??? I'm not confusing anything... but saying Nintendo is losing money because they invest too much on the SW making is strange when they expend a loooooot less than other companies.

I wonder how people will react if they charge for online gaming. People won't like it. They need to be careful.

I never said that. Nintendo spends money according to its means, something other developers should emulate. I was referencing the fact that Iwata was criticized for allowing his studios to take up a lot of time and resources perfecting their games, instead of churning them out at a rapid pace to maximize profits.

Well, it originates to the specs reported by Digital Foundry, so there should be some credibility there. The exact numbers for PS3 and Xbox 360 seem to vary depending on which source you use, but it sounds like Switch is comparable to them, more or less.

Now , lets forget about CPU teraflops for now, How the CPU is feed by the memory bandwith?

PS3= 22 GBytes/s
SWITCH = 25.6 GBytes/s
PS4 = 176 GB/s.

Does that tell someone what kind of textures and lighting can we spect from SWITCH? Again. Its a great hanheld, but don´t sell it like a desktop console.

I play lots of old games... On the contrary I ask why so many gamers consider anything more than a few months old completely worthless.

Like when Nintendo puts Mario Galaxy 2 on sale for $10 and people whine about how terrible their sales are. Or original Legend of Zelda for $3.

Anyway back to the point I play more old games than new. Pretty sure I could ignore all new games for the rest of my life and not get bored with what I already have.

They are selling it as a freaking hybrid, that's what the add made it look like, the rest is only semantics, for me it maybe mainly a handheld console but for others it can be mainly a home console, whatever you want to call it is completely irrelevant.

Well, then maybe for you new things doesnt matter. I don´t think that a few months make games worthless. But I like to apreciate how technology, and the worlds and games grow. I would say that there are some games that deserve being played and are old, I might play 10 year old games like COD modern Warfare, Portal, Bioshock, Uncharted and some other great games. For the rest, I usually play games less than 5 years old, thats not a couple of months, but those are games with wolds, sizes, graphics, art and quality that are not far  from current games. Skyrim (2011), Far Cry 3(2012), The Last of US(2013), Tomb Raider (2013) are not a couple of months old and are awesome games (more than 3 years old games). 

It has been explained 1000x times on this site, you cant just compare numbers like that and get the full picture. Switch GPU will still handily outperform PS3/360 as will the CPU and it has like 8x as much RAM.

New things matter somewhat, I like a shiny new thing as much as the next guy and I generally keep up with what my friends are playing. I appreciate technology too, and I particularly appreciate how developers worked with the limitations of older technology. I love going back to great old gameboy games like the Zeldas and Pokemons. There are a lot of games more than 10 or 15 years old that don't *feel* like they've aged a day, and the way they look is just a sign of when they were made. I wouldn't dismiss City Lights just because it's silent and black & white. It's the same with old games. Truly excellent games are great forever. I would be sad to see an amazing classic like City Lights sitting in a bargain bin for $2 and I'm disappointed when I see gamers whining about some of the best games ever made costing the price of a hamburger.