Topic: Nintendo Switch --OT--

This'll very likely be the first Nintendo console that I'll ever completely skip. I don't want Nintendo to get confused and think we all want tablets rather than actual video game hardware. I don't even own a cell phone because I believe they're incredibly intrusive and tablets usually have dreadful controls so I don't touch them with a 100 meter pole. While the Wii U "Tablet" notice the air quotes, feels like an actual controller with decent weight and sturdy buttons, the Switch tablet is a tiny tablet with no weight and flimsy little third party "controller" attachments...

I dont feel like wasting 300$ on a rushed console.

_{Watch the language please -Tasuki-}

Where do you find a 6-8 inch tablet more powerful than switch around 300? If there isn't any, can you really say it is underpowered?

An observation i have noticed about the switch, PC gamers seems to embrace it, it is mostly console fans complaining.

@Therad Dedicated gaming Tablets are not that common place - there is the Linx Vision (£120) and Nvidia Shield Tablet (£170 - but stopping because of the Switch) that are cheaper. Both have 8" higher res screens but the truth is, there isn't really any 'dedicated' handheld/tablet device that can compete at this price. Its certainly more powerful than the 3DS and Vita. You can buy an iPad Mini or one of the other 8" tablets for around the same price or less (if you don't buy the latest version) but they are not really dedicated gaming tablets but more for a range of uses (like a PC) and whilst can do gaming, its not like they are AAA quality games - maybe old AAA games but not the latest. Most 8" mini tablets though offer more versatility - access to internet, movies, music, netflix/amazon as well as countless apps inc gaming. Its very difficult to find a 6-8" dedicated gaming tablet because their aren't many but we can look at the Nintendo Switch and how it compares to other 'consoles' - the way it is marketed.

However as a dedicated games 'console', its incredibly under-powered. The Xbox One was under-powered compared to the PS4 and the Switch is not even close to the XB1 in terms of power. In every area, the CPU, GPU and RAM, it can't match-up to these over 3yr old machines. Undocked, its likely to be less powerful than the console it replaces but having a Portable WiiU isn't necessarily a 'bad' thing - docked though, its certainly more powerful but at most around half as powerful as the XB1.

Nintendo opted to market this as its next console that can 'switch' into a handheld device - not a handheld that can connect to a TV and become a 'console' - maybe because of their 3DS and didn't want this to appear to be a 'replacement'. Its marketed as the 'replacement' to the WiiU.

Point is though, with the Switch marketing itself as a Nintendo 'Console', its pitching itself against the competition - in this case Sony and MS. Its releasing between the PS4 Pro which for £70 more gives you a much more powerful beast and the Scorpio which is likely to be even more powerful again. The majority of 'multi-platform' releases are those you are more likely to find in the 'indie' store. Yes Skyrim may be coming, but that was originally a last gen game but you won't see games likes Mass Effect or Red Dead Redemption 2 coming. No doubt Skyrim will be a £60 cartridge that doesn't run or look as good as the other console versions, let alone the PS4 Pro version that also costs a lot less

Maybe not that important as those with the other consoles and PC's will play on those devices. However its repeating the same thing we saw with the WiiU where the 3rd Party support amounted to porting old generation games or indie/arcade titles and any 'new' 3rd Party releases will be scaled back for the Switch. The only advantage of Fifa will be its portability but for the complete package and best 'home' version, you need to buy it on an another device.

Maybe PC gamers are 'embracing' it more because they are interested in the 'Nintendo' exclusives and actually wanting a relatively powerful mobile gaming device. Considering the cost of PC's - at least if you want the 'best' system, the Switch isn't going to appear that expensive. Buying a PS4 is likely to be 'just' for exclusives and there is little point in buying an XB1 (unless you want a 4k HDR Bluray player and take advantage of 'cross-buy'). Its not like PC gamers already have the 'extra' costs of PS+ or Gold either - something that console owners already have so adding in Nintendo's option later in the year is another factor.

