No. It's just that they don't need to make conventional consoles anymore. They've been doing their own thing for a long while now, and it's worked out for them for the most part (there was the Wii U flopping). People buy Nintendo systems mainly to play Nintendo games, and Nintendo is still popular and culturally relevant enough to where their systems and games will sell very well. The Switch line is essentially guaranteed to sell 100M+ units each generation so long as Nintendo has the games and the marketing savvy.

Also, form factor aside, the Switch is probably their most conventional system to date. Playing one on the TV doesn't feel all that dissimilar from playing on PS or Xbox (that Pro controller is fantastic). It' just that it's lack of horsepower means third parties were less likely to release big AAA titles for it. And again, that relative lack of third-party AAA games was most certainly not to the Switch's detriment. It became the #3 console ever almost entirely on the basis of Nintendo's first-party output. The attach rates for some of the top-selling Switch games are probably the envy of the industry.

But as a hypothetical, if they did decide to make another conventional console (say, in a what-if scenario where MS exits the market, giving Nintendo room to fill the gap), I'm sure they'd do quite well with it if they put their minds to it. They made really good conventional consoles in the past, so I'm sure they'd be able to do so again. The only reason they're stopped making conventional consoles in the first place is because they miscalculated when they made the N64 cartridge-based, a decision that ultimately led to Sony dominating for two generation straight, forcing Nintendo to change strategy. They still make good-quality hardware, and I'm sure if they made a new conventional console they'd have the horsepower to attract all the big third-party AAA games. The only thing they'd need to do is bring their online system up to par with that of PS & Xbox, i.e., a proper friends list system, a proper matchmaking system, and preferably also trophy/achievement system. I tried playing Mario Kart 8 online with a friend some months ago and it was a messy, clunky system.

I mean yeah, the option to do that is there. But at it's core, I'd argue the Switch still really isn't the "Normal Console" some people wanted. I remember way back in the NX rumor mill days, where everyone wanted Nintendo to make a powerful competitive console aimed strictly at the "hardcore" gamer with no gimmicks or casual/family focus because the Wii U's failure supposedly proved their Blue Ocean gimmick direction doesn't work long term.

But the Switch is the exact opposite of what those people wanted. It's an underpowered tablet with colorful detachable controllers and a TV out that's focused on local multiplayer with family and friends. It still has a focus on family/casual/social gaming with Mario Kart and Animal Crossing. It still has a focus on Motion Control with games like Switch Sports and Just Dance. It still doesn't have great Online or most of the biggest AAA third party games. One of its biggest selling points is propping the system up with a kick stand and detaching to the controllers to play with a friend (IE a trademark Nintendo gimmick).

However, I'd say the Switch still satisfies some of these Nintendo fans because the option to use it as a bog-standard console without any gimmicks is much more readily available. The Wii leaned a bit too heavily into motion controls and social gaming for some people's liking, while the Wii U was a mess of controllers, features, and gimmicks that not even Nintendo could make work together. But the Switch is less bloated, and is a very versatile system out of the box. So if for whatever reason, you want to use it like a GameCube 2, all you need is a Pro Controller.

Sorry, there are so many games and you can't play everything, I realistically think a core gamer can be successfully entertain themself with just Switch. Works for the other two as well. What you miss out on is, that you completely disregard indies, which have a lot of core gaming experiences. For instance a lot of turn-based RPGs - clearly core gaming land - are often smaller productions, but many of them are available on Switch. And you can sink hundreds of hours into them. As every Monster Hunter you can put over 1000 hours into Rise. There are classical adventures - basically only on Switch besides PC. Dark Souls, Witcher and Skyrim are also games worth hundreds of hours. Clearly core gamers can easily be satisfied on Switch.

So yeah, core gamers  can be satisfied with Switch. And with all you are telling I have the feeling you aren't a core gamer or talking about core gamers, because your arguments talk about casual AAA games. God of War, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Uncharted - they all go out of their way to make crystal clear what they expect from players, in God of War they expect their players so much to be unable even solving simplest puzzles, they give them away right away with the brat. So, maybe you mean Switch is not fit for players to lazy learn even simplest game mechanics and instead settle for cinematic games (=games that play themself). That in my opinion are casual players, not core gamers.

