Their hardware is the worst among the three console developers.

Their strength has always been with software.

No, they don't. They make the best core gamer consoles.

What Nintendo isn't good at is hardcore gamer consoles, because Nintendo isn't hardcore by default. And ironically, hardcore is actually casual, because hardcore is first and foremost about playing PC games on a console.

It's not the worst, it's just different. Like I said, if you try to treat the Switch like it's a PS4 then yeah, it's sad. But if you used it like it's supposed to, then it's fine (aside from the drift).

You mix terms that in itself are in part not concisely defined: core, hardcore, AAA, third-party vs. casual, mobile.

In your initial post you say Switch can and should be played undocked, that's why it is not hardcore. But I disagree, undocked first and foremost means playing in handheld format, mobile gaming. You can play casual or core or hardcore games in that format. Would you say the Vita was a casual console because it was a handheld? And the Switch took over many gaming series from the Vita.

What it comes down to is: there are different kinds of players, with different needs and wishes. There is some use in categorization, as always, but no player will neatly fit in one category. the more needs and wishes a console fulfills, the more players are inclined to see value which can with the right marketing and price lead to a purchase.

Take me for example: I greatly enjoyed Elden Ring and Baldur's Gate.  Am I now a core or hardcore player? For Elden Ring I used my newly acquired Xbox (not acquired for Elden Ring but Obsidian stuff), for Baldur's Gate my PC and am of the opinion that playing Baldur's Gate with a controller instead of mouse and keyboard is inferior, which in my eyes makes all console versions inferior. But at the same time I don't really care about graphics. I am not on the hunt for best graphic cards, which is why I don't play most  AAA games on PC, as it is optimized for work and has integrated Intel graphics (*gasp*). I play mostly indies on PC, but also on my Switch. And I enjoy many of these pixelated, simple graphics indies a lot. I also play old games a lot, I am for instance looking forward to the Nightdive remaster of Dark Forces. And I also enjoy Mario Kart, Pikmin and some farming games. What am I now? A core casual gamer?

The reality is: I am a person and a gamer. And as such I have my personal needs and wishes for gaming. I see them matched with an unoptimized PC (unoptimized for gaming, I use it for programming mostly), a Switch and a Xbox. Other gamers have other needs. The reality is, Switch is matching a lot of needs. And so do other successful consoles.

MS did not only follow Kinect because of the success of the Wii. PS2 had massive success with games like Buzz and Dance Dance Revolution. Was the PS2 a casual console? Some may argue that indeed it was. And PS4 and PS5 have it's fair share of more casual experiences, which are enjoyed by a lot of people. If I look at the Xbox, the Store has categories like 'games for the whole family'. Any console that focuses on core or even harcore gamers alone is doomed to failure, as let's face it: purely hardcore gamers are only a few terminally online idiots. the majority of gamers have much broader needs and might switch from their COD-session to a round of Minecraft.

So why did the WiiU fail? Because it had a much too narrow focus. The Switch widened this focus a lot. Beyond core, hardcore and casual, because most palyers are far more than these labels indicate.

I'm not saying handhelds can't have core gamer appeal, or that they're only for casual games. I was simply addressing the argument among Nintendo fans who didn't like the Wii who wanted them to make a standard game console with a standard controller without any gimmicks and a focus on core Nintendo fans. And to be fair, the Switch has satisfied this vocal minority somewhat since the option to do exactly that is available. My point is that if you actually do try to use it like that, like a HD GameCube 2 that never was, it's actually not as great as you'd think.

GameCube is beloved among a lot of Nintendo fans because it was the last "normal" console Nintendo released that competed on a technical level, and was primarily aimed at the core gamer who liked Nintendo games. But take off the rose-tinted glasses, and you start to see a troubled console that lacked a lot of third party support and couldn't shake the image of being exclusively for young children and Nintendo nerds. But for the 3 people who wanted to return to those supposed "Glory days", well you can kinda do that now.

The Switch on the other hand, succeeds in being the accessible "everyman" console. An affordable system with an easy to use portability gimmick that works for both casual players used to Smartphone games and want a game system that's kind of like a tablet, as well as more dedicated gamers who want to take some meatier experiences on the go. Plus a neat detachable controller gimmick that allows for two-players and motion controls like the old Wii, as well as a handy dock for party style environments or just a convenient TV out option. It also has a massive library of first and third party games without even needing all the latest AAA blockbusters from other systems day-and-date.

Nintendo actually has exclusives. Xbox is no different than PC and Sony isn't far behind.

Nintendo actually has exclusives. Xbox is no different than PC and Sony isn't far behind.

-The clunky and horribly designed N64 controller

-The choice of choosing to go with mini CD format for the Gamecube is similar to Sony going with the UMD format

-The choice of going 3D which was barely used by anyone and developers knew that which is why most of the games never used or took advantage of it

-WiiUs dying simply not from powering on for long amount of time (seriously what other hardware does that lol)

-The joycon drift issue which is more common than the Dualshock 3/4 drift issue.

-The WiiU gamepad which is just a waste, clearly no one used it and instead used the pro controller more.

-The power button placement on the 3DS and the Switch is horribly designed, forget the 3DS, but what other device this day forces you to press and hold the power button to get the menu to turn off a system in the 2010s/2020s? Switch is the only one that lacks a built in menu

The best thing they did this generation was the Switch Pro Controller - great design and battery life that puts shame to both the Playstation and Xbox equivalent controlllers. No useless stuff like lights on the controller, no useless stuff like a built in mic on a controller, etc - just for playing which is what a controller should be for.

You can list plenty of hardware flaws for every console.

- Xbox 360 RROD and Scratching games

- OG PS1 and PS2 models prone to disc-read errors

- Xbox Duke controller being an oversized mess

- DualShock 3 has garbage Triggers that might as well not exist

- The planned mandatory Kinect BS for Xbox One that was thankfully scrapped.

- PS3 was $599 U.S. Dollars.

- Capacative "touch" buttons on the OG PS3 and PS4 models

- The fact that Xbox controllers have almost never had a decent D-Pad

- DualShock 4's Stupid pointless light-bar that drains battery

- PlayStation 4 and 5 controllers having lame battery life in general

- PSP lacking a second analog stick

- PS Vita's mostly pointless rear touchpad

- Xbox constantly changing its UI and making it worse with each update

- The PS Store originally being a crappy web browser on PS3

- PS5's design (I personally love it, but a lot of people think it looks stupid)

No console is ever perfect. But people still buy these systems because they like the features and/or power of the console and are willing to look past any hardware issues. I'm not sure why we have to make a weird exception for Nintendo. By your logic, none of the big three should be making hardware. Everybody goes third party!

Ive been gaming for around 33-34 years and I still dont understand what this "core gamer" concept people throw around is supposed to mean?