It is clear that Nintendo isn't vying for the ultra high end gamer/4k market. That has NEVER been their marketing base. Besides, you are comparing the specs of a $379 video card against a system that is $300 total. It is never going to be a fair fight.
Nintendo has always been about the games. When they have great games early in their console cycle, they do well. When they don't, they don't. Simple as that. BOTW is by far one of the best games that I have ever played in my life and I have been an avid gamer for over 30 years.
What I was saying is that they could give 4k gaming at $299, because Nintendo's graphical style is more artistic then realistic and it could be done at 3 TFlops.
$379 video card can be used to make a system from 2009 (like an i7 920) back in the game. It's considered upper midrange for 2016. For many people, a simple GPU upgrade can take a years old PC and breath 2-4 years of good life into it, and be the only outlay needed. I'm not talking about building a PC from the ground up.
So there are people who are looking for $300-400 to spend to enhance their gaming experience. Many people can choose just to upgrade their video card like a GTX 1070, or buy a PS4, or PS4 Pro, or XB1 and get much more value for their money.
But the fact is, even PS4 Pro costs less then a Switch if you take into account pro controller+SD card, and it has 4.2 Tflops. It's not even midrange. Heck in some locations around the world a Switch by itself is almost the price of a PS4 pro.
The platform for gaming is only enhanced with better power. 3 TFlops or portability for a console? That was the tradeoff. That's a drawback to many. I and likely most others would rather have the power.
There is no reason they couldn't of had two devices. A console and a handheld with unified software so that the console could run the handheld games.
Also they did use to play for power. Nes slogan was 'now you are playing with power'. SNES 'now you are playing with power...super power'. Gamecube at the time was the most powerful console system. They at these times WAS the console of choice for AAA 3rd party games from EA, Activision, etc.
That stopped when they went with low power devices.
It's only since Wii that they went the opposite route. But they had motion control gaming which blew up. That's over. Without something like that, their systems sit on their own merits for 1st party games that are few and far between.
1st party games that are objectively great, but can be let down performance wise. It's just sad to see it again with Switch. $299 definitely could of built a system that had great performance.
Wii U was more powerful then PS3/360, but not by much and just about everyone waited for Sony/MS because just two months after launch we had Xbox One reveal and then PS4. But the gamepad in Wii U was literally more expensive then the console, so instead of competing against PS4/XB1, they created a gamepad with few uses. (Now with Switch, instead of being competitive, they are doing portability... which is better then simply a dumb client gamepad, but more of trying to make their 2007 vision they wanted out in 2011 right, except its 2017 and smartphones exist)
What Switch is, is literally the power of a top end cellphone from 2018-2019. So, in its expected lifetime, smartphones will become more powerful.
It's not that they're not competing for ultra high end. They aren't competing for high end, mid range, or lower midrange. It's basically a repackaged Nvidia Shield at lower clocks, with some customization in the chip. But 0.19 TFlops to 0.39 TFlops is really, really low. Great for a handheld, but severely underpowered for a console.
Heck right now a GTX 1050 is $109 and basically matches the power of a PS4, and $139 gets you 2.1 TFlops. Those are low end chips. A GTX 1050 is ~9x-10x the power of Switch undocked and 4-5x docked. Low end chip for $109. Switch can't even come close to competing with a low end chip. Again PS4 with games, pro controller, and 500 GB's for $249. An amazing value compared to Switch.
Even if they don't go for 4k... 1080/60 BOTW would be much more amazing then 720-900/30 fps with dips. Same game with those performance numbers would be much more enjoyable.
Literally the reason I'm holding back on BOTW right now is I can't stand 15-20-30 FPS. Last game I bought that was 30 FPS was GTA V on PS4. The 25-30 FPS sucked so bad it destroyed the experience. Still somewhat fun, but massively annoying, and a degraded experience.
I wanted to see what the performance was via reviews, like what Eurogamer did.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...a-breath-of-the-wild-switch-vs-wii-u-face-off
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
It's performance leaves much to be desired on Wii U and Switch. In fact the best performance is actually on Switch undocked. So I might as well buy it on Wii U and eventually rip it to PC with CEMU so I can play at either rock solid 4k/30 or hopefully a 60 FPS option at 1080 or 4k.
