The point of the thread is to highlight how ALL THREE consoles are equally viable in the mainstream market as a primary based on the individual.  Many people who seem to wish it that the Switch would not be viable to "real gamers" have tried to make claims stating as much.  These people can be found trying to downplay the Switch across several gaming forums, so I have given them a chance to prove their claims.

The fact that everything can be so easily shot down is all the proof that is needed to show that such claims are unfounded.  What they then end up doing is complaining about how speaking about the general mainstream is pointless and getting agitated about the subject because they cannot use their own personal preference to speak for the masses.  They know that their argument is invalid to the general gaming public, and to try to continue would do nothing but expose their own bias.

Well my phone has crapped out and I lost my damn reply to half of the quotes.  So annoyed at that, and I have no time to type it all out again right now.

But they are not equally viable. If you asked gamers what console they would choose as their primary/only console, I would bet my money that majority would choose PS4. Switch could be second, but if PS4 didn't exist, majority would most likely choose Xbox One.

And one of the main reason for this is that for example this year there have been at least 15 AAA games ranging from good to great that are not on Switch. How is it bias if you state this fact?

You could probably find some people whose primary/only console is Ouya (because they prefer its games, etc.) but what's the point? There are millions of people whose primary/only console is Switch, but it's not a valid argument to state that it's equally viable.

Some certainly sell better on Switch but its not an equal library, the X1 audience has more major titles to choose from. For example the average X1 may not enjoy the same type of games as the average Switch users and more importantly the Switch isn't getting the same major releases. For example, Crash and Dark Souls did better on Switch but how did RDR2, CoD, BFV, AC:Odyssey and Soul Calibur VI do on Switch?

Probably about as good as Octopath Traveller and Mario Plus Rabbids sell on the PS4 and X1.  All platforms have games that you will miss out on, but yes the Switch will get less 3rd party games.  We know this, but it still gets healthy support, especially from Japan.  There are more than enough quality 3rd party titles in conjunction with 1st party titles to keep gamers busy of Switch is their primary.

You're correct about saying forum doesn't reflect the general public. But I do know the PS4/X1/PC will move many of the same games we don't see on Switch. So I could argue Switch is less reflective of the general public.

Well they have been on the market for 5 years, so I would certainly hope those games would still sell with the current install base.

I'm not arguing Switch couldn't be viable as an only console. But I highly doubt people who just use a Switch are avid gamers or just enjoy few IPs. I bet people were content with the Wii as their single platform for a period, but I suspect many of them eventually upgraded to 360 and PS3. Which would explain why games like Call of Duty declined on Wii while growing on other platforms.

I would have a hard time making this argument for the Wii.  The game changer from my perspective is the portability.

Munn75 said:
I think the devil is in the details. Viability simply means that it can be successful as a console. Any of the current or previous systems released would fit that description in the sense that they can all play games. A better question would be is the Switch an equally optimal single gaming solution compared to the Xbox One, PS4, or a gaming PC. That is to say, is the Switch the best or most favorable single option.

In some cases yes the Switch is most viable but not equally so. I believe that if portability or a preference to Nintendo franchises are your primary preferences in gaming, then the Switch is the most optimal console for you. The Xbox One, PS4 and gaming PCs offer many advantages over the Switch that should factor in to which console is the best single optimal choice.

Well PC will always be the best, as laptops can offer portability as well.  However prices are much higher than that of a console, though not as bad as in the past.  Any advantage a console has over PC is consistent with all three really as price for a sizable upgrade from current gen would be the main deterrent.

The X1 and PS4 have a 3rd party advantage and a performance advantage, but that is about it.  They have more apps, but most TVs being sold these days are smart TVs, rendering them usless.  Those that have not upgraded would be able to take advantage of it though, so again it is subjective to the situation.  Compared to the 1st party games of Nintendo and the portability of the console, I would say it close to evens out when it comes to those who value the time gained from being able to play on the go.

Xbox and PS4 obviously have specific first party titles that appeal to their fans and also have many more third party titles including almost all of the previously mentioned AAA titles. Many of these third party titles are not available on Switch and those that are available on all three consoles run better on X1 and PS4.

