But bringing this comparison up fills no meaningful hole into this conversation.
He thinks the Game Cube was a way bigger technological step foward than Switch may end up being... So what?
Despite the fact of this being a controversial statement, it tells nothing about the discussion we are having.
What stopped the thirds to bringing their games into a 240p screen resolution in a Pica200 GPU?
I was speaking of Switch as a "home console," the same way Nintendo have referred to it. For a home console, it does not even come close to matching the much-decried Xbox One. As a home console, it is roughly comparable to the jump from Gamecube to Wii. That absolutely killed the potential 3rd party support Wii could have sported. Now, from what we hear of the architecture, it's very modern, so the scenarios aren't exactly the same. Still, it is looking like Switch may be running multiplatforms at sub-HD resolutions in a year when Sony and MS are moving on to 4k. That's...horrible.
As a handheld, as I've said, it's quite nice. The problem there is that every statistic shows the handheld market shrinking, and quite drastically at that. I'm also interested in seeing how the Japanese audience will respond to the size/battery life of Switch. I am expecting good indie support, support from the likes of Atlus, Square Enix, and Capcom, but that did not save the Wii U or allow 3DS to sell as well as the DS.
At the very least, Switch looks to be a good foundation to build on
if Nintendo have built the OS properly.
But it still means that one GB of Switch is NOT equal to one GB of PS4 correct?
suddenly the system seems weaker by the second.
Correct, but it's clear Nintendo have no intentions in 3rd party games matching the resolutions of their PS4 counterparts. Switch is very much a portable device that can output to the tv despite what Nintendo's marketing claims. That is, unless your expectations for a home console begin and end with Wii U.