and how well will that work? will it as well as it being at home? Are there any systems out using 4g for online gaming that run smooth? Cause honestly im not holding my breath, would be cool though. 

They wouldnt buy a Switch version because they would most likely have a system that they already play those games for. Just like with the WIi Wii U pretty much every Ninty home console since N64. There are some people that will buy it sure, but id be willing to bet that the numbers wouldnt come close to their counterparts

I think we should just wait and see. But even if only SD cards with 128 GB are supported, I'll just get a bunch of them. Hell, I already own 3 of those! =D

I don't believe for a second that any game on switch will ask me to install 50 GB though. That would be nuts. Sure, updates and stuff, but if some game decides to go nuts with that, I'm just gonna avoid it. I'm sure most games will be perfectly fine. No need to panic just yet.

More than well enough for people to want it. You might not personally like the idea of online gaming on data plans, but this isn't some new or revolutionary concept. It's been going on successfully and lucratively for years on mobile. Shooters. On a data plan. On mobile. For years. You're stuck on the idea that most people have this impenatrable standard for quality amongst games. They don't. They only care about good enough. 4G is good enough.

30fps is the accepted standard on consoles even though its objectively inferior to 60fps and higher, which is the bare minimum on PC. Why? Because nobody cares about that stuff. If it works well enough, they have historically gone for the most convenient option. Always. 4G works more than well enough. No one but gaming enthusiasts will ever notice the difference.

They can very easily switch to the Switch. People jumped 360's ship in droves when the PS4 dropped. All of their friends were on a platform that was still being supported with an installed base of 80m, and those people bought the completely different PS4 because it was newer and had good PR. Switch can easily be put in the same position, in fact the Switch is in an even better position since the PS4 and XBO have less than half the combined userbase that the PS360 had when the 8th generation consoles launched.

Brand loyalty and platform loyalty is not nearly as ironclad as you think it is. The Switch isn't the Wii and the Switch isn't the Wii U. They have as little effect on how the Switch will perform as the GCN had on the Wii. This isn't some insurmountable, herculean task. All it takes is something that's percieved as better to come along, and people will go there. Contrary to popular belief, the mainstream definition of "better" is "easier," not "stronger."

I don't think you understand the problem with such limited storage. The issue isn't the space. It's the reliability. You can't rely on people owning 4 128GB SD cards. Devs can't build games that they aren't sure players can fit onto their consoles. They will build a game to the limitations of the system when it's unaltered and out of the box.

That's not an issue for consoles with disk media because disks have enough storage to fit most games for pennies, and if the game is too large, internal storage is more than enough to confortably patch the rest in. Out of the box. The Switch situation is so bad because that's not what you're getting out of the box. Having comparable space on carts is prohibitively espensive, which is a serious issue because developers can't offload that to a 32GB internal memory bank. This is a case in which not having parity is a very very bad thing.

You're right. A game on the Switch won't ask you to install 50GB because no game that does that on other platforms will ever even consider coming to the Switch because of its memory bottlenecks. That's the problem. Most popular AAA games have significant patches and installs. If they can't do that on the Switch, they won't come to the Switch. If they don't come to the Switch, people won't buy the Switch. If people don't buy the Switch, well, it's another Nintendo console that shot itself in the foot, only this is worse because its their only platform now.

Who cares about Nintendo? This is a 3rd party issue.

And the 3DS game was a completely different version with vastly lower quality assets. They didn't magically squeeze a Wii game into a 3DS. They literally downgraded all assets of the game to make it playable on the 3DS first. Unless you think that the difference between the Switch and XBO will be wider than the gap between Wii and 3DS, that won't fly.

You said it. Xenoblade Wii got downgraded to work on the New 3DS. Just as third party AAA games will be downgraded to work on the Switch. As long as there is enough demand and a large install base, third party developers will make games for the Switch. The deciding factor for many people will be the quality of the ports.

This is something I have noticed about Nintendo. If they make their system just powerful enough to get some third party games, but make it to weak to play all third party games, they end up selling more of their own software on their system. With less competition from other developers, Nintendo makes more money and sells more games.

What I'm saying is that XB was an extreme case that is not applicable to the Switch. 3rd party games wouldn't be downgraded to that degree. The difference in space will be nearly identical for Switch versions.