| Zekkyou said: The Switch is about as power conscious a handheld as the PS4 and X1 are home consoles. Spec wise it's effectively a Nintendo PSP/Vita, but it leverages that power in a different (and arguably better) way. 'Good enough' as a home console is quite context dependent, and it's the added portability that defines that standard for the Switch. If it was a $300 home console with the same specs, i don't think it'd be unreasonable to say it'd be doing considerably worse. Even at $200 i'd expect it to do worse. Of course, the Switch's success makes support inevitable. I just took issue with you claiming it was shutting down a narrative that (right or wrong) is distinct from the one the Switch is painting. |
Of course, if the Switch was a stationary home console with the same specs and price, then it would be unacceptable because there's nothing to justify that price. But the portable nature of the Switch means the $300 is justified. What I mean is that the narrative that Nintendo somehow needs the most powerful, or an equally powerful console to gain support and success doesn't really hold much weight. I don't think developers need to be working on the most advanced tech to support a console. As long as it's successful, and easy to develop for, they will support it. The Switch proves that software and concept, not specs, sell systems.
