Weaker hardware mean take more time to optimize for emulate, isn't it obvious ? Since when i said 4 months? New 3ds came out in Japan in 2014, SNES VC is 2016 mean 2 years later and you knew New 3ds CPU is 4 times faster than 3ds. Definitely take more times than 2 years like New 3ds, 3 or 4 years? As we see, Switch came out last year, put SNES VC on Switch now is way better choice than 3ds. And all SNES games you mentioned run on 3ds emulator at 60fps in 3D? Yes or no?

I know that English isn't your first language, but I'm having a pretty hard time trying to figure out what you're trying to say for most of this post. I assume you're trying to argue that Nintendo is better of spending their time on making an SNES emulator for Switch instead of putting their efforts in to making a base 3DS emulator today? Of course that's true. Then again, I'm not arguing that Nintendo should do this today, I'm arguing that the could have done it when they were developing the emulator the new 3DS and chose not to. Whether it would take a significant amount of time or effort getting a SNES emulator running on the base 3DS that can play all the games currently available on the N3DS Virtual Console, I'm not about to speculate. It's entirely plausible that the N3DS SNES emulator already works perfectly on the base 3DS for the SNES currently available on the Virtual Console.

And yes, all the SNES games that are currently out for the N3DS Virtual Console are playable on the SNES 9X emulator for the base 3DS at 60fps. I'm not sure what you mean by 3D. These are SNES games. Most of them are 2D. The games on the N3DS Virtual Console aren't 3D games like Star Fox.

I think you know i mean 3D mode, right? When turn 3D on, are they still run perfectly at 60fps? I remember Snes9x emulator still have games run at low speed so no, not all. When they were developing the emulator for the new 3DS it was still a long wait till 2016, 3ds is quite weaker than New 3ds so of course it will take a quite longer time.  2017 we have Switch and SNES VC come out for 3ds in 2017 at the earliest is not worth to spend the time and money to research and optimize

I'm really starting to believe you're having a hard time understanding what I'm saying.

You mean the 3D screen on the 3DS? That actually is controlled by a completely separate part of the console. It has no impact with the ability of the 3DS to play any game. None of the SNES games on the Virtual Console for the 3DS have any type of 3D enhancements. They all run in 2D regardless of how you have your screen set.

As for SNES9X. It is being updated regularly. I provided you a list of game compatibility that actually shows the frame rate for the games as they run on the base 3DS using SNES9X. Over 85% them are emulated perfectly. That includes 60 fps.

And again, I'm not suggesting that IF it would require additonal work to get the SNES emulator to work on the base 3DS they should do that today. But you actually have no grounds claim that Nintendo's current SNES emulator for the New 3DS would not run on the base 3DS. It highly depends on how the emulator is programmed. It's entirely possible would run perfectly well on the base 3DS as is, and you would have to have intimate knowledge on how Nintendo's SNES emulator on the 3DS works to claim otherwise. You simply cannot know the things you are claiming as fact.

The pubs/devs, however you want to describe them, aren't willing to use larger carts, which means Switch isn't getting their games. What is wrong with charging more for the game due to a larger cart with higher price? If that's such a problem, Switch will always have to wait for third party games. If this price factor is also such a big issue that third parties don't think the games will sell that way, then selling them digitally online for much cheaper, so a PS portable user can download the game and either leave it on the internal storage, or transfer it to their $50 to $250 micro SD card, which will hold up to 5 AAA or 100 indie games, seems like a much better idea, and much better value for your money. No one buys Nin systems for third party games? I've read that quite a few people have bought into Switch with the promise of third party game support, considering that was part of their main message initially showing off NBA and Skyrim at launch. You say Ryzen is too power hungry at 15w and won't last more than an hour compared to X1, yet Xavier specs were just officially announced days ago to use 30w. The lowest power new Tegra available is X2 which isn't all that more capable than X1 and also consumes 7.5w-15w. Is the new Switch going to be way stronger but only have a half hour battery life, or only slightly stronger but with the same battery life?

Over 85% mean not all and New 3ds take at least 2 year to Nintendo put SNES VC on it. I don't said fact but it is not wise to spend too much time to figure out and optimize SNES VC on 3DS while on New 3DS it is much simple and faster, they also need to advertise New 3DS ability so it is good business choice. Also, some games won't ever happen if Nintendo only have 3ds like Minecraft this year, look at Hyrule Warriors Legend 3ds vs New 3ds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2J98CvVau4

One question: Do you think psp can run emulator all GBA games? Yes or no?

I don't see a PS Witch (that's how I'm gonna call it) succeeding if it exists just to copy. Videogames need their own identity. Burn the witch!

People buy Nintendo handheld  for first party and japan third party games exclusive as well as indies. AAA is not really a concern to me. After all, Western gamers want to play on big screen like TV with the best graphic, anyone want the definitive version won't buy a handheld anyway. Charging more or not, if none third party use it then it is useless. And no, many AAA games on Switch like Doom is on 16GB cart with single player, multi is download. Your portable is AAA or indies, Switch is AAA and indies. Nintendo customers always ask for physical even a small indie. I said people won't buy Switch with AAA Western game for multiplayer online because Nintendo online is the weakest, since when i said no one will buy Switch for any third party? You don't seem to remember X1 in Switch is custom and underclock for battery and cooling, they can do the same with X3. Also, games on Nintendo system always have quite lower graphic settings and resolution compared to ps so it will reduce the power hungry as well

Bold.

Bold.

If western gamers only want to play on the big screen, why are Switch sales so high in NA? AAA may not concern you, but based on your past posts, it most certainly matters to everyone else who you speak for apparently. Many AAA games are on Switch? How many? Why so many if the devs/pubs don't care and it doesn't matter and Switch customers don't want them anyway? What's the difference with physical other than the few who like the box collection or premium edition? How is it any different whether Nin loads the game onto the cart at the factory vs the user loading the game onto a card in the device? You mentioned both third party and western AAA. How many specific western AAA games does Nin make? Doesn't Doom have multiplayer? X1 in Switch is not custom, and is simply underclocked when in handheld mode. You said X3 is Xavier, and that they could do it with Xavier, yet it's 30w. Switch 2 would have little choice but to use X2, or another chip that doesn't even exist yet, and you've made it clear that guessing and making up a random idea to fit a claim isn't a valid argument so. Nin and PS systems used to always use highly custom hardware, where as now they only are using semi-custom, if not bone stock. Nin also used hardware that can potentially lead to generational upgrades, as per Nvidia CEO and their 10-20 year outlook, which is unlike Nin, and PS also gave up their all in one device goal they have been going for since they added CD to PS1, DVD to PS2, and BD to PS3. Both Switch and PS4 are fairly safe devices for both companies and don't exactly follow their typical path, so assuming PS will make the portable so it's graphics are so hardcore that the portable would only have a few hours battery life doesn't make much sense. The PS portable would at least match the Switch around 3 hours min for it's most demanding games, at whatever downgraded level they ended up at. Not to mention the battery accessories like Switch has available to it that can double the battery life, which would surely be made for the PS portable as well.

So like if Sony made a handheld game console, and had a dockable base that displayed the screen on a TV, and you could use separate controllers with the console so you could keep the handheld docked to a base on your TV, and play with a controller on your couch, or just stand the console up and play with a controller - that would be copying Nintendo?

Because if so, Sony "copied" Nintendo with the PSP Go in 2009. Here it is in action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by82mKVEeBw&ytbChannel=Game%20Tech%20Reviews

Sony just didn't stick them all in one box.