"Switch is proving that graphics are not the driver of success"
Why does the Switch need to prove this? It's been demonstrated to varying degrees every generation, and I can't remember claims to the contrary being common (I actually can't remember ever seeing any, but i'm sure there are some). Good graphics are highly valued by a significant portion of the market, but it's never been the end all of the discussion. I value graphics enough to spend £3k+ on a gaming PC, and have done plenty of bitching about the Switch's hardware (i only use it as a home console, so it's peak levels of potato to me), and even i'll still play and enjoy BotW or SMO because they're good games.
I don't understand why the article paints Sony and MS as graphics obsessed either. The PS4 and X1 made significant hardware compromises in favour of other goals. For the PS4 price, and the ease of game development were given priority. Even the Pro and X1X, which are explicitly designed to help ward off the graphics fatigue that sets in for some, are still quite price conscious and built to be kind to developers. Sony and MS use graphics as a marketing point sometimes (particularly MS right now, for obvious reasons), and they do push their hardware as hard as they can (even Nintendo do), but they've tried quite hard to paint a 'games first' image this gen. Enough so that both their E3's have morphed into a one to two hour gameplay marathon :p
All in all i'd say the Switch is as graphics conscious a handheld as the base PS4 and X1 are home consoles. Where Nintendo hit gold is leveraging that power in a different way, so that instead of it just being a powerful handheld, it was also a workable home console. For those that value portability 'workable' is indeed 'good enough'.
