of the hair, and it's great it amazes him so much but its a game, and he's talking more about its graphics than it's game play and that's just sad.

3. Lower graphics helps prevent spiraling costs of games, the ability to produce the graphics isn't growing in line with machine power, as a result the graphics budget of some titles make up the majority of its development cost now, why did so many titles from so many developers go handheld in previous generations? The DS has an enormous catalogue of games because the reduced graphics made it more profitable even with a lower retail value.

Nobody should be sad about how Nintendo produced the switch, because all they have you is choice, choice to take your console out with you (as many do) or to play in a different room of the house (as many do) or to use it as a regular home console (as I do).

It doesn't have to NOT have the other features to be used in any of the other capacities, demanding a home console only version would be foolish, because all you do is reduce the choices people have to play the existing medium.

Well, THAT’s a relief. I will no longer have to worry about knocking over children and the elderly with my monitor. Or tripping them with all the cables! Also, NO MORE federal investigations into my Thorium-hydrogen fuel cell battery technology!

This is why we need need the Nintendo Switch. Thank you Nintendo!

No more Interpol detainment centres for me.

Nope. You got me there.