There is a good deal of people that like portable systems, because that is the only thing we have time to play. For me it does not really matter if Sony manages to put a super computer inside the next Playstation, if I do not have the time to play it. Also, the norms you describe (minus HDR) are for people with big TV screens, 4K on a 6" screen really does not make much sense. In addition, handheld systems (just like phones and tablets) do progress in terms of power and capability, so it is not like Nintendo will remain with what is in the current Switch forever; the thing with these smaller devices is that while they progress they will be visually worse off than their stationary counterparts, simply because of size and power constraints. The benefit, of course, is that you can play them anywhere, even if the games are not as visually advanced as their stationary counterparts. But then again this is something that console gamers are used to and do not seem to really care about (outside of petty console wars fighting); after all, when the PS4 and XONE came out PCs were easily able to reach 1080P at 60 FPS in many of the games that those systems could not run at full resolution and/or 60 FPS. A gaming PC from 2015 with a modest CPU and a good GPU can do 4K at least at 30 FPS.

Well, new hardware can accomplish things that the old cannot beyond just increasing pixel counts; Switch's hook for example, the ability to play it either on the go or on a TV. Couldn't do that on Wii or 3DS. Plus consumers just get bored of old hardware after a while and want something new.

By design, the Switch was never meant to deliver the same kind of experience as the PS4 Pro or the Xbox One X; it was designed to allow for more flexibility with regards to gameplay rather than more pixels. If Pro and X are Formula 1 racing cars, the Switch is like an ATV; a completely different thing built with a different purpose.

I know it's supposed to matter but I bought Arkham City for Xbox One this week since it was super discounted with all DLC. I bought it for PS4 back on day one. One is 60fps and one is 30fps. I swear they both look equally impressive. If I didn't know one was better, I'd never be able to tell.

Why would you compromise stuff if you don't get more enjoyment out of better framerate?

That makes no sense. You are admitting to not seeing a discernable difference. 

Framerate... since that actually has somewhat of an impact on how you play the game.

"No monry into advancing components"

Are you fraking kidding me? This thing is literally THE most powerful mobile device ever, not counting laptop level stuff. Only the ipad  prob matches it in performance and thats a 1000$ machine.

What's up with this 'Switch is weak' bullshit argument? The thing is $300, less than 1/20th the size of a PS4, and yet plays games at 720/60 fps to 1080/30 with no issue.

If you want to keep whining then go play on the competition then. For fuck's sake, it's a hybrid. It's gonna be weak as a home console. What, did you want Nintendo to somehow shove a GTX Titan Xp up the Switch's ass?

Sure, too bad the part I care about is the part where I use the system to play at home on my TV...

Also and going slightly off topic here but to answer your statement, the Switch is definitely not the most powerful mobile device ever. The Ipad goes way beyond, not only it has (the Ipad) a screen of way higher definition (Retina) but it has a battery that lasts up to like 12 hours or so.

So I'm going to assume you meant the most powerful portable system (among dedicated gaming systems, like the Vita, the PSP, the 3DS etc) NOT including other mobile devices.

Framerate is not like game design (though the two often clash, and are forced to co-exist).

A terrible game at 60 FPS is still a bad game.

Even the most framerate oblivious people would still find the lower response time, smoothness and overall "feeling" provided by 60FPS to be better than 30.

Even when we don't have the tools to express or understand why is happening 60 FPS is more enjoyable.

A better designed game at 30 FPS will most likely be more enjoyable to play than a poorly designed 60 FPS title though, but more in the way that makes you cry out in praise: "Gee I sure am having fun".

Doom (2016) will run at 30 FPS on the Switch, and people surely will enjoy it in that incarnation, they are not wrong to do so.

They may find it more enjoyable than playing it at 4k240 on a monster PC, be that due to: the Switch logo, portability or some other reason.

Given a 60FPS version on the Switch, with the same graphical fidelity, they will enjoy themselves more, even if they don't know it, or understand the difference.

At that point it is more of a subconscious thing.

Think of it like this: lip sync in movies, you can still watch a movie with a half second (or in 30 vs 60 FPS, ~ 16.7ms) audio delay, and hell you personally may not even be able to discern a difference, but at some non active level your brain will be able to tell the difference.

I am sorry but it is not up for debate, but that does not mean you are wrong for being okay with 30 FPS.

It is a topic that is hard to talk about without stepping on feet, so I am sorry if I have offended you in any way.

There goes VGC ruining my formatting... sigh.

He did said that the ipad is more powerful than the Switch.