Nintendo looking to support the Switch for more than the traditional 5-6 year period

[The_Liquid_Laser]

mZuzek said:

The_Liquid_Laser said:

I could swear I've been transported to 2006.  "How can the Wii ever compete against the more powerful PS3?"  It is funny how this argument never seems to die no matter how much reality proves it wrong.

"How can the DS ever hope to compete against the more powerful PSP?"

The argument can even switch companies.
"How can the 32-bit PS1 ever compete with the N64?  The N64 is so much more powerful.  It has twice as many bits!"
"How can the Lameboy ever compete with the powerful Sega Game Gear?"
"How can the NES ever compete with the Amiga?  Console gaming is dead forever, and the Amiga is 16-bit!  The NES is only 8-bit.  It has the same processor as the Atari 2600!" 

This argument is present in every single generation.  It is not persuaded by reality.  Although the reality is that the less powerful console almost always wins.  The generation where the more powerful console wins is the exception and not the rule.  

PS2 was underpowered compared to GameCube and Xbox too, wasn't it?

Yep.  Being powerful is actually something of a disadvantage, because it jacks up the cost.

I think there are only two situations where the more powerful console won.
1) SNES vs. Genesis: In NA this was very close and the Genesis often won on a year by year basis.  But it lost worldwide and the SNES had a longer tail.
2) PS4 vs. X1 vs. Wii U: Ps4 is the clear winner, but not because of power.  It's because the others screwed up their consoles so badly that the PS4 was the only decent option.  Wii U gamepad is expensive and mostly useless.  X1 was originally bundled with Kinect which was also expensive and mostly useless (also all of crap involving physical media).  Ps4 just offered a plain old console and won by default.

In every other situation the weaker console wins.