Are last gen graphics really that bad for switch?

Nintendo isn't marketing this thing as a portable console, and it is not a replacement for the DS. It's crazy to me why it is so hard for people to wrap their brains around Nintendo's concept. They innovate. That's what they do. This is something new. This is a home console that can be played somewhere other than your original set up. I'm not sure why so many are trying to force it into one category or another. In 5 years or so, Sony will come out with a way to play PS5 while taking a dump, on a train, or at your grandmas house. When that happens none of you will be putting it into a category with a 4DS claiming Sony is out of the home console industry. Think of it that way. It's really not all that complicated. It's Nintendo's 7th home console. The only other argument that even makes sense is a 3rd category (Hybrid.)

Also for all of those who are telling us how bad the system is performance-wise, will you please provide a spec sheet, or some game play footage so the rest of us can see what the heck you're talking about.

On the architecture side its definitely a solid upgrade over the Wii U, but at the end of the day the Switch will still be left behind by most AAA third party developers.

I see a lot of Japanese support happening and maybe a couple western developers but not too many. Bethesda seems pretty interested but I doubt they'll stay after Xbox 2/PS5 come out.

@bowserjr123: Exactly, it will be home to a lot of quality Japanese games, but Western support will be mediocre at least initially. If the thing takes off then more big western third party studios might feel its worth their time.

Yep, agreed 100%. Sales and consumer interest will be a huge factor in getting those western ports over.

You have to stop relying on just the small base of "Nintendo fans" that are left. That did not save the WiiU. The whole crux of the argument is that there are enough dedicated Nintendo fans to keep their hardware divisions alive. They are a very vocal group on the internet but that did not translate into real world sales.

If Nintendo does not start appealing to a larger core group of gamers by actually supporting the games that sell the most each year, they will slowly phase themselves right out of the marketplace.

Their best option is to stop with the hardware and just go pure software. Their IPs are all they really are and ever have been. It's not being ridiculous. If I want to play a handful of Nintendo games throughout a generation while still playing the majority of games that are released, I need at minimum two game consoles. That's stupid and it's directly hurting their sales. The WiiU was proof of that.

The WiiU's failure was not the gimmick, it was the fact that the biggest franchises each year completely skipped the platform. They skipped the platform because it was weaker than the other consoles and Nintendo does not play well with the 3rd parties. They don't seem to be adjusting anything about this with the Switch. Rather they are doubling down on the exact same strategy they had with the WiiU. Only this time they are marketing it a bit better.

That won't help when all of the major games of the year completely skip the console. As the great games pile up on the other consoles, that's going to eat into their mid and late lifecycle sales.

^ Wasdie preaching the reality. Nintendo Boy will deny it forever though.

Even though said Nintendo fans are the only ones left in giving a bigger damn for their favorite company? If anything, they need to try again with blue ocean as that "casual" audience is actually FAR more liberal to what Nintendo does, compared to the "core" audience that hardly ever cared.

If that's the case, then let them phase away. Not like the industry won't go on without them. Because again, going all software ISN'T the best option. Not when they risk giving themselves a final blow with a self-inflicted bullet by going to consoles with audiences that AREN'T fans of Nintendo and would only take them for fanboy greed and that's it.

Besides, what was the last Nintendo game you even cared about?

In mobile mode, 33 percent of Shield TV Tegra X1's 512 GFLOPS FP32 yields 168 GFLOPS FP32 but TX1 has double rate FP16 mode which can yield 377 GFLOPS FP16.

In terms of FP32 FLOPS in mobile mode, Switch is like Qualcomm Snapdragon 808. Snapdragon's Adreno 4xx GPU natively supports FP16 with double rate features (reference doc no. 80-NU141-1 B, PAGE 152). Qualcomm S808 supports dual channel LPDDR3 933 Mhz (dual channel 800 Mhz version has 12.8 GB/s memory bandwidth).

TX1 has support for LPDDR4 which can yield 25 GB/s of memory bandwidth which is still less than Xbox 360 GPU's 22.4 GB/s GDDR3 with 30 GB/s connection to ESDRAM e.g. refer to DF faceoff between Shield TV and Xbox 360 and framerate difference is mostly influenced by memory bandwidth gap.

Qualcomm S810 has 25 GB/s memory bandwidth.

For more complex shaders programs, TX1 has the advantage over Xbox 360's GPU.

Switch's larger memory storage should benefit texture quality when compared to Xbox 360.

Switch with GPU at 300 Mhz mobile mode,

FP16: 377 GFLOPS

FP32: 168 GFLOPS

Xbox 360's GPU

FP16: 240 GFLOPS

FP32: 240 GFLOPS

Unreal Engine 4 on Qualcomm® Snapdragon™ 800 processor

The expectation for Switch in mobile mode is similar to recent Qualcomm Snapdragon 808's FLOPS power but with Snapdragon 810's memory bandwidth.

For Qualcomm® Snapdragon™ 820 processor