I really can't see how you can talk about poor quality you saw on late tonight show and if actually you didn't tried device itself!? You posts are basically like you are using Switch for few weeks now, you have some huge negative assumptions here.

I doubt there is any way that anybody can say with confidence at this point whether the Switch will be a failure or not (save for a few top execs at Nintendo who can see the whole picture). The Switch's hardware is only one dimension of the product, we also need to see the games coming out for it and even more importantly how these games utilize the innovative features of the Switch. When the games and the console are taken together, is the Switch something that is new and relevant and does it do something unique with the way that people play games?

The Wii U failed because Nintendo failed to realize how quickly consumer tablets would take off (ie. the gamepad wasn't anything new or special by the time it came out) and, even worse, the gamepad really didn't do much to change the way that people played games until Super Mario Maker came out. If the Switch succeeds in doing both of these things at launch, it will be popular regardless of how powerful the GPU is.

It's obvious that the Switch is not going for powerful hardware and so the innovation route is now the only option that is open for Nintendo. Looking at the hardware alone is not enough to say whether the Switch will be an innovative product, we have to see its games too. Let's wait for January 12th.

Stop comparing it exclusively to the Wii U.

It's IS the 3DS successor too. That pretty much assures some sizable level of userbase. From a practical common sense POV, most of the Switch's potential audience is coming from the 3DS base (there isn't much of anything from the Wii U base to draw from in the first place). 

Whether we're talking 30-50 million, 60-70 million, or beyond that is anyone's guess at this point.

Some of you would call a dog a cat if Nintendo marketing told you so.

Once portables got to PS3/360 level of visual fidelity having some form of TV output was inevitable, had Sony made a PSP 3/Vita 2 it likely would also be able to play on the TV, because that level of graphics looks decent enough on a HDTV.

I'm sorry for not really responding to your points earlier. My break was almost over before returning to work at that point and I didn't really have time to really try to address the issues you mentioned.

I don't see how that is would be really confusing to general consumers when the reveal trailer for the Nintendo Switch makes it very clear how these control schemes would work (well at least from my point of view).

I don't really think having 3-4 options is really trying to do too many things while failing to do any of them properly.

Even so. A past systems success does not mean the successor will be successful either.
The 3DS sold less than the DS.
The PS3 sold less than the PS2.
Otherwise the Wii U might have sold more than 14% of the original Wii.

But the reverse also holds true, a poor selling system is not representative of the success of the next machine, case in point the Wii out-selling the Gamecube by about 500%.
I wish people would drop this argument anyway. :P

***

With that in mind, I don't see the Switch having Wii-like success at this stage, the same level of excitement just doesn't seem to be in the air, which is sad, hopefully I get proven wrong on release day.

Nintendo needs to do well and remain successfull, competition is a great thing and benefits us all, people wanting Nintendo to offer more competitive hardware is also a good thing, Nintendo might listen to it's consumers one day.

I will personally buy a "Switch TV" one day (Aka. Switch without all the portable stuff.) if Nintendo offers it at a lower price.

Here's the thing though. Does the Switch need to reach 100 million to be a success? It could probably sell 50-70 million and still be financially successful due to the first party games alone. Plus that's not their only area of revenue anymore since they have multiple areas which include merchandise, mobile, and, eventually, films, tv shows (outside of Pokemon), and theme parks.

its gonna be interesting. Some say that Nintendo should just completely match PS4/Xbone in terms of power. But Nintendo games themselves don't really utilize that much power and they don't emphasize power but more on gameplay experiences. BoTW is their most ambitious project yet, but it's not gonna be a new standard of pushing graphical power for Nintendo. The new 3D Mario is not gonna set the gaming world on fire with its graphical power but it's new gameplay experiences. So offering competitive hardware (4K and all that) might work for third parties but I'm not sure if it would do much for Nintendo. They're not Square or Naughty Dog who are trying to push graphics and power.

Why are Pokemon, Smash, Mario, etc. still selling so well? It's certainly not due to graphics and nostalgia alone would not be enough. It's because they provide new experiences and are great games in general. Not saying games like Last of Us, Uncharted, Halo, GTA, Fallout aren't great, but you could probably tell that for many years Nintendo doesn't prioritize power and they've remained successful at that. So why (other than third parties) do they need to have specs of that of the other consoles?

It's not gon flop cos pokemon main title will be in it. It will be far from many ppl expectation (of switch getting AAA ports), but ppl will always buy any pokemon console. Then when switch gets decent sale number, other developers will start making an exclusive game for switch, and the sale number increase again. It's 3ds all over again

And to the poster that wrote, "why are pokemon, mario, etc still selling well?" You should reflect on why wiiu failed really hard.

50-70 million LTD and a good software ratio should be a success for Nintendo. Unless Nintendo starts making big mistakes, i see this as possible.

What do you think that Switch has that may be new and unique about the way people play games?  I'm not trying to be negative but Switch seems to have fewer gameplay features than it's predecessors.

A few things 3DS & Wii U have which Switch doesn't seem to:

 * Dual screen functionality.
 * Touch input.  It's not clear how Switch will feature touch input, since games have to operate in docked mode.
 * Backwrards compatibility.

1) The point of his argument is to get people to stop thinking of the console from ONLY one perspective.

2) Did you see Wii having Wii-like success? I mean, you could argue you saw it being successful, but did you REALLY see it having the success it enjoyed? Or how about the DS enjoying the success it enjoyed? People at the time thought making a second hand held (because Nintendo said it was the, "third pillar") was commercial and finacial suicide. The DS even started out kind of rocky, was weaker than the PSP, and was being derided by journalists (until the first online titles came out... specifically Animal Crossing) but... it took off and almost nobody saw what was coming. My point? Saying you do not see it is just a safe bet. It takes heart to jump out and see something being a massive success or a massive failure. I am not saying you are lying about how you feel, I am just saying that it surprises nobody that people would think a console that has proven nothing will be nothing special.

3) The hardware is competitve for a hand held. I think people want it to be a home console so badly that they are not realizing it is a freaking hand held. What it offers will not appease everyone; if it tried, it may not be affordable to everyone. However, the people that have seen the console (especially from a more casual side) seem to see little reason to hate on the console.

4) So, you do not plan on buying a Switch then... And why would anyone buy want what appears to be an evolved 3DS without the evolutionary parts (protability, touch screen, or 3D feature)? Why would anyone buy another version of Wii U but without the touch screen or off screen game play in 2017? It makes no sense to want this console in another form factor because it seems incomplete and lacking in leverage if it does not offer something to compensate for its lack of graphical horse power.