ignore pls

hiiiiiiiiiii I left the fandom like 4 years ago and I can confirm that bronies are less relevant today than they were around the time I left

They literally announced Fortnite, Dragon Ball FigherZ, Hollow Knight, Overcooked 2 and showcased Wolfenstein II, Crash N. Sane Trilogy and Octopath Traveler during the direct. Did you pay any attention?

The Switch wouldn't be selling as well as it is if people weren't satisfied with it.

You're forgetting something very important here. Here's the Switch motherboard. Tell me, where's the room for a GTX 1050 Ti, and the GDDR5 VRAM chips? There is none. Also, putting a big battery in such a tight space is a very bad idea; didn't the Galaxy Note 7 teach you anything? Reality disagrees with your fantasy. With BatteryBoost (which limits performance and caps the frame rate at 30FPS) enabled, sure. Point is, the Switch still provides more battery life, and in a more comfortable form factor than trying to play a game on my laptop in my lap. Plus it puts less heat strain on my legs. Eugh.

People buy new consoles so they can get new games. Also, if power does matter, why is the Switch kicking the Xbox One X's ass in sales? I'm a PC gamer and guess what? Specs don't always matter. Sure, it'd look better on paper. Like, let me use an example. I own a Gigabyte Aero 14 laptop. It has an i7-7700HQ, GTX 1060, 512GB SSD and 16GB DDR4 RAM. Very powerful machine. It can run Doom for a grand total of 45 minutes on battery before I need to charge it again. For comparison, the Switch can run Doom for 3 hours on battery before I need to plug it in. If I were on a long car trip, like... 4 hours, I'd prefer playing the game on my Switch, even though it's not as pretty as the PC version my laptop runs and runs at a quarter of the pixels of my laptop's screen. Why? Because I can play it for way longer. This is why the Switch is the way it is. People want portability. 45 minutes of gameplay on battery before needing to plug it in is not portable. 3 hours of gameplay on battery before needing to plug it in is. It's that simple. Stop being so dense.

That's not how this works. The GTX 1050 Ti would consume way too much power for the Switch to have any reasonable amount of battery life. Why do you think it's in laptops, which typically have batteries in the tens of thousands of mAh range, rather than just the thousands of mAh range like a phone or, y'know, the Switch? Because of that 75W TDP. The Switch, like other mobile devices, has a SoC (Tegra X1) with a TDP below 20W. Even then, it has a lowered CPU and GPU clock speed (1.9GHz > 1.02GHz CPU, 1GHz > 300 - 768MHz GPU) to reduce power consumption further. Point is, with something like the Nintendo Switch, power consumption matters, and the GTX 1050 Ti would consume way too much power. Sure, it'd be more powerful. But let's be realistic here, you are not putting a 1050 Ti into a handheld. TDP and power consumption are both way too high for one. Are you just googling hardware and acting like ya an expert? Because you're arguing with a PC enthusiast and all I see is someone talking a lot of shit they don't understand.

why do you keep using bad games as examples lmao So this is about you and your own desires for a console, and not Nintendo's base. Could the Switch be more powerful? Yes. But is it successful without being as powerful as the base Xbox One? Yes. Would it be nice to have a Switch as powerful as a base Xbox One? Yes. But, is it necessary? No. Corporations do not care about the "consumer's collective interest". They only care about their own interests. Sorry.

Nobody's denying this, but the Switch is the new "indie darling" because of discoverability on the eShop (sales are 20x higher than Steam!) and the ubiquity of ARM. So you want a hybrid console, but also don't want one. What? "I'm not saying I care about graphics, but I care about graphics." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Honestly I'd rather have the unique Mario art style that'll look great 20 years from now instead of the generic "OMG THIS LOOKS AMAZING! (for about 3 years)" action game art style that Uncharted 4 had. Cartoony graphics 👏 age 👏 better 👏 than realistic graphics. There's a reason why The Wind Waker (2003) looks better today than Halo 2 (2004) and that is EXACTLY why. Actually, it'll fall on people willing to tell you why you're wrong

Wolfenstein II and Doom are not.

Indie games not appealing to you personally doesn't translate to some impossibly dumb thing to say like "the Wii U had better third party support than the Switch".

Good job, OP, you got me to log into this cursed site again. Go on. Explain these gimmicks. I like how literally everybody who brings this up willfully ignore that Sony is "guilty" of the same "problem" with the PS4. In the first two years of the PS4's life, it got: Planetside 2 (PC port) Loadout (PC port) Last of Us Remastered (PS3 port) Final Fantasy VII (PC port of a PS1 game) Final Fantasy X (PS3 remaster of a PS2 game) Final Fantasy Type-0 (PSP port) Resident Evil (PC port of a GameCube game that was a remake of a PS1 game) DmC: Devil May Cry (PS3 port) Grand Theft Auto V (PS3 port) Devil May Cry 4 (PS3 port) Dark Souls 2 (PS3 port) Metro Redux (ports of PS3 games) Tomb Raider Definitive Edition (PS3 game) Dishonored Definitive Edition (PS3 game) Deadpool (PS3 port) And that's just a small selection of the ports and remasters the PS4 received. It was called the "Portstation 4" for a reason. Although, it's almost like people don't like bringing that up because it invalidates that entire argument Also, OP, you bring up that the Switch is "gimmicky" but you never elaborate on them and then go on about the 3DS and Wii U, then you go on about other platforms and bring up that you feel the PS4 has "better" exclusives, which is entirely subjective rather than the objective fact you present it as. But, please, explain these gimmicks without digressing again.