The hard part will be making it so that it can run games from the PS4 library automatically or with small patches rather then having to port them.

The Switch has the likes of Skyrim, which shows it can do large environments.
You need to keep the comparisons as equal as possible. Apples to Apples and all that.

It is to me. And it may be to other forum users. You finding them unimportant is what truly is unimportant... Because I will state them anyway.
Making your whinging ultimately superfluous.

And I agreed that it was a great looking game with lots of dynamic effects, thanks to using CryEngine as a base. Did you miss that part or something?

Dynamic Resolution would have helped the anemic Xbox One hardware out a shit ton. The framerate dips also still exist, just to a lesser extent now. I do own the game.

Indeed. I did mean Dead Rising 3. My mistake, I'm only human. (Happy to admit my mistakes when I believe I am wrong though.)

Dead Rising 3 most certainly does not have higher quality assets than Doom on Switch.
The game looks like it pulled textures from a 6th gen console game, they are blurry, low resolution and terrible.
I do own the game, happy to take a few pictures if you want?

Sunset Overdrive looks as good as it does because of it's great Art Direction. It's going to be one of those games that is *always* going to look good and age well. Microsoft needs more exclusives like that.

You can port assets between game engines if you have the appropriate tools. Granted, sometimes it's better to build the assets from scratch.
But you are right.

Wrong.
Sony doesn't make all the components that go into a BD-Rom drive, they buy that from another company and then get yet another company to assemble them... And then yet another company to package... And probably another company to handle all the shipping logistics around the world.

Sony also doesn't own Blu-Ray anyway, it's owned by the Blu-ray Disc Association, Sony is just a member in conjunction with another 20~ other companies.
Other companies can also join and leave the consortium.

Sony isn't a company that has the resources to sink Billions in new chip designs anymore, rather they buy it from 3rd party's like Qualcomm, Broadcom, AMD and so on. Which means Sony doesn't have any extra advantages over Microsoft in this aspect.

Microsoft has also been building peripherals for decades, they also design/build Laptops, Tablets, Consoles and specialized devices like the Surface Table, it would be rather ignorant to assume that Microsoft is incompetent at hardware.

But you are right, that all three companies do have specializations where they are better in some areas than others, but that doesn't conflate to meaning they are worst at something else.

I doubt Microsoft will ever gain a foothold in Japan. Japan seems to be fairly xenephobic and the games that the Xbox has doesn't really appeal to the Japanese demographic who tend to go nuts over something like Pokemon.

It's also not using the full hardware feature set of the Switch. There is so much unused and modern efunctionality in that Tegra chip.
The Switch is only marginally more powerful at brute strength than the Xbox 360, where it's true advantage lays is thanks to a plethora of new technologies that have been added into modern chip designs which needs to have games leverage to make use of them.

For example... Texture compression. The Switch supports 3dc+. So it can compress Textures, Normal Maps, Light Maps, Shadow Maps and so on... If the game isn't built to take advantage of that feature, then it will use more Ram and consume more memory bandwidth.

Bullshit. Haha
Morrowind and Oblivion the lead platform was the PC.
Skyrim released without Direct X 10 and 11 support on PC... And opted for SM3.0 effects. It's hardware requirements at the time was so stupidly low it could run on a toaster.

Eventually, when consoles caught up to the PC, we got a "remastered" version of Skyrim which took advantage of a few extra features on PC... Essentially that version SHOULD have been the PC released version.

Rather, Skyrims lead platform was the Xbox 360 and the visual effects support that.

You said it, its demanding in difrent ways, same could be said for Skyrim compared to La Noire, LA Noire has busy cities with cars and people but Skyrim has huge ass world with wildlife, villages, towns, NPCs... But fact is that Skyrim was designed to be multi platform game on first place (including PC and Switch has similar PC architecture), that isnt case with La Noire.

You basicly ignored what I wrote, again: you keep comparing Switch 1st year with best looking 360 games (try comparing Switch 1st year games with 360 1st year games), fact is that with evre new game (more advanced, better looking, more optimised games) difrence can be only bigger compared to PS3/360 games in any case.

I believe developers sometimes opt for low spec requirements so more people can play them. I dont believe its a coincidence some of the most popular PC games have low requirements. Diablo III was made for low end machines as well, even lower than Skyrim.

I believe Skyrim was designed scale easily to consoles and work well on dated PCs.

Diablo 3 had a different design philosophy.
Like all Blizzard games... They push art and not fidelity... It's a similar philosophy that Nintendo pushes, thus making the comparison between Diablo 3 and Skyrim silly. Apples to Apples and all that.

Supporting low-spec requirements is fine. Many effects can be turned down or completely turned off, like Tessellation, HBAO and so on.
But Skyrim released in 2011, AMD already had 5 GPU generations on the market that exceeded the SM3.0 specification... And was about to release Graphics Core Next in a year or two.
But do you know what meets the SM3.0 specification? The Xbox 360.

If Bethesda wanted Skyrim to scale well, they would have implemented newer PC technology to begin with, The remaster/enhanced edition would have been the initial/default release on PC as it at-least supports some modern techniques that had become standard for half a decade on the PC prior to the games release.

With that though, maybe if Bethesda wasn't peddling the same Net Immerse engine over the past 15+ years, they might have been able to provide a better presentation. (Especially in regards to fur/hair.).

Skyrim's lead development platform was certainly the Xbox 360, the game and the game engine was optimized with that hardware specifically in mind... The graphics techniques speaks volumes there as the PC version didn't have PC graphics features.
I mean shit, Bethesda didn't even bother to make the User-Interface PC friendly, it was console controller optimized which made it shit with a keyboard and mouse.

And you know what? It's fine if a console is the lead platform, but don't piss on us and tell us we were on fire when we weren't.

Uh huh... I still believe PC was the lead platform and making sure it translated to consoles well was a priority.

The UI was inedeed console friendly but the 360 gamepad was becoming pretty standard on PC.

What is TDP?

Okay. So...

Despite the fact that the graphical effects were half a decade old and the game could run on a toaster... (Console parity graphics isn't having the PC as the lead platform.)
Had a user interface that was meant for consoles... (Shit that is designed for a controller and TV isn't having the PC as the lead platform)
Didn't support many PC centric features like Eyefinity... (Seriously.)

You disagree with the evidence and still believe the PC was the lead platform? Righteo then. Can't have a coherent debate with someone who ignores the evidence.

Oblivion and Morrowind had the PC as the lead platform... And it showed, those games actually utilized the latest PC technology at the time and simply looked amazing with a good PC optimized user interface. The console ports were downgrades from the PC version.