...but you can't ditch that line of reasoning anyway.
Switch's processing power isn't an issue because prospective buyers don't consider a price to performance ratio to begin with. If price to performance ratio played a role, the GameCube would have sold a whole lot better. Nevermind that Switch's price to performance ratio was deemed awful by lots of people, hence why the vast majority got Switch lifetime sales predictions very wrong.
Applying a price to performance ratio to the history of Nintendo consoles doesn't yield consistent results, hence why it's an entirely useless metric.
-_- Really? Just because I pointed out the errors in your rebuttal to an argument that I know to be faulty, you think I'm for that sort of argument? Really? Maybe you haven't paid attention to my posts for the past six years. I don't know how many thousand times I've posted that graphics don't matter. But okay.
Gamecube lacked a DVD player, which made its price to features/performance ratio bad compared to the other two consoles. During the Switch's reveal a lot of posters here had given up on Nintendo entirely. Wii U was a travesty. All of 2016 was one massive dry spell for the console with the only great game being Fire Emblem x SMT. Being downtrodden, they took the least optimistic line of reasoning.
I agree that applying a price to performance ratio doesn't predict squat for Nintendo consoles. That's why I said price to performance/features ratio. Gameboy, GBA, DS, Wii, and Switch have all sold based on their price to performance/features ratio. Gameboy wouldn't have sold if it didn't have a stupidly long battery life. The GBA SP's folding design was a godsend. DS had the touchscreen. Take motion controls away from the Wii and it's just another Gamecube. Take the portability away from the Switch and it's a regular console.
But you ignored the phrase "price to performance/features", and instead attacked the strawman of "price to performance".
I know a lot of people have come on these boards over the years asking for another Gamecube, and arguing that if Nintendo just made a console as powerful as the other two they would be back int the game. But please don't lump me in with them.
It doesn't make a difference whether it's price to performance or price to performance/features. Explaining the low sales of the GameCube with the lack of a DVD player doesn't make sense because the Xbox sold only barely more units. Then you have the Wii which didn't play DVDs nor Blu-ray, so it should be clear how little movie playback matters for console sales. This old argument about DVD playback that the GC lacked is just as poor of an excuse for the failure of the console as marketing and name of the Wii U are for the failure of that console.
Excusing the terrible sales predictions for Switch makes you look like an apologist. If you take issue with being lumped in with an unfavorable group, don't stick up for such groups.
The paragraph in the middle of your post highlights the problem the most. You ignore a much bigger reason for success in order to make the point that the reasoning of price to performance/features ratio is correct. Battery life was just another advantage that the Game Boy had over its competitors; the key to success was that the Game Boy launched with Super Mario Land and Tetris and continued to get better games than the competitors had. For the GBA SP you even fail to name its better features which were a built-in battery and a backlit screen, both of which not being present in the original GBA; and again, the library of games is what really sold the system.
The motion controller of the Wii was a means to an end; Nintendo recognized that many potential customers of video game consoles were left behind because games got more and more bloated over the years and tutorials could take an hour or more. The thing that the big Wii hits have in common is not motion controls, but the removal of the bloat and the trait to be fun games from the very first minute, whether that's Wii Sports, Mario Kart or New Super Mario Bros. The same thing holds true for the DS. Take portability away from Switch and it still has Breath of the Wild as launch title; lots of people in America and Europe don't use the portability of Switch and were still willing to pay $300 for the console anyway. Conversely, you have people who don't use the TV functionality.
Do you see where this leads? The games are at the center.
When you look at the GC and Wii U, Nintendo's two worst-selling home consoles, they feature first party lineups where actual killer apps are rare. On the GC, Nintendo took experimental directions with 3D Mario, 3D Zelda and Mario Kart, so despite Nintendo getting out quite a few important games in the first couple of years, the reception was lukewarm at best. On the Wii U, the biggest problem was to get out games in time, so by the time hits like Mario Kart 8 and Super Smash Bros. for Wii U released, the overall software release schedule was already incredibly barren, so killer apps had next to no complementary software to go along with them.
The GC and Wii U are Nintendo's two worst-selling home consoles and with both Nintendo attempted to build a game library that is as close to PlayStation as possible. This intent demanded concessions which made the consoles bland and uninteresting. Switch got doomed because Nintendo's January 2017 presentation made it clear as day that Nintendo wasn't going to serve the big third party publishers with the console. The Wii got doomed because Nintendo was so wrong to allow Sony and Microsoft to pull away by so much. But PlayStation and Xbox suck, that's why Nintendo is so successful.