Yeah, even though one can pick up the Switch and walk out of their house with it, it is not catering to the sensibilities of a handheld in pretty much any other way. It's a huge benefit for console only buyers and people who bought both, but for people who only buys handhelds, this just means that the system they buy now is suddenly much more expensive to buy, get games for, and replace, with it's $80 controllers and $90 dollar Dock. Nintendo released a 2DS because they know that a huge barrier to entering the video games market is price, and then people want them to ditch the 3DS prematurely and expect all the people to shrug their shoulders and flock over to the Switch. Hell, the 3DS was flopping when it cost $250, and Nintendo sells refurbished 2DS' for $60 dollars. Shit like this:

It's borderline cringey. Hell, it's ignoring that in other countries, hardware and software usually costs a lot more than the american retail price and people who dont have like,  a thousand dollars to sink into a home console can still get to game on a handheld. Or that it's perfectly possible to be an adult and not have money for this. Not that these people deserve to be catered to by default, but they certainly arent going to be magically able to buy something because another thing was taken away. A mistake many people make is assuming that their situation is the baseline for the entire video games market. Nintendo gains nothing from condecending 3ds owners like this.

Luckily Nintendo did say they know that the Switch and 3DS are different markets and treats the system like a home console. At least for now, that's definitely the right move.

As much as I know I'll eventually get a Switch either for Pokémon or even Dragon Quest, I still prefer the 3DS. It's much cheaper to maintain and it's more appealing as of now (at least for me). It's also the best deal for people like me that are still young and dependent on their parents. My mom says that if I want videogames I have to save some of my money to buy them, so it would take a lot for me to save for a Switch...

Also, I'm from Portugal and people here are paid a lot less than in some European countries and we still have to pay the same as them for videogame hardware and software. I know we are a small country, but I guess the situation is similar with many other countries which ends up making some impact.

This. I know that it sounds hypocritical when I've said that I want the 3DS to die, but this still makes sense in any case. (I say this as a 3DS owner, who has the opposite problem - having too many games in the back catalog and not enough time to play everything I want to).

My worry with the 3DS actually stems from the fact that Nintendo is going to be trigger-happy with putting out experimental titles on the platform that don't really have much in the way of a chance at success. That factor is mitigated by the fact that these new efforts tend to come with reused engines and assets (Ever Oasis by GREZZO, for instance, uses a modified version of the engine used for the Zelda remakes on the 3DS).

I'd only really start to get worried if they start announcing titles for 1H 2018 and beyond that aren't just localizations of previously Japan-only work. That means that they took the sales success in 2H 2016 too seriously...

Well most 3DS games are either jobs from outside developers or ports of older games, so Nintendo themselves are really already all-in for the Switch. 3rd parties though, mainly Japanese 3rd parties, yes.

I'm expecting the last big game for the system to be one more Pokemon game this year, but I dont doubt that smaller titles will probably be cross platform with the Switch and 3DS for a while afterwards, like Blaster Master. It also depends on if or when a handheld only Switch or whetever else they may have in store is going to come out.

No, they don't. Very few smartphones can last more than 4 hours running 3D software such as games. GameBench has a series of statistics showing that, on average, most smartphones don't last more than 4 hours running 3D-intensive software such as Asphalt. Very few smartphones survive over 6 hours running 3D-intensive software (none that I am aware of, at least). The vast majority of smartphones, for a typical user (ie some software installed, battery drain compounded by additional software such as Facebook Messenger) fail to reach the 2.5-3 hours mark. Don't believe me? Just fire up your smartphone, and start playing Asphalt for 3 hours straight. Let me know how it went, and how your battery use was from 100% to 0%.

From what I could find:

LG G4 running Asphalt 8: 31% per hour (roughly 3 hours total) - after around 10 minutes the system overheated, and FPS dropped from 60 to 36. Performance plateaud there. This test was with Battery Optimizer on (which reduces resolution among other things, to preserve battery). 
Galaxy S6 running Asphalt: No exact figures exist, but performed much worse than LG G4. I have the phone and it cannot even last 3 hours screen-on browsing, let alone gaming.
Galaxy S7: 6% over 15 minutes of gameplay (24% per hour). This would give it a battery life of aprox. 4 hours running a 3D intensive game.
Honor 5C: 17% per hour. One of the best performers out there, with total running time of over 5 hours. Test was only run for 1 hour, so it is possible that the system overheats leading to increased battery spikes later on.
HTC A9: 4% per 10 minutes. Would last just over 4 hours.
LG Nexus 5: Lasted exactly 1 hours 57 minutes running Asphalt 7. Average FPS was 41.
Galaxy Note 3: Lasted exactly 4 hours, running Asphalt 7. Average FPS was 36.
Galaxy S4: Lasted exactly 3 hours 48 minutes, running Asphalt 7. Average FPS ranged from 23 to 31.

Games like X-COM are even more intensive and will draw the battery even faster.

To compare these to Switch, which has a larger screen, and superior hardware, running very intensive 3D games such as Zelda is disingenuous.

For a moderator, you really seem to enjoy trolling. Again, you are comparing apples to oranges here. 3DS runs a puny dualcore ARM11-MPCore @ 268MhZ. For a fair comparison, why don't we compare Switch to the NVidia Shield?

"Nvidia says the Shield Tablet has a 19.75 Watt Hour battery, which equates to an estimated 10-hour video playback time. However, in practice you'll get around 8 and a half hours from the Shield Tablet's battery for continuous video playback with the brightness at 50 per cent and Wi-Fi turned off." 

This was taken from Trusted Reviews. It does not actually test the battery while continuously running 3D games, but 8 and a half hours of videoplayback with half brightness and WiFi off is not all that impressive. Let's see what NVidia themselves say about the Shield's battery:

"In order to test the battery savings, we played the opening sequence of Half-Life 2: Episode One for Android, which is optimized for Tegra based devices. The sequence is about 30 minutes long, PRISM was active for every session, and Wi-Fi was active because the game requires a controller. Optimized setting brought the battery down to about 73% (27% consumption), which was about the same as what we got from the Max Performance setting. However, switching to Battery Saver (2 cores, 50% frequency, 20 FPS limit) made a tremendous difference. With the Battery Saver setting, the same sequence only brought the battery down to 87%, a 14% difference compared to Optimized. What's also interesting is that we only saw a slight performance decrease with the Battery Saver setting. So, if you want to get the longest time in with your game, the Battery Saving setting is the way to go. If you'd rather not take the performance hit right away, you can set the SHIELD Tablet to automatically switch to Battery Saver mode when it reaches a preset threshold."

So, in other words, NVidia says it will consume 27% in 30 minutes. Again, in their own words:

"Estimates based on playing Half-Life 2: Episode One on:

Optimized Setting (Default) = Almost 2 hours battery life.

Battery Saver Setting = Almost 4 hours of battery life."

Other users on the NVidia forums have claimed roughly 6-7 hours playing Full HD video, and "significantly less while gaming".

In other words, the Switch does exactly what was expected from it battery wise. 

I can't wait for the death of the 3DS

From my experience phones don't last long while playing games, especially those quality 3D visuals.

I don't see why it matter if 3DS is around or not. Is having a 3DS and a Switch taking up too much space?

Most importantly, 2DS/3DS is the budget option.