You've miss read my statement again,
I haven't misread your statement at all. The issue is that your arguments are extremely poor and very easily defeated. You leave out important details to suit your own agenda and that is why your statements fall apart at even the tiniest bit of scrutiny.
A mobile design both internally or externally, that is what the device objectively is, just because a detachable controller or a include HDMI+USB adapter with external power does not change its design.
Yes it does change its design. The fact that the system is provided with both a dock and a very specific controller system that changes the way you play based on whether you have the controller attached to it or not changes it design completely. It's like Saying "Just because the Wii remote has motion sensor in it doesn't mean that the Wii is a motion based console.". It literally defines the entire console. You want to claim it has a "Mobile design"? Really? Which mobile video game system does not come with the controller attached? None of them do. All of them have the controller attached. The controller isn't this "optional accessory" that you're trying to make it out to be.
Sure you could think its a Home console (which is your preference)
I've already mentioned this before, at no point in this thread have I stated my preference.
when you plug it to the monitor, but that does not changed the fact I could also do the same with other mobile device, the way we connect might be different, either through dock(which there is third party dock for other mobile device too), or simply a cable.
Non argument, define which "Mobile device" you are refering to. If you can't detach the controller and use it in the same way that you can use it in a similar way that other home consoles are used, it's not the same thing. If it requires additional purchases to have the same functionality, it's not the same thing.
And don't forget hybrid console is branding by Nintendo, before that, there is no standard for this term, since there is no standard everyone basically could call everything hybrid which IMO consider meaningless.
No. The term Hybrid has a very clear and defined meaning. The only person that is confused by this terminology is you.
Without a standard Steam deck could be call hybrid with a third party dock or simply a cable, but in reality its not. No one had the right to define what hybrid is, the only thing that is mandatory for it to function as a hybrid are 1. Ability to connect to external screen 2. With a self contained screen 3. A game controller (or other peripheral depend on personal preference). third party or not does not invalidate the argument, some one could buy a Mobile phone and a controller holder, and a Type C to screen cable and calling it hybrid experience, that's their opinion.
It's clear that you're falling apart here and that you're now grasping at straws. When you purchase a system, what comes with the system is the actual product. Any functionality that requires additional hardware purchases is optional and not at the core of the design. You can turn the system into a hybrid, sure, but that requires additional purchases and the fact that it requires additional purchases shows that it's not a core funcitonality of the system but rather an optional one. This is why it differs from the Switch. When you buy a Switch, it comes with all the components to function as a hybrid. The Steamdeck does not.
Lastly the mobile form factor that determined its less power nature thus less graphic benchmark does matter, just because you think its irrelevant does not mean everybody else is. You don't make up the comparison rule, its not like a buffet you pick whichever you want to compare, other people also compare the aspect they think it matters, you either compare everything or you compare none.
This is downright hilarious. You're the one that is acting like it's a buffet where you can pick what you want to compare, not I.
This is your argument:
"It has mobile components so this (partly) proves that its primary function is a handheld device"
"Actually, several consoles that have no handheld capabilities at all have similar mobile components inside them"
"No, wait! That doesn't count!".
There is no middle ground here. Functionality defines the use of the console, not the hardware specs. Having mobile components in a Snes mini or an Ouya does not make them handheld systems. It doesn't make them "A little bit of a handheld system". It doesn't even make them "1% handheld system". The inside components have nothing to do with it being a handheld system or not. What defines a system is its functionality and the Switch, directly out of the box, offers the exact same functionality when used as a handheld or as a home console. Yes it works as a dedicated handheld system because its SUPPOSED TO as a hybrid system. That doesn't mean that becomes its single primary function.
You keep on introducing new concept and premise without addressing my previous response to you, are you sure we are still on the same page? Isn't my previous reply pretty much answered you?
By claim something is a hybrid you have to define what a hybrid is don't you think? Switch does not has to be a portable version of anything since that is not the argument to begin with. Saying its a hybrid meaning it's both Handheld or Console don't you agree? But when I question this concept by asking you would you consider MacBook to be hybrid since by your standard it could basically accomplish both as a Laptop and Desktop, its that only when you are throw new premise around such as OS, when this conversation became complicated, but then you are not discussing the same thing, and dodged my question. So why not just address my question first? Its a pretty simple one, do you think A Laptop that plays the same game as Desktop by connecting to a monitor somehow make it a hybrid device? Look carefully I'm not asking you experiences, hybrid experiences is a different concept as hybrid device, one is personally opinion, the other is functionality.