In virtually every way, the Switch is more expensive than the other consoles and offers 'less' in terms of power/performance. The 'Pro' controller is more expensive than a standard XB1 controller - which it closely resembles and more expensive than a DS4 too - in fact you could probably buy 1 of each of these for the cost of the 'Pro'. Lets not forget the Memory capacity too - You can buy an XB1s for under £200 with 4k HDR Bluray, 500GB of internal storage - easily expandable, access to both this and a lot of last gen Xbox games or if you already have a XB1, buy the Linx Vision and stream games from your Xbox One/Win 10 PC or play from Steam/Win10 store for £120.

It maybe the most powerful handheld - but its really only competing with the 3DS and Vita in that area but as a console it is under-powered and we saw what happened with the WiiU. The advantage this has over the WiiU though is that 'Handheld' option...

Portability has always had trade-offs. I heard the exact same argument in regards with laptops, and it is a way to try and simplify the argument that it isn't good enough, but yet, everyone has laptops today because they are sleeker and can be moved without a trouble. Of course it won't have BluRay or an harddrive, because that would drive up cost and it would be much much bigger. Switch is about the size of two harddrives duct taped together. It is freakishly small, it is smaller than my daughters 7" tablets. Another thing, since carts are faster than discs, it isn't necessary to install anything from games on the HDD.

Comparing it with linx vision only makes the linx vision look worse. It seems really clunky compared with the switch and not especially portable. If anything it seems like they are trying to emulate the Wii U with off-screen play. Only that you need a gaming computer + the linx.

Thanks to Breath of the wild, we already knows it is more powerful than wii u when it is handheld. But power isn't everything, it has become a mantra among console gamers. Wii U problems was multifaceted, it had poor marketing, it had low specs for the price and it didn't support modern game engines. The last one combined with install base is the most important when it comes to third-party support.

You only need to look at PC to see that many of the AAA titles can run on less powerful hardware. And as a primarily PC gamer, I always find the power argument hilarious when it comes from console owners. If graphics were your primary drving force, you wouldn't play consoles at all.

Just adding graphical power to consoles won't be viable in the long run. We are rapidly reaching the diminishing returns territory. The more details you add to a game, the higher the cost to produce. Adding more stuff adds much more work. Adding more triangles requires more GPU-power and it won't even be noticed by most. You can cheaply add resolution and frame rate, there is a reason companies boost these properties. But those aren't really worth it in most living rooms, especially resolution.

We could use power advancements for better AI. We have heard the mantra about "better AI" since 20 years back, but they are still dumb enough that a human can calculate what they are going to do. If any of the three added a simple to use neural network it would be a game-changer. I don't think it will happen for a long time though.

So the console owners need to do something else. It seems like MS are trying to make Xbox a default platform for PC-gaming, while Sony are dipping their toes in VR. Nintendo is trying to add portability and local multiplayer.

Most people seem to think portability is the main ability, but this is wrong. Local multiplayer is what is going to sell the console. Local multiplayer anywhere is a game changer. It has 2 controllers out of the box which means every game can add it without it being a waste of reasources. The ability to take it to a gathering of some sort (convention, roof-top-party) and just give a controller to someone is a super-effective way to sell consoles.

@Therad The Switch has a better CPU and double the RAM of the WiiU but the GPU itself is not as powerful undocked as the GPU of the WiiU. It's also capable of using 'half-floats' which may help give better performance as not every instruction needs 32bits. This may be why Zelda runs better on Handheld mode. Texture streaming is the same - a few 'metres' around the character but maybe the extra CPU power helps with the performance. Not every game is purely GPU bound.

The Linx may seem 'clunky' but then its only £120. You can buy an iPad Mini for the price of the Switch and that feels very snappy and responsive as well as having a much more impressive screen, longer battery life etc - maybe not so good for gaming as its not optimised or have the same range of releases. Point I was making though is that in terms of Tablet based gaming systems, the Switch is pretty much out on its own.

Laptops may be less powerful than Desktops - but that rarely impacts on what people use their laptop for. To get a decent gaming Laptop, one that can match up to a high-end PC, then you need to spend a lot of money but they do exist. Most laptops though are perfectly powerful enough for the majority of people and the usage they use them for. You don't need a Titan type GPU if you don't play games and as long as they are powerful enough to access the internet, run Office etc with a decent screen to watch netflix on etc, a Laptop is more than powerful enough. You aren't going to see many people buying or using a Laptop for gaming.

