The X2 does have the same performance as the x1 with just 50% of the wattage, thats the advantage. You could easily have a switch with current docked performance portable (for 720p games) and ~750 gflops in docked mode (900-1200p). While still beeing behind the xbox one (1150 Gflops), porting would for sure be way easier then it is currently.

Yeah but so are Nintendos. Every heard about those "Amiibos" ?

Want special armour in Zelda BOTW ? Please buy dozens of amiibos. Scan those amiibos and roll the dice what gear you get. Oh you didnt got what you need? No problem, you can roll the dice again in 24 hours? Dont want to wait 24 hours? Well, buy just buy another Amiibo ;)

Want a companion? Just buy the Wolf Link Amiibo. Want to train the wolf link amiibo? Just buy Twilight Princess HD ;)

Vavle still makes games, currently 3 AAA game sin development for the HTC Vive: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-02-10-valve-is-making-three-fully-fledged-vr-games

Blizzard also has Diablo 3 on consoles btw.

I actually did not realize that the power consumption is that much lower. It would for sure create a bigger leeway for devs to port over more content. Though even then, I still think it might be too low for most current and future triple-AAA Western games (being the owner of all the current dedicated gaming consoles and the PC, I see many of these games somewhat struggle on the much more powerful X1s and PS4s so I doubt they could really target anything much lower). 

Paying for a statue isn't the same thing as paying for digital items that don't exist in the real world. Nearly all of the costumes locked behind Amiibos are cosmetic and don't really affect gameplay. Weapons and armor that you get in game are often better than what Amiibos give you. 

Valve's last big multiplatform game was Portal 2. That was seven years ago. VR isn't multiplatform. It's just for PC, or PC and PSVR if we are lucky. Valve might not even bother porting their VR games to PSVR. Valve's VR games might wind up not being any good. Being a good developer of normal games doesn't alway translate into being a good developer of VR games. Just look at how many developers struggled going from 2D to 3D in the N64/PS1 days. 

Diablo 3 launched in 2012. It is a last gen game, that was ported over to the current gen. 

Your general sentiment is correct. The Tegra X1 is slightly more modern than the PS4 and Xbox One's GPU, which means that in terms of features these GPUs are much closer to each other than say the Switch is to PS3/Xbox 360. On the other hand in terms of raw computational performance Switch is closer to Xbox 360 and PS3 (about on par with those two in handheld mode, and about 1.8X-2X faster in docked mode). This means that most modern engines will support Switch, but ultimately the games that can be ported on it will depend on whether they are computationally intensive (many Western AAA titles are, so those will most likely not run well and not really be practical to port) or not (there are still quite a large number of games, particularly from Japan that are not).

Also, the X2 is not really that much better than the X1. The biggest improvement on the X2 is memory bandwidth, which has been doubled. In addition, X2 achieves a maximum of 750 GFLOPS in single precision mode (the X1 could do a maximum of 512). Now Nintendo, most likely in a bid to keep up with the system's thermals, down clocked the GPU so the Switch's actual performance in docked mode is about 1.3X less (about 393 GFLOPS). If we reduce the speed of the X2's GPU by the same amount, then we get about 576 GLOPS. While that should provide some boost to certain games, it would still not be nearly large enough for computationally intensive games that struggle to run on the base Xbox One and/or PS4 to come over. In addition, the X2's GPU microarchitecture is based on Pascal which is more of a refinement to the Maxwell based GPU found on the X1. The jump from an X1 to an X2 is just slightly more than the jump from the 3DS to New 3DS, but it would not make more on-par with PS4 and Xbox One with regards to computational performance.

The reality is that the Switch's emphasis on portability meant that they had to with hardware found in mobile tablets (these run at around 4-10 watts), and there are very few options available at the time the Switch was being internally developed or even now that would allow for the creation of a $300 handheld that would be on-par with PS4 and Xbox One. 

I totally agree with Witcher 3 and I would lean towards agreeing with you MHW (though I am still uncertain about that; because the game is clearly large and so Switch might not be able to run it, but on the other hand it is running on a last-gen engine though of course the engine is not everything when it comes to making a game run on a certain platform). But Shadow of Mordor and Tomb Raider (both the 2013 game and Rise of the Tomb Raider) run on Xbox 360 and/or PS3, so these should be more than doable on Switch. In fact, Tomb Raider 2013 was ported by Nvidia (on-behalf of Square Enix) to the Nvidia Shield and based on my experience with it, it runs quite well.

Also, the X2 is not really that much better than the X1. The biggest improvement on the X2 is memory bandwidth, which has been doubled.

In addition, X2 achieves a maximum of 750 GFLOPS in single precision mode (the X1 could do a maximum of 512).

Now Nintendo, most likely in a bid to keep up with the system's thermals, down clocked the GPU so the Switch's actual performance in docked mode is about 1.3X less (about 393 GFLOPS).

If we reduce the speed of the X2's GPU by the same amount, then we get about 576 GLOPS.

While that should provide some boost to certain games, it would still not be nearly large enough for computationally intensive games that struggle to run on the base Xbox One and/or PS4 to come over.

In addition, the X2's GPU microarchitecture is based on Pascal which is more of a refinement to the Maxwell based GPU found on the X1. The jump from an X1 to an X2 is just slightly more than the jump from the 3DS to New 3DS

The reality is that the Switch's emphasis on portability meant that they had to with hardware found in mobile tablets (these run at around 4-10 watts), and there are very few options available at the time the Switch was being internally developed or even now that would allow for the creation of a $300 handheld that would be on-par with PS4 and Xbox One.