That is the trade off for portability.  If you have the time to spend it tied to a TV and value those things, by all means an X1 or PS4 is the better primary.  But to those that will not even have time to play many games without the portability, 720p at 30 fps is perfectly fine.  Again, it depends on your needs.

A gaming PC is optimal for those that want to run the available games at the highest resolution, frame rate, effects, etc. and also tends to be optimal for software price and availability of many older games. Of course a gaming PC will run AAA titles better than current consoles. Gaming PCs lack any of the first party titles from PS4 and Switch but have several of the high profile X1 titles.

Agree with everything you say here.

So viability as a single console solution is heavily dependent on your gaming preferences. If you love Nintendo games, JPRGs, portability, then the Switch is the most logical choice if you can only choose one console.

Or platformers, local multiplayer, and metroidvanias.

If you love games like GTA 5, Red Dead Redemption 2, Fallout, Madden, Uncharted, Halo, Spider-man, God of War, Witcher 3, etc. or if you want to play games at higher resolution, frame rate, etc. then Switch is not logically the optimal system for you. It cannot play these games and it will always run third parties in lower resolution and lower frame rate when compared to PS4, X1 and a gaming PC.

If those are the only games you want to play and you have the time to play them, then the Switch would be a bad choice.  However those that would value what the Switch has to offer instead should not have to deal with bias trolls acting like "they are not real gamers".  Not everyone even buys every big AAA title that comes out.  They normally just get one or two and move on, or sales on PS4 would be 50mil minimum, and many that buy them also do not complete them.  That is a topic for another discussion though.  Bottom line, there is nothing wrong with only playing those games nor primarily playing games that come to Switch.

I couldn't agree more.

The average gamer just can't find games on Nintendo since the last years of Wii at least. So many genres, so many basic 3rd party games that Nintendo lacks, plus the prices and the technology. You can get a full entertainment machine from PS4/Xb1 and dozens of great games in a reasonable price, while many average gamers out there would only get Zelda on Switch. For most gamers out there, 2d platforms, indies, FE, Animal Crossing, Pokemon, octopath, don't mean anything.

Sales data says otherwise.  You are embarrassing yourself.

I guess that's why many say "Nintendo doesn't have games". It's not as if it really doesn't, but it just lacks too much of the games that the average gamer looking for a console expects from a modern current generation console.

I thought that the question of this thread was exactly that: is Switch an equally optimal single gaming solution?

I agree, not equally so. All the third party games and franchises that one can think of you can find on both current generation consoles. Not on Switch, plus all other benefits that current gen consoles offer and switch doesn't.

To those that need the extra playtime to actually beat nost of the games they have to choose from, the bigger library is irrelevant as long as they still have other games they would like to play.  You are ignoring the point entirely.  Also those other advantages you speak of in my house are irrelevant, as pretty much all new TVs these days are smart TVs and offer the same thing natively.

Current gen consoles (ps4,x1) are like your regular grocery store. They're Walmart of sorts.

Switch is just that vegan, organic shop with a few of the items you can find on Walmart, but with its own quality stuff for its own public. Others can go there to buy posh 95% cacau chocolate once in a while, but when they need to feed, they go to Walmart.

Again, sales data says otherwise.  Just as many people prefer Nintendo games than those who prefer Sony or MS.  You are spouting nonsense on a site that has the sales data right in front of you.

Again some of the games you've listed are AA, SOTC for example would of had a budget comparable to games like Octopath which under the logic you're employing would make that AAA, Just Cause is a series that averages 2.5m per game so I highly doubt the development team received a budget comparable to games like RDR and GOW because that would mean huge losses sorry some of those aren't AAA games you're mistaking being good for being AAA, Just Cause is a mid tier title much like the Saints Row games.

Here are the top rated Switch games for 2018 as you can see the are over 50 games that have averaged 80 plus so the platform is hardly lacking in quality releases.

AAA are diminishing in not only release numbers but what set them apart lets look at 2017 where the were 15 actual AAA titles for the time 10 of which average 90+ and these were along side a tonne of AA titles, now days the are less releases from AAA and AA titles are going blow for blow with in everything but budget that's a sign of diminishing.