Its not just 'graphics' that are important with gaming. Frame rate is also important. Trying to say that Console gamers would/should buy PC's if 'power' and graphics were important is also another 'ridiculous' comment that PC gamers make. There are many more reasons to buy a console than a PC than 'just' graphics/power. However when it does come to 'consoles', console gamers want the 'best' available for the money and ease of use. Most are not under the illusion that a Console can match up to a high end PC but still want to know which will offer the best visual experience or more importantly, best performance. People also buy a console, safe in the knowledge that all the big Multi-platform releases will be playable. You aren't going to see many people buy a 'Switch' as their 'primary' gaming system.. Power is also an 'indication' of potential so something that 'seems' weak is more likely to struggle. Its lack of power is why it won't get the latest big games because they can't run adequately on the system.

MS went for the multi-media all in one device which you could argue hurt it. Focusing more on that side than as a gaming device had a big negative impact on the brand. Sony have only just entered into the VR space but sold the PS4 as a 'gaming' device first and foremost.

The switch may have 'local' multiplayer anywhere - well for as long as the battery lasts and you can't charge it easily in tabletop mode. The controllers may 'split' into two 'mini' controllers for local MP but they are 'basic' and you wouldn't want to play a FPS game with these - at least not one as complex as those we see on other consoles. There is a reason these use dual thumbsticks. Its as cheap to buy 2 XB1 controllers as it is to buy a complete set of Joycon's or just 1 Pro controller. The thumbsticks on the Joycons are more limited too. Given the choice of sitting comfortably on a Sofa, playing split-screen on a large TV or trying to play splitscreen on a 6.2" screen on a 'table-top' - NO contest. I certainly have NO desire to go to party or convention to sit and play local MP. I would rather take an iPad mini to a convention as that offers gaming as well as the opportunity to check emails, watch TV, take photos etc etc during 'quiet' moments but if I was going to a party, convention etc, gaming not exactly my main reason to attend these. Maybe as a PC gamer, the Switch with its portability and 'local' MP is a bonus - after all its not easy to sit comfortably around a 20" monitor on a desk and share a keyboard. The cost of the Switch its 'negligible' compared to the cost of their 'set-up' - even compared to the cost of some of the components. However when compared to a XB1, PS4 or Pro, its a lot of money for something that can't compete. Even the 'few' games that will be on both won't offer the same level of performance and/or visual quality so it really comes down to whether or not you want or will benefit from portability and therefore sacrificing visual quality and gaming performance for the privilege - as well as having to spend more for the game too.

Each to their own of course....

My comment about laptops was that I have heard the exact same arguments before. Laptops are underpowered, you can't do much on them, the control inputs are worthless, I must lug around a mouse with it, small screen etc. All those things didn't stop it from being the form factor of the future. In practice, for everything except 'hardcore gaming' you can use any laptop.

And this is also true for switch, it might not have the best controllers out their, or the biggest screen or the biggest resolution. But it does enable experiences that has never before been seen in an handheld form factor.

The joycons might not be well suited for FPSs. So I can agree with you there, if you are a primarily FPS-player you shouldn't buy this. But then again, I don't understand why anyone would play FPSs on a console (PC gamer, remember).

But that is one genre. But the joy-cons could be used for a game like rocket league, mario kart, platformers, fighters, party games etc. There are many games/genres that could benefit from this.

And you can sit comfortable in a sofa with the switch, in fact you can also be in bed, on the loo at the beach, at your grandma, at your friends. Comparing tabletop mode with split-screen is just wrong, tabletop mode is for when you are not at a screen, it has a docked mode for when at a screen. It opens up possibilities but it comes at a cost of power.

And if you are not into the portability it will seem really expensive. But then again, you have other options. IMHO Xbox and PS¤ do overlap quite a bit though. And PC eclipse everything.

And it is fine that you don't want it. Not every product needs to cater to everyone. For example, I don't think apple products are for me. For me switch (and Wii U for that matter) has less overlap with my other gaming habits. Just being able to let my daughters use it in the car is big step upwards. Or in our summer house for that matter.

