Actually what I'm talking about is diminishing returns.  In previous generations there was a noticable graphical leap when a new generation came out.

PS1 -> PS2  "Wow look at the huge difference in graphics"
PS2 -> PS3  "These HD visuals look amazing"
PS3 -> PS4 "Meh, it looks a little better...I guess"

If you've got a handheld with PS1 level graphics, like the DS, and it's out at the same time as the PS3, then visually it just doesn't compare.  Obviously people are going to like the looks of a PS3 much more than a DS.  On the other hand if you've got a handheld at PS3 levels, then people might not care about playing a PS4 at home, because it's just a minor upgrade at that point.

Well the specs on a Switch are much better than a PS3.  Specs on Switch are much closer to PS4 than PS3.  At that point you can only tell the difference with a side by side comparison.  Most people won't bother with that.  (I certainly don't bother with it.)  Instead most people will say, "Switch looks good enough."  The portability becomes a much bigger factor than the minor graphical upgrade. 

In fact even against the PS5, the Switch will look good enough.  A person has to have a pretty big 4K TV and/or be at the right distance to get the full value of 4K.  Most people will still think the Switch looks good enough.  I mean, more people bought a Wii than a PS3, and the graphical difference there was extremely noticable.  Because of diminishing returns, PS5 won't even seem like that much better over Switch.  Most people are just not going to get a 70" 4K TV so that they can tell the difference.  

This is why Switch was inevitable.  Handheld graphics have essentially caught up to home graphics.  Because of diminishing returns, the differences barely matter anymore.

Okay, so I was right. In a nutshell since they can play the same games you see them as equals. Even if the Switch port of technically demanding games are taking a massive hit in the overall fidelity.

First of all, the leap to PS3 to PS4 is not a minor leap especially when you look at games actually built for new hardware. Switch is more powerful than PS3 and handles some of the same games on PS4 quite well. However and most importantly, many notable and technically demanding games aren't on Switch nor is there proof Switch could handle them well. Even if Switch could handle technically demanding PS4 games to some playable extent, many aren't on Switch. So even if you feel your Switch is powerful device, you may still need a PS4 to play the latest CoD, BF, AC, RDR2 and list goes on.

I don't need to look at Ark, Doom, Wolfenstein II and other games side by side to see there can be a huge disparity between PS4 and Switch. It really depends on what games we're talking about. You proved my example right, you look at a game like Tales of Vesperia or Mega Man 11 and come to the conclusion PS4 and Switch are equals. If that's your barometer, I guess you would see them as the same.

Again, when you compare Switch to PS5 it really depends on what you're comparing. I mean games with less demanding visuals may look like equals on Switch and PS5. This is a silly discussion, we already see a huge disparity between some Switch and PS4 games. Now you want to bring PS5 into this?

I get your logic. Its just... dumb.

At this point we are just going to have to agree to disagree.  I have played exclusives on both the PS3 and PS4.  To me it looks like a minor upgrade.  For example, I have played both Uncharted 2 and Uncharted 4 when they were current games.  This may be a major difference to you, but to me it is minor.

The thing is that neither of us is alone in our opinion.  I know there are other people who think PS4 was a huge leap from PS3.  What you may not realize though, is that the mainstream is in my camp.  First party games on the Switch look really good.  Zelda and Mario both look extremely good.  When I play a PS4 exclusive, like Uncharted 4 or Spider-Man, I also think the graphics look really good, but I'm not thinking "man this blows away Switch graphics".  To me the first party games on both consoles look good.  And what's more is that a lot of people like the graphics of Switch first party games.  People are willing to pay $300 for a handheld, because the games look worth that price tag.

That is how handhelds have caught up to home consoles.  When people look at the first party games of both systems, now they both look really good.

They've always been moving towards this path especially as development costs are just as high no matter what you develop for now days.

I would say considering current gen and that others were already looking at this direction, it was a natural evolution.

In consoles, we could use the 16 bit and 7-mode (that allows games like f-zero, mario kart) in 1991, while it only was possible in GBA on portables.
Full 3D gaming only on 2004 on DS. Allows mario64, full 3D mario kart.
In 3DS we could play from monster hunter to smash bros. something was not possible in previous nintendo HH.
So, each time, HH can play more and more experiences that were exclusive to home consoles.
Se, yeah, I think was inevitable to a nintendo HH becoming a swith like. If all home consoles are on HH, there is no point for a home console, specially if it connects to the TV.

I don't like it, but I kinda think it was inevitable, especially since it is a 10x better version of what the Wii U was.

What mainstream are you exactly? By your logic avid gamers would have stuck with PS3 and 360 while they were still getting notable support but they didn't. Switch is doing great but its not the mainstream when you compare PC, PS4 and X1 combined. The Switch has a unique fanbase, it doesn't do a great job selling 3rd party core games, but I'd argue the people content with is not the mainstream.

Part of the reason you aren't that impressed with X1 and PS4 is they didn't really push specs. I mean Sony and MS is no longer losing big money on hardware so they made consoles that were actually worth about $399. If we had specs like the Xbox One X in 2013, our impression of the 8th gen would be very different. Lets bear in mind the Switch is still far behind the X1 and PS4 in capabilities though, so much so it doesn't get many notable games.

Part of the Switch's success is it delivers console style experiences when its actually supported, unfortunately many big budget games aren't coming to Switch and some that do aren't great ports. If you're a Nintendo fan, its also nice to get all of their games one device now. Switch is the successor to 3DS and Wii U combined. There is place for Switch in the market and its doing great, but its not the mainstream.

It was inevitable from a game development POV, once portable graphics go past rudimentary N64 to Dreamcast tier visuals, the amount of resources the portable line would require is basically the same as a console.

And no company can support basically two console lines. And you saw that with Wii U and 3DS, Nintendo had massive problems getting games out for both at a regular rate. Ditto for Sony with Vita and PS4.

And "3DS-2" would've presumably been another generational leap making things essentially impossible.

Yep, if Nintendo continued with the separate handheld and console line than it would likely be a $199-249 Vita+ level handheld and a $299-349 XBO/PS4 level console which would just make the problem worse.

Things like cross buy/play/save that we saw on some Vita/PS4 games could help the situation but it wouldnt be enough.