So after having to put up with lengthy game droughts on Nintendo home consoles since the N64 to the Wii U.
Why would I buy another Nintendo home console with bare minimal 3rd party support AND non-unified support from Nintendo?
If Switch wont replace 3DS, whats the point of sacrificing performance for the sake of semi-portability?
Another valid point of criticism. I've been thinking these last weeks and I now wonder why Nintendo did not opt to make the Switch an even more flexible platform than the one we are getting.
Warning: another long post incoming; I'll stop after this one.
Imagine being able to buy two Switch sku's, one a 200/250 console version with full 1080 support and a pro controller packed in, and the other 150/200 handheld that would be similar to the current tablet + joy-cons and minus the dock but perhaps made a bit more durable and portable so it can replace the 3DS in due time. Every game and accessory would be cross compatible and game data such as saves would be easily transferable, meaning that the actual Switch platform would be less about the two hardware sku's but more about offering a single development platform that could provide both console and handheld consumers with the best Nintendo system possible within the realms of affordability (while real diehards could simply buy both sku's and transfer their game data while using the same cartridge + profile etc.).
I mean, looking at it a bit more objectively, what is the actual benefit of the current hybrid design if both configurations leave plenty of room for improvement? Except marketability and catchiness perhaps? The console play configuration could have used a bit more power and storage arguably as well as a pro controller packed-in while the handheld configuration seems too fragile, bulky and arguably lacking in battery power to be a full-fledged portable system to replace the 3DS. So, why not offer two slightly cheaper options for each type of audience under one Switch brand (differentiated by a second name if need be) and allow each person to choose what they prefer while none of them ever has to miss out on any software or games?
It reminds me of Mario Maker and its easily marketable but rarely useful real-time style switching mechanic. This mechanic imo severly limited the editor and the implementation of things like more unique enemies, obstacles and themes from each game because it came with a requirement of needing an equivalent in each of the styles, which was not always possible without painstaklingly creating them from scratch (like with the ghost house theme in Mario 1). In contrast, if the game had offered completely separate styles that you had to choose between up front when building, that would have circumvented such a limitation and allowed some styles to have more content than others (like Mario 3 and New Mario having a desert theme). The parallel with the Switch of course is that Nintendo chose to implement a flashy feature that showed well in commercials over actual flexibility in either the building tools for MM or the capabilities for each play configuration of the Switch. In the Switch's case, finally, every consumer is also paying more than they would need to (for unused hardware functionality, essentially) if they only prefer to use one play configuration, which the option to select one of two sku's would have solved as well.
Others will disagree surely, possibly because they feel that the hybrid nature of the Switch is exactly what makes it attractive in the first place, but those are my thoughts on the matter after some weeks of mulling things over while listening to what must be countless impression videos and podcasts that contained plenty of valid criticisms.