They made a system using MOBILE chips, with a fat chunk of the hardware budget tied into an LCD screen and a battery for portable play. If Sony made a dock for the Vita that let it suddenly play on TV (which I'm sure they could), that doesn't make it a console. Not in my eyes anyway, in the real world no one gives a crap about what "PR term" you dub your product either, that is the for *public* to decide actually. Nintendo can call it a home vacuum cleaner if they want, it doesn't matter. Just like they said the Wii U would revolutionize the living room (more like the bargain clearance bin). 

I don't know if sales even motivate third parties. Demographics are a problem for Nintendo too. Lets forget Wii U. What about the 3DS? Honestly for a 60+ million selling device, the third party support for it is mediocre, possibly the worst I've ever seen for a system that's sold above 50 million units. 

Nothing from Western developers really but the same old LEGO licensed game (LEGO Fifty Shades of Gray anytime soon?). 

Even Japanese developers, 3DS had some really decent third party support early on. Resident Evil. Street Fighter. Metal Gear Solid. Kingdom Hearts. Ridge Racer. Tekken. Dead or Alive. What the fuck happened to all that? Even Capcom which supports 3DS with Monster Hunter ... I mean no 3DS for Resident Evil Revealtions 2? Even the Vita got a version of that, it's like they went out of their way to take a shit on the 3DS. Where's Final Fantasy? How many systems you gotta sell in Japan to get some Final Fantasy on a system that isn't a "music" game? Nothing else from Capcom really other than Monster Hunter. Megaman? Nope. How about another Street Fighter? Nope. Hey Namco, new Ridge Racer? Nope. Sega? Anything cool other than the 50th Sonic game? Nope. 

to be fair, 3ds did get that explorers game. and why stop at 3ds? Wii is even a better example that sold better than the other two and STILL didnt get a lot of games that PS360 got

Edit, you just gotta let the guy talk, when he is proven wrong he'll disappear like Zero and the others did when proven wrong.

You realise that Wii had better 3rd party support than Wii U despite Wii is incomparibe less stronger than Wii U!?

For now, everything I said about Switch is proven true.

Actual 4GB fits perfectly with rest of Switch and actual power. What would be point of 8GB if Switch has power of half of XB1!?

Not being able to be proven false is not the same as being proven true.

Link me a game that uses more than 4gigs of Vram on current consoles? Most games are developed around 2 to 4gigs of ram in mind not 8gigs. If a PC with less than 3gigs of Vram can run the latest games without issues than the Switch wont have any issues either.

Even if the Switch uses 1gig for its OS, it still has 3gigs left for gaming and like i stated before, a 1060 or 480 both come in 3gig variants which is more than enough to run any current game at a comfortable level. System memory excluded because thats normaly used for the OS and other operations. 

What are you talking about!? I was one first saying that Switch will be hybrid, Tegra based and with lower power than XB1. Other people were creaming AMD based home console that will be stronger than PS4.

And all of the other things you've claimed that aren't provably false (or true for that matter) that you're treating as fact?

Actual 4GB fits perfectly with rest of Switch and actual power. What would be point of 8GB if Switch has power of half of XB1!?

Hiya Miyo!

Okay, to be simplified a bit let's take PC as a base, and also take into account that a console OS won't use the same amount of resources as a full Windows PC OS.

If you have a PC and want to play Battlefield 1 on low settings vs ultra settings, you still need 8GB to get by. Why? Because the game data and executable size, the memory footprint in RAM requires that much. 12GB seems to play without hitching, but 16GB makes sense for most people because RAM works best in pairs, and 2 8GB sticks is much more sensible than buying 1 8GB stick and 1 4GB stick. But let's say 12GB is ideal there, and give console OS close to a 4GB advantage over a PC OS, this explains why BF1 plays on PS4/X1 on an 8GB shared config.

THEN you get to video memory, which is a separate area to account for. 2GB has been shown enough for low settings in BF1, with old nVidia 670s, 680s, 770s, etc providing a respectable experience. 4GB seems ideal for a great 1080P experience with good textures and some AA.

So, if we do the math on a game like that, then take into account shared memory, for a AAA multiplat like BF1 (let's use it as a benchmark for games moving forward, as Star Wars Battlefront was extremely similar in memory/performance) : you'd want about 1GB RAM for a simplified OS/platform, 2-3GB for the game executable code in ram, and 2GB for video in low settings / 720P, or 3-4GB for 1080P higher settings.

I do think that it would be possible to get a lot of multiplats running on 4GB total, but it would end up being pretty tight to work with. You'd have to be extremely careful with memory usage at every level, and that makes development more expensive and tricky, simple porting for things aimed at PS4/X1/PC would be a difficult task if those games used a big footprint in memory there (frostbite games, COD, etc).

If you want to know just how hard it can get, look at some of the great videos on development that Naughty Dog has made about the creation of Uncharted 4, etc. It's incredible how tough it can be even to get things to fit into 8GB, and herculean what they were able to do with PS3's 256/256 setup.

Cheers!