@KratosMD I don't really want to turn this into a discussion about the Exclusives etc. 2015 could have been quite different for Sony had Uncharted 4 and R&C not been delayed into 2016. Had these made their initial 2015 schedule, that could have been a closer fight for MS in terms of 'exclusives' but 2016 would have seemed 'light' with Last Guardian possibly the biggest. 2017 also saw Horizon release after being delayed and fortunately, a lot of the Japanese games have also arrived this year too.

Had Scalebound not been cancelled, I think MS would have seemed a bit more competitive. Add in Halo Wars 2, Sea of Thieves, Crackdown 3, State of Decay 2, probably a new Forza Motorsport (if they follow their usual pattern), Voodoo Vince Remastered, Phantom Dust, Cuphead (highly anticipated by many) and of course Scorpio, it wouldn't have seemed necessarily a 'bad' year for MS. E3 could be a 'make or break' time for them. Its no point selling a 'powerful' console if they don't have some decent games to take advantage of it. Its all very well having Gears, Forza Horizon etc patched to increase resolution and/or performance but most people will have finished those games and looking for 'new'.

Its true that Sony have some 'big' games in development - games like Days Gone, Spider-Man, God of War, Wild, Dreams, Hellblade but none of these have release dates. We could be waiting into 2018 even 2019 for some of these. Horizon:ZD came out nearly 2yrs after its reveal and was show-cased in a similar way to H:ZD so maybe we won't see that until Q1 2019.

I can't say that MS's exclusives are GotY material or always likely to appeal. Halo seems to have lost what made it special, Gears was good but something was missing, Forza Horizon is great but Motorsport is just a case of Same Game, different number on the box - a bit like Fifa in that respect but still polished and often wins 'best' racing game. Quantum Break and ReCore didn't exactly live up to the expectation but they are playable. Dead Rising 4 is 'fun' too if nothing 'special' but these games also show that MS has more than Halo, Forza and Gears. Ideally I would prefer to see MS have studio's set up more like Sony - free to make their big franchises like Infamous, Uncharted and Killzone but not locked into those like the Coalition (Gears) and 343 (Halo) etc. GG and ND have given us the Last of Us and Horizon and arguably gave them more strength. If GG wants to make another Killzone, the experience of Horizon could make Killzone 5 an edge over other shooters, change it up.

Its possible that Sony's investment into games for this generation are really only coming to fruition now. Its just that they are all coming in one lump rather than a 'steady' stream of games year on year like MS have had. 2017 wasn't 'just' Scalebound and now its cancelled, they have nothing but by the same token, they don't have as many as Sony do this year.

@Therad Yes I am complaining to a degree, as stated just imagine a Mario platformer on PS Pro for instance.

I understand what Nintendo are doing and good for them, its a pseudo handheld with multiple options for use. However the one use I personally want is Console gaming with my family. Not my kids faces wrapped in yet another tablet which is what it is as the switch onto a 4k tv is crap. Some of my favourite memories are sitting with my son ploughing through Mario Bros on the Wii U. It was awesome in a blurry washed out way. I hated that washed out look, its horrible.

They are trying something new and its not sour grapes from me, my youngest son wants one for his birthday - at least I will get the chance to play BOTW. Im not that bothered on the price, Im not too fussed that there are so few new games (I actually prefer this as you can keep up with the Jones') But I am bothered that Nintendo had the most powerful console in the Nes, Snes, N64 and Gamecube and now they dont offer squat in comparison to Sony. The components are cheap and nasty and its not the Nintendo I grew up with.

@themcnoisy How are the components cheap?

@Octane The reviews I've watched online; the stand, switch dock, cartridge holder and screen are cheap.

To be fair I should get my hands on a switch first; at this point after launch there's no excuse not to and I really should before posting again.

But my original comment stands that I do want Nintendo to make a powerful console.

I think it feels durable. Definitly more than the tablets I bought to my daughters. I can sort of understand if someone thinks a plastic screen is cheap, but it fills 2 functions. 1. it doesn't crack if you happen to drop it. 2. less reflections on the screen, which I feel is important for a console.

From what I have read, the overall console (at least the tablet portion) feels quite solid. The kick stand feels somewhat cheap and flimsy. The railings to slot the joycons in are metal in design and the screen itself, whether plastic or not, is capable. The dock is somewhat lacking and the slot to fit the switch in offers minimal protection. Its as if they expect you to use the console primarily as a handheld and the dock occasionally - more to charge.

