EricHiggin said:
This sounds a lot to me like the XB1X 'true 4k' debacle. MS markets the XB1X as a 'true 4k' gaming console when it is, but it's not. It does play some games in 4k, but not all of them, and not the large majority of them. So is it a 'true 4k' console or not? Either way, you can still play the XB1X and say regardless that it's a good console, partial 4k or not.
If you try to do the same thing with Switch you end up realizing it's not a very good stand alone console. Why? Because it's performance is weak even compared to the 2013 XB1. It's like trying to say the PS4 slim is a decent handheld because it's more portable than the OG PS4 due to it's reduced size and easier transportation. PS4 slim in this case, would be considered the worst handheld ever, if you would even dare argue that in the first place.
Now as a hybrid or handheld, Switch a good/great device. So to push the Switch as a console first, and everything else second and third, makes it seem like a crappy device, for those who understand and care about console hardware performance. To casuals who simply want a new Nin device to stick under/beside the TV, Switch seems like a great idea, because you can also take it with you when your leaving. Those same people also likely think game streaming is the greatest idea ever, not understanding the potential downsides.
There is a reason the PS3 and 360 lasted as long as they did, and why the Pro and XB1X were seen as necessary upgrades only 3-4 years into the gen. Performance. When you throw Switch into that, in 2017, it doesn't fit at all, considering it's less powerful than the 2013 XB1.
Calling Switch a hybrid makes sense. Calling it a handheld makes a little less sense, and calling it a home console makes almost no sense, other than for marketing purposes that is.
|
