I think of completely different actually, among other issues the NS is the solution to Nintendo competing with themselves, how they have two separate systems even though the reason to own either is exactly the same, for the Nintendo games. That's also what's always seperated them from the competition, and besides playing home console quality games anywhere, that's still the case with the NS. I mean I'm not really sure what else they could do to give more reason to own it over the competition. Nintendo games are the only reason I need!

But anywho I think the correct thing to say here is that the gimmick is good but the execution could be bad. Let's hope it's good!

Yes but it is coming at a disadvantage of being new and coming from a product line that didn't sell well.

Yes and it is already feels like it is missing a few other checkboxes... Like western third party support. They showed Skyrim for gods sake and Bathesda is saying they might if it is as powerful as the x1. And Red Dead is no where in sight.

But everything in switch won't be awesome in the respective markets it is launching in. As a console, it is under-powered and most likely will lack western third party support, as a tablet, it won't have the functionality or the marketing as its competitors do. Its main selling point is that it can do both but if it lacks battery, suddenly that hinders its portability.

And so did the Wii.

But the wii went into a market which wasn't there. NX is going into markets which are... Unless you are thinking that being able to take a console to another room (cause its essentially what will be the issue with having a 3 hour battery) is an untapped market which I doubt. Streaming technologies exist. Both PS and Xbox can stream games from the living room to a computer and soon enough, tablets. And you are asking too much of a casual if you want them to think otherwise about the battery imo. Cause they will compare it to their existing tablets and phones.

There's literally no way you can know if its missing western 3rd party support yet. What we do know is that Nintendo somehow convinced Bethesda of all publishers to make something for them when they've been notoriously and vocally against supporting Nintendo specifically because of their terrible third party communication. The fact that Skyrim appeared in that trailer is symbolic of the fact that something about that changed. Skyrim could have ran on the Wii U too, but Bethesda didn't so much as give it a second look. Something is clearly different here. And while I agree that Skyrim is a 5 year old game, it is also far and away Bethesda's most recognized game, and it's getting a remaster this year, and this teaser was very clearly targeted at people who aren't gaming enthusiasts who recognise something like Fallout 4 just as easy as Skyrim.

Well, we have Bathesda saying maybe, Mass Effect: A saying no and Red Dead Redemption is no where to be found. All that in under a week since its reveal. We won't know for sure if it will be missing western third party support but it isn't exactly looking very good now is it?

It's far too early to make a claim like that yet. And don't be mistaken, I'm skeptical too. But there's being skeptical and there's being overly cynical. I think that you are going to see a lot of developers taking a "wait and see" approach on the Switch before moving to support it. I think that they are looking keenly on what type of audience the Switch garners and if that audience will be interested in buying their games. I think the Switch has a year to prove it to them, and I think that a year is more than enough to do so. I also think that the teaser is very clearly marketing to the kinds of people who will want to buy western third party games like that, which is a good sign of things to come. I think Nintendo can very easily mess up third party support, but nothing in that teaser or in the press releases since have indicated that they are on the wrong track yet. So far, they have been doing everything right, so it's unfair (though understandable) to project wrong doing onto the system.

In less than a week since release, 1 developer said no, other one has a condition and the last one is probably a no. I have seen quite a few people saying deja-vus already.

That last paragraph is something I might want to write an entire article about, because there is a rampant misunderstanding of what the Switch is trying to be. The Switch is not a hybrid, and I don't think it is being marketed or interpreted by the mainstream like one. The Switch is to consoles what a laptop is to a desktop. Or maybe a "lap-tablet" is more accurate. No one scoffs at laptops for being too weak because most people are not tech enthusiasts or professionals. They value convenience over power. The Switch isn't under-powered in the same way that the Vita isn't. It's a different bracket of devices. People buying a Switch aren't going to care about the power difference because the flexibily, utility, and convenience it offers far surpasses what can be achieved on a regular console. Most normal people value experience over performance, so if the Switch can deliver many of their favorite multi-platform games at a good enough clip, that's going to be an extremely tempting value proposition for them.

And where is that convinence going to go if it doesn't have a good battery life? If it doesn't have western third party support? Also the people you are talking about that scoff at laptops for being too weak aren't exactly using desktops to play high end pc games. And the ones that do, do scoff at laptops for being too weak.

Very few people buy new desktop computers anymore. Most people use laptops, and that's indicative of all tech trends. The vast majority of people only use their laptops for social media and microsoft word, and the vast majority of people who game on consoles only buy a few games a year - many of those games being sports games/online multiplayer shooters. For those people, having bleeding edge performance just isn't as valuable to them as it is to gaming enthusiasts. I'm sitting on my bed right now typing this on my 5 year old Macbook that is resting on my lap, and there's literally nothing you could do to tell me that a more powerful desktop computer at roughly the same price is a better value, because the experience is catagorically inferior. I think that the same argument is being made with the Switch.

What? Is that why Sony's CEO says he is targetting the PC market with the PSPro in order to try and prevent people from going to PC? Or why steam's active userbase continues to grow and games that would have never been on PC are now coming to PC?

"Why would you want to limit yourself to playing Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare only on your TV when you can play it comfortably on your lap, and even take it to work with you to play on your lunch breaks?"

See, the issue with this is, we are assuming it will have western third party support. Another way to also ask is "Why limit yourself to a console that can only play a Call of Duty: IW when you can play on a console that has both CoD:IW and RDR2 and ME:A?"

There is a compelling argument to be made that that is the superior experience, and you aren't forfeiting very much to get there. We all know that the graphical leap between this generation and the last one hasn't been that large, and we also know that most games that have been made this generation could easily have been made on last generation hardware, but at a lower clip. And games last generation weren't ugly. That's when games were actually starting to look good. If the Switch is truly between the Wii U and XBO in terms of power, it's going to get perfectly fine looking and running ports of games. They will be inferior, but that won't matter literally at all because no one buying a Switch values power over utility. No one but maybe Nintendo enthusiasts who buy it for the exclusives. But, if this thing is going to be successful, it going to be because normal people are going to look at Switch versions of multiplatform games as the superier versions of those games. Watching Youtube on a desktop is a vastly inferior experience to watching it on a weaker laptop, and I think that for a lot of people, playing a game like Madden on a console will be an inferior experience to playing it on whatever the hell you call the Switch for the exact same reasons.

There's a quite a few issues with this because it relies on third party wanting to put in all the extra effort. If the rumors are true, it will come with only 32gb of storage space. In this day and age, patches them selves are 10gb and games are going upto 100gb. On top of that, it has ARM cpu instead of x86, 4Gb of ram instead of 8gb, Nvidia instead of AMD which is different GPU arch as well as different APIs and the list goes on. Really, it comes down to it selling well enough so that the third parties might give it a try but that is a huge gamble, specially if the battery sucks.

I think that home consoles will be machines for enthusiasts while the chain of portable consoles that the Switch is will before everyone else. And the industry is mostly everyone else, so this is a very good idea.

The idea is very good, the execution is poor if they have a battery life as well as other things that hinders it.

Well I guess we'll have to wait and see, then! I think it has a a massive market, and I think that Nintendo can easily convince most 3rd parties to port their games to it.

I hope so cause I want Nintendo to succeed damn it. I know its weird but thats why I hate when they make odd decisions which to me, don't make that much sense.