Nope, not worried at all. Even if this was an X86, AMD, 200gb/sec bandwidth, 8gb RAM, 2TF console, I dont think Nintendo would get 100% multiplatform support so they should go with what is best for their development studios and their close 2nd/3rd party partners who develop exclusives for them.

Overall I think Switch has potential to have pretty solid and varied 3rd party support if it is successfully able to consolidate the support that 3DS & Wii U recieved.

Combined those two devices had solid Japanese, indie & kid/family friendly support and Wii U had decent western support initially so if they get and retain that support than Switch should have a well rounded and consistent release schedule.

Whoa there!

Unless calling you beyond optimistic is, for some reason, an insult, I've never insulted you. So calm down.

And no, you're not writing realistic or even true stuff, mostly because we don't know the exact hardware of the Switch and, as others have already pointed out, easy or easier are not absolute terms, they're relative.

I think most ports to GeForce Now were made by Nvidia themselves, to showcase what the technology could do.

Still, I don't see Nintendo going for that.

Even if the A57 are better than the Jaguars, we still don't know how many cores will the Switch have (I know rumors say 4) and how many will be reserved for the OS.

The PS4/X1 leave 6/7 cores to games. Asuming the Switch reserves one core for OS and other stuff, will the remaining 3 A57 cores be able to give the same performance in games?

You called me "another level of optimistic", and you wrote "unfortunately for him, reality will come into play" and "let it go", all that imply that like I wrote some crazy things that don't have anything with reality. So yes, I consider that for insult.

Again, tell me what exactly that I wrote in this matter that is not realistic? About true staffs, we cant  be 100% sure yet about Switch hardware, but offcourse we have good Idea of Switch hardware with infos we curently have (Pascal based Tegra and Tegra comes with ARM CPU) and we talk with something similar on mind.  Easier is relative term but easier in any case is better than same or harder, I saying that will be easier to port PS4/XB1 games for Switch that was for Wii U, it want be harder, it want be same, it will be easier and I wrote reasons why it will be easier, but here you go again:

"Switch is Nvidia+ARM, today ARM architecture is most used CPU architecture on market and almost every developer is familiar with ARM, Nvidia is most used GPU architecture on PC market and most of PS4/XB1 multiplatform games are also availibe for PC, with Switch hardware we talking about tech from 2015/2016. Now compare that with Wii U, old IBM PPC CPU architecture from early 2000" and custom ATI Radeon GPU that is if I recall based on Radeon 46xx series (2008. tech) graphic cards. Also Wii U didn't had support for most modern engines, for instance didn't had even support for U4 and it got Unity support very late, while Switch has support for almost evre modern engine.

Thats make quite difference compared to Wii U, and of course there will be noticeable difference with Switch compared to Wii U regardless XB1/PS4 ports."

Obviously Nvidia would say its easy to develop for Nvidia hardware, their competitor is powering every other home console out right now

Let him go was for vivster, because nothing he could say would make you change your mind.

Another level of optimistic is simply that, that you are not only optimistic, bet even more than that. You expect everything to go great or perfect, and nothing ever goes that well.

The third quote, there's nothing to say about it. If you don't believe what people here are telling you, then reality will come and show you how things really are.

Honestly, if that make you feel insulted, you need to get involved in more discussions, because there's nothing insulting in that.

Port games from PS4/X1 to WiiU wasn't not just hard or complicated, but almost impossible. If something is easier than impossible, does that make it easy? No, it just makes it less complicated. But of course, noone would say that it's less complicated because we're dealing with PR talk, and that's something that won't help sell your product.

And, by the way, WiiU was also called to be easy to develop for, compared to PS360, but now you hear devs complaining about it.

ARM is the most used CPU architecture, and so what? Intel's integrated graphics dominate the global GPU shipments with over 70% of the market, but that doesn't make them good for gaming, right?

And most AAA developers only work with consoles and PCs, not mobile, and right now that means that they work with x86, not ARM.

The question wasn't, "will it perform exactly like the PS4/X1 CPU?". As it stands right now, the CPU is no slouch especially if they opt for the Parker SoC.

True, but we still have to see where the Switch falls compared to the competition.

The ARM cores are capable, yes, more than Jaguar, but will the Switch be capable of runing the PS4/X1 games at the same CPU settings with half the cores?

Of Course it's not impossible to port games to Wii U but it would require huge effort for something like that. When I talk about porting for Switch, I actually don't refer at all to PR talk, but to point that Switch has very modern architecture and tech compared to Wii U (actually it's most likely more modern than XB1/PS4 tech architecture, because that's AMD tech from 2012. while Switch most likely have Nvidia/ARM tech from 2016/2015) thats very familiar and common on market and easy to work with, like I  already wrote Wii U had very outdated architecture and tech when was launched (CPU architecture is from early 2000", while GPU is 2008. based tech).

Fact that ARM is most used CPU means that developers are very familiar with ARM tech, and ARM tech is actually easy to work with and porting from x86 to ARM is not complicated at all. Actually if you look, you will see that most of AAA studios also have mobile games (Ubisoft, EA, Bethesda..) so they already worked with ARM and they are very familiar with ARM tech espacily ARM A57 (rumored Switch CPU) that's currently most used CPU in mobile phones.

You didn't answer my question, what exactly that I wrote in this matter that is not realistic?

Yes... PS4 and X1 were jokes because they were so weak, but then releasing a half the power X1 3 years later is a groundbreaking success.

So now ARM is a very common chip in gaming PCs? We are always learning something new.

And about you being over optimistic I can't even see how can you deny that since you always refuse to accept the possibility that the positive rumors aren't true and the negatives are true, and when people try to show the outcome is hardly be what you expect you always go to "it isn't confirmed yet" but you use the same type of information to prop and hype.