Well I'm only speaking of the dedicated gaming space that is occupied by 3 companies at the moment. If one of them (Nintendo) left that space, our hardware options would decrease. 

I know some people are upset, and that's their perrogative, but honestly do you really think Nintendo could compete with a traditional home console?

They can't anymore, even if they had tried to, they would have gotten blind sighted by the PS4 Pro and XBox Scorpio which likely would've been more powerful than whatever "a little better than PS4" console that Nintendo would've made.

Nintendo honestly just doesn't have it in them to make a great home console anymore and compete in that space. Every console they've made since the NES has seen declining sales aside from a 4 year stretch of the Wii, and even the Wii illustrates they have no idea what they're doing home console wise as they some how managed to lose 85% of that audience in a matter of 2-3 years.

They're just not good at home consoles, in the 90s/2000s they mismanaged things so badly and allowed Sony/MS to take over the marketplace, and it's just too hard to play catch up for a company that has as many problems as Nintendo.

Merging what was left of their console market into the more friendly confines of the portable market (which even with phones/tablets is still far more cozy for Nintendo ... see: 63 million 3DS' vs. only 14 million Wii Us, 3DS will have sold more than every Nintendo console except Wii).

if you're seriously suggesting that portability for a console that can be played on a TV is not a massively attractive thing for consumers then you're crazy. I hated the Wii U conceptually because I saw no purpose for a big tablet controller to walk around the house with.

However- to be able to play games at beyond Wii U graphics (Breath of the Wild is looking gorgeous) on the go? on the train? sitting by a tree? I think almost universally people would agree that the Vita itself was a great system, and the Switch's power will be well beyond that but ALSO be able to be docked when you're at home for big screen gameplay

You claim that you've been gaming for decades, but act almost as if the hybrid concept is nothing. CONCEPTUALLY its nothing new, its been talked about- but its completely new as far as actually being employed because until now no one has been able to come remotely close to getting home console-esque graphics levels to be functional on a portable

Its an incredibly exciting prospect. Bear in mind 60 some million people bought the 3DS and it both was LESS Graphically powered AND obviously not a hybrid. 

Haha, this isn't someone being serious. I mean the OP is just throwing around different claims that don't have much to do with reality.

Sony and Microsoft? It could be that's what we have following PS4 and X1. 

So you're buying a console that (over here at least) is over twice the price of its competitors simply because you can take it anywhere? Please, do convince me how this is a great deal. Even from the 3DS, the aesthetics of it all is clearly a step back (and I'm not talking in generational hardware here) as I mentioned in the OP.

Inflation doesn't account to a $100 shift in the span of 4 years. that only happens in hyperinflated economies. That's also just the console side. The comparison on the portable side is even greater.

Oh this is saucy. Go ahead. Tell me how Nintendo having control over the PowerPC architecture that nobody else uses is classed as a strength, because if anything that is their biggest weakness. Their strength is actually building robust engines for their GAMES, and it's not like Sony or Microsoft have any rights to hide x64 architecture from Nintendo. It's only the architecture with the most software developed for it...

you have to consider the market you're in. Yes, in fact portability for a current gen type system is a GIGANTIC advantage when compared to the other systems on the market. The graphics might not be quite up to par however the Switch is indeed offerring something totally unique to what the Xbox and PS4 have

to bring in the conversation of cell phones and tablets is just absurd, neither of which have been optimized to play any particularly involved or recent games. People throw out phone specs all of the time but don't seem to realize that you can squeeze in a lot of nice numbers into a phone if its generally speaking running extremely soft programs that don't demand a lot of energy. Becuase they're not attempting to play advanced games or run big programs most phones don't have to worry about the same type of batteries or even potentially something like a fan

I think they're playing coy with you or implyling Nintendo might release lots of games on mobile platforms (which wouldn't happen probably). You're completely right, without Nintendo in the hardware market the choices get even more linear and boring (with Xbox and Playstation structurally being incredibly similar)

For Americans, the Switch is 300 dollars. This is the same MSRP for PS4 and Xbox One at the moment, though both of those do come with a game. On the other end, the Switch looks to be bundled with some pretty high tech controllers and some really nice mobile tech. If those features aren't worth it for you, you have every right to sit this one out. I think the Switch has unique aspects that will benefit Nintendo games, which is why I'd prefer the continue to design hardware around their own software. 

I figured that much, which is why I specified that we're talking about the dedicated console market. Otherwise, Nintendo already is third party as they're making mobile games on other platforms, so I suppose that guy should be happy with the hundreds of Nintendo supported hardware choices he now has. 

"They claim that the handheld market is dead (absurd, the 3DS is selling quite well, in fact it sold better in 2016 than 2015, despite being 5 years old), they claim that the Switch is SPECIFICALLY the 3DS successor (when its the successor to both the Wii U and 3DS, its a combination hybrid),"

I said the portable market was dwindling. Am I wrong? Take a look at the 3DS sales compared to the DS. Even if it's selling better right now *cough*Sun&Moon*cough*, it would still need to sell significantly more to achieve a similar level to last gen.

Nintendo provided the capital in the joint venture. You can't say it's impossible because everything has their price, including a big franchise. While Pokemon might sell 10s of millions on a dedicated handheld, any push from a major phone producer (with the phone base in the hundreds of millions) would still garner interest among stakeholders, especially after Pokemon Go. You seem to forget that Nintendo owned a good portion of Squaresoft, but that didn't stop them jumping ship to Sony. Nintendo sold their stake shortly after the news.

For the online stuff, I'm going by the news that has already come out, on that 1. It will require a subscription fee for online play and 2. The "free" games will be monthly rentals only. Do you dispute these?

Tell me, are you going to provide some decent arguments, because that's the reason why I posted this in the first place. I'm not looking for the same kind of stuff that has already been addressed.