If Nintendo Switch fails this will be Nintendo last console.

[curl-6]

Miyamotoo said:

curl-6 said:

Resolution doesn't define what a platform is, a separate controller is not needed as the PSP serves as one, and local multiplayer is diminishing in relevance. None of these things are gamechangers, the core idea is that it can be played either portably or on a TV, and PSP does that. Switch is simply expands on this concept and centres its marketing around it.

Who said that resolution define what platform is!? But on every home console you can play on TV on full screen not on half of screen, on evre home console you have separate controller not actually using device itself for controlling games, on every console you have support for more controllers and you can play local multiplayer, with Switch you even have dock (it gives power and picture for playing in home console mode) which is used when you using Switch like home console, PSP can't do anything of those things.

You can keep denying that, but with Switch you get also a full home console experience out of box, because Switch it's actualy made with that purpose, to act like real home console and like real handheld, hybrid, with PSP you dont get that.

Not true; many older consoles don't take up the full screen on a modern TV. Hell, The Order 1886 on PS4 doesn't take up the whole screen, does that make it a portable game? And again, it doesn't matter if the controller is separate because when you're playing on a TV, the PSP itself effectively becomes a separate controller. Local multiplayer isn't a significant factor either because (a) it's practically irrelevant in this day and age, (b) local multiplayer is not a differentiating factor between portables and consoles, since portables as far back as the original Gameboy have supported it.

Switch is a portable, that connects to your TV. It doesn't do anything significant that previous portable systems haven't done, it merely does it better, as is to be expected of a newer device.