Ok all those indie games games you mentioned are all mostly on other consoles. I think most core gamers want to be able to experience the latest big games with descent tech. you mention dark souls but armored core 6 Dark souls 3, Sikero and Elden ring are not on switch. That just one developer and they are some of the best games ever made. you see even if you don't like sony offerings there are a ton of thirdparty big AAA games for example this year alone BG3, dead space, resident evil 4 remake, amored core 6, final fantasy, street fighter 6, and much more with switch if i'm not into Nintendo you are basically just playing indie games. Games like witcher 3, MK0 and doom are not even worth playing on switch with how downgraded they are.

It doesn't matter whether those indie games are all mostly on other consoles. The crux of your argument is that someone whose only modern console is the Switch is missing out on so many games. Therefore, a game being multiplatform is moot. As that person, I'm fine with downgraded versions of big budget games so long as they run well enough for the Switch. If I had a gaming PC, PS5 or XS, I'd most likely get those versions of the more demanding games, but you are completely discounting so many critically acclaimed indy games with sizable followings that run perfectly fine on Switch as they do with other versions. And for the games in the latter category, why get them on anything other than Switch? Otherwise, you're missing out on the portability.

If most gamers want to experience the latest big games with decent tech, then why would they be playing them on anything other than PC? Then you go on to talk about how several Switch games are downgraded, yet you keep ignoring how console games are downgraded from PC versions.

This I feel is more important than specs at this point. There's very little chance Nintendo will ever be up to par with home console specs again, unless as you said they take a risk with it if Microsoft leaves the console business. 

But an achievements system would be super easy. If Xbox 360, PS3, and Vita can do it then any system can in terms of specs. 

Far more important than that is online. I should be able to play Switch games similar to PSN or Xbox's network with more robust and common dedicated servers, built-in console voice chat, easier friend searching and discovery, etc. It's wild that Xbox 360, a platform released in 2005, has had better online than Switch in probably every conceivable way. You could even make the argument that the original Xbox (whose Xbox Live launched in 2002) has similar or better online to Switch. 

Nintendo usually caters well to core gamers that love Nintendo games, but they fall flat consistently if you are a core gamer who likes multiplats. Even Switch, which likely has the best core gamer third-party lineup for a Nintendo platform since the SNES, has clear limitations (largely horsepower but also online). 

I think Nintendo moreso was totally unprepared for the GC generation, the amount of games they rushed out is pretty surprising and uncharacteristic of Nintendo. They rushed out Melee, Mario Sunshine, Windwaker, Metroid Prime, ect.... Tbh it just seemed like Nintendo's software teams didn't want to stop supporting the N64 but were just forced to. The GC was even aimed to release in 2000 alongside the PS2 but Nintendo delayed it cause the software wasn't ready, and even then they were forced to rush the games just to release it at a managable time window. I don't think it was that smart for Majora's mask to be such a late gen N64 title when that time could've gone towards releasing a more refined GC game on time.

I think the difficulty of developing N64 games completely threw off Nintendo's development cycles which would go on to hurt the GC's development cycle early on. By the time developers were just beginning to get the hang on the N64's hardware, it was already too late and Nintendo needed to release the GC and force development teams to rush their games to make it on time.

The original "demo" for Zelda was just unrealistic as a game, the texture work, geometric complexity, dynamic lighting/shadowing and shader effects was unachievable for the IBM CPU+TEV based GPU.

Same went for the WiiU Zelda Tech Demo.. It was simply unachievable for the actual games themselves.


The screen-spaced reflections, number of lights, material shaders, geometry and the extremely high quality and clean shadowing is just far to much for a WiiU to manage, not with that texture quality.
Not for a full game.

When you make a tech demo, you are demonstrating various technologies to draw people and developers in to what *might* be possible, not what is actually achievable in a full scaled game.

Which is why, despite that Zelda WiiU tech demo being ultra realistic and impressive... We still ended up with a more cartoonish "Breath of the Wild" game, which despite the technical downgrade, was more appropriate for the hardware.

***

But like most things in console land, the hype from people can get very real and very silly, even unrealistic.

The key here: "I think most core gamers want"

Of course it what this thread is about and why I think switch wouldn't make a good cors gaming Console if you only owned a switch.