What would better benefit Nintendo. I believe competitive hardware worthy of $299 price would benefit Nintendo more. A 3 TFlop $299 machine that can compete and create amazing standalone titles, or portable for the same price that can't compete, won't get AAA 3rd party games, and has massive compromises with it's own 1st party games? BOTW's performance is not very good on Nintendo hardware Wii U and Switch.
Even a 3 TFlop system could be an upgrade path from a PS4/XB1. Better multiplats and Nintendo 1st party games (that run much better then on Switch/Wii U) for the same cost.
This time around they have Zelda, which you can get on Wii U and plays basically the same minus portability (well other then gamepad portability within 30 feet or so). Other than that they have Mario Kart 8 coming out in a couple months (already on Wii U), Splatoon 2 (that'll sell) then you have to wait until Mario Odyssey (which looks OK, it's not open world). Everything else is 2018-2020.
They are one company. They don't put out a lot of content themselves, so it'll take time. After that you NEED 3rd party to fill in those gaps. If Sony or MS had to rely mostly on 1st party titles I'd say the same thing. But they have the 3rd party support needed to flesh out the system.
I like Nintendo games, but they're trying to compete against PS4/XB1/smartphones/tablets and each has distinct advantages over it.
Plus the much more powerful systems are cheaper, with addons Nintendo charges for, and a game or two packed in while Switch has none.
Don't be surprised that many of the games announced for 2017 are actually 2018 or 2019. At the reveal most of the games they showed, didn't even have gameplay. They had cutscenes, title scenes, or literally people who went up there simply to announce a game. When 5 1/2 year old Skyrim is one of the best things you show, they were literally scraping bottom of the barrel in terms of Switch gameplay.
I get what you're saying, that when they make good games, it usually sells, but there doesn't seem to be many in the pipeline. After Zelda what is the next one? Splatoon? Not really. Fun, but not a must have. Mario Oddessy looks ok.
Wii did great because of motion controls. Wii Sports literally sold Wii's by the tens of millions. Because it sold so much, 3rd parties created special versions of games. I don't see that happening with Switch very often. The better it sells, the more special ports they'll get. But it'll have to be selling very, very well. We'll know more about that by the end of Summer or so. Wii U started out well, and then dropped off the cliff after the Sony/MS reveals. Switch will do better because it pulls in the 3ds crowd, but it's still a secondary system for most. Very few will roll with a Switch as their only platform, and this generation lots of people are buying fewer consoles. They'll buy a PS4 or XB1, but not likely both, and while Switch offers Nintendo games, most people don't want to pay a premium for it.
Remember PS3 was $500-600 and Xbox 360 was $299-399. Wii was $249. Free online. It had the advantage in price big time. Now it's the opposite. It's the most expensive console out of the three. PS4 Pro is cheaper in some markets, even in the US if you want a controller plus storage.
When Scorpio might cost $50 more then a Switch+pro controller+SD card+game... plus online charge it's got some competitive issues. You also need to pay for a special lan adapter if you want/need to have wired gaming. Heck because it's a portable there's cases and stuff. Switch is a very expensive proposition compared to it's competitors.
We live in a different world now. Most casuals are 100 percent satisfied with their smartphones. Heck there are Nintendo games on smartphones with Mario Run, Pokemon go, and Nintendo is said to be planning 2-3 releases per year. So I don't think very many of them will run and buy Nintendo hardware because they are getting their Nintendo fix already. Even when Pokemon Go launched it maybe shifted 50,000 extra Wii U's/3ds for a month. It's just a different world now with smartphones.
I want Nintendo to succeed, it's just I don't see this as a success, unless we move the goal posts and say that 20-65 million Switch's sold is a success. Not from a company that used to be able to flog 150 million handhelds+consoles in a generation.
I also hope you love it dreamcast. To each their own. I just feel the majority of the public that wishes to buy a system (less with smartphones), wants a system that drastically performs better then smartphones, and Switch doesn't, while costing more then those that do perform much better. I just wish Nintendo did Zelda justice by having some platform with 1080/60 or even 900/60. Something more then bottom of the barrel performance especially when they have the newest system and Zelda isn't graphically complex.