I'm not asking MacBook vs Window Laptop, I'm asking MacBook vs Windows Desktop or Windows Laptop vs Windows Desktop, why do you have to change my question? What are you even talking about?
I'm not going to continue to play this extremely dumb game with you where I'm supposed to omit basic facts about the systems you're trying to compare just so that it fits into your extremely specific comparisson. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that the MacBook isn't specifically designed to be a portable version of a Mac or that a windows Laptop isn't specifically designed to be a portable version of a windows PC, none of which apply to the Switch. You can hook up a laptop to a monitor but you can NOT detach the keyboard or mouse from a laptop like you can with the Switch. In nearly every scenario, in order for a laptop to offer the same functionality as a desktop, it requires you to purchase additional components to make it work. It is not the same as the Switch.
No I did give you a link, which shows you multiple result since you are claiming past market cap are something that's need to be predicted, which is completely ridiculous
Are you joking? "You gave a link?" You gave a fucking Google search. Get the fuck out of here.
How is past market cap not relevant when my initial argument was Nintendo had a good record in the handheld department, why are you changing the definition of my statement?
You don't HAVE a statement. You're literally talking about a "track record" with devices released in the 90's and early 2000's in a completely different market.
And the new premises that you introduced to the table, the number you've provided proves nothing, you failed to provide any proof that The reason 3DS only sold 76 million was solely due to mobile device. There is multitude of reason why a device doesn't sell well (Although I believe 76 million is nowhere near as not selling well). And you failed to provide any proof that most people bought Switch use it as a home console and not a handheld, until you provide the statistics that how much time people spent are using it as handheld or how much time they spent are using it as Home console, its just your opinion.
How do I put this nicely...If you look at a total sales decline of over 60% in just 7 years for the dedicated handheld gaming together with the significant rise of mobile gaming and market share and then unironically say "This proves nothing!" then you are straigth up in reality denial and possibly an idiot.
Yes 76M is a good number in a vaccuum, But it's still sold only 50% of its predecessor and it also sells significantly less than the Switch does now. The Switch Lite also sells much less than the original Switch despite being significantly cheaper. Again, what is your claim that the Switch would have sold equally well or better if marketed as a handheld only device even based on? All the facts point that Nintendo took the right approach with its marketing.
Also, we do actually have statistics on this. Official numbers from Nintendo report that about 30% of players primarily play in Handheld, about 18% primarily play in docked and that the rest plays the system in both modes.
No just because you have a different opinion does not mean your opinion is true and other people are delusional. But what is delusional is when I literally said that I consider it a handheld device from a functionality point of view, and when I mentioned Switch branding as a handheld in a if scenario, you have to quote it "should be promoted" and have yet to provide me any proof to your claim that this If scenario could never exist. I don't think blame on the forum for your own rudeness is a valid argument, there are plenty of people here that respects other people even if they don't agree, including in this post, for example I've been discussing with Mozza for almost three pages, we agree to disagree, neither of us are trying to insert dominance over another like what you are doing right now.
You're trying to beat around the bush again. I called you delusional because you claimed that a system should have a different marketing approach and be promoted as a handheld first and still sell equally well if not better.
I've asked you several times to back up this statement. I've asked you for your credentials and if you have none, I've asked you to provide facts or figures as to what this "opinion" is based on. Instead, you've tried to turn the tables and put the burden of proof on me for calling your nonsense what it is: Nonsense.
I have provided several figures that show that sales of dedicated handheld game consoles has shrunk by over 60% in just 7 years. I've provided you statistics from Nintendo that show that only 30% use the system as a dedicated handheld device and I believe this isn't the first time figures were posted in this thread that show that handheld exclusive Switch players are a minority. When asked to do the same , you mention "Total video game market cap" and when asked what the number on that cap is and how this has any relevance in a discussion about handheld gaming devices only, you respond with a fucking Google search.
I have no idea why you insist on having this debate with me. You are way out of your league here. You have no facts or figures to back up your opinion. Your opinion is based on nothing more than your desire to consider Switch a handheld first and foremost, it's not actually based on any logic or facts at all.