I do agree with @themcnoisy that I had hoped Nintendo would have made a more competitive 'home' console. I am not arguing its the most powerful handheld console but the reality is, its only competing against the Vita and 3DS in that area. With modern day electronics, its hardly difficult to beat both of those.

Its not 'just' resolution at all but with 4k TV's becoming increasingly popular in peoples homes, it means that the picture will need to be stretched at least 4x its size to fit the screen and in the case of Zelda at 900p, it needs to be blown up 600% to fit. This will show up the lack of Aliasing. Its akin to releasing a 'standard definition' console as everyone is beginning to move into HD. As I said its not just the number of pixels that are being drawn either. Extra power can improve the visual settings (shadows, lighting, particle effects etc), aliasing, draw distances etc. Extra Power can also improve the performance of games without sacrificing visual quality. The more 'simplistic' the visual style the easier it is to hit 60fps.

As a PC gamer, @Therad must know about having to optimise games for the hardware. Whether you can increase the quality in one area without having too much of a negative impact in another. Its not always about pushing up the resolution to the standard of the monitor but what level of shadows, lighting, textures etc and virtually every increase brings down the performance. In some cases, depending on hardware, it maybe that you drop 'resolution' down a notch or two to maintain a minimum frame rate and keep the visual settings at a high-max level but increase the GPU power, you can push the visuals and/or performance further - not necessarily the resolution. Most GPU's are tested at varying resolutions and with the settings maxed out and it seems that most PC gamers want 'native' 4k, at least 60fps and as many of the settings set on Max as possible and are 'not' content to have to play at 1080p (or less). The amount of PC gamers I see mocking the PS4 Pro because it can't (always) offer 'native' 4k. Its even worse when it comes to 'frame-rates' with games that run at 30fps on consoles - more power would mean less performance issues whilst maintaining a decent resolution and visual settings. Power for 'just' resolution isn't necessarily the most important but it is important.

Incidentally, I doubt the Switch would be 'good' for fighting games with its Joycon d-pad - so not good for FPS, probably 3rd person action adventure/shooting games in fact most/all '3D' movement games where one analogue stick controls the camera/aiming etc and the other the movement etc in Split screen. Yes it maybe 'OK' for games like Mario Kart, Mario Bros 2D old school games, relatively simple party games etc. Maybe that's fine and enough for some...

The only reason to spend £20 more on a game that looks and/or performs worse on Switch, really comes down to whether or not you want to be able to play that game on the go. Why buy Skyrim (for example) on Switch? Its not because you want local MP on a rooftop or at a convention? The 'cheaper' console/PC versions will look better (not necessarily just resolution - but draw distance, textures/lighting, foliage etc etc) if not play better too. The only benefit is 'portability'. I bet games like Fifa will offer some form of link to other Switch users - I wouldn't want to play split-screen on a 6.2" screen with half a controller but I doubt it will be as complete or expansive as the 'cheaper' PC/XB/PS version and 'more' fun online. If I was not disabled, I would prefer to meet my mates for a proper kickabout in the park than meet up to hook up a couple of Switches to play Fifa. I would rather play online from the comfort of my home and chat with friends in a Party. I would rather invite friends round than meet up in 'public' to play games and its not as if no console games offer couch co-op...

I've played a friends Switch when remote (not docked) and it is a nice little system. I don't think the build feels any less than a mid range tablet or any other handheld.

I played a little of BOTW and while it looks like an ace game, coming off the PS4 Pro to the Switch, I felt the stepdown was really noticable and I wondered how it would fare when docked on a larger tv. What I think it means for games is that developers are going to have to develop for the Switch rather than offer any kind of port. Power isn't everything but I felt like it was an amazing handheld but a limited home console.

I still quite want a switch - I like portable gaming and I quite like the idea of playing Skyrim for the first time on the move and having that full console experience. But, I think I want to see the quality of third party support first.

Regarding the kickstand, it's also designed to snap off in case you try to dock the system and forget to fold the kickstand back. However, I do think a second kickstand and a different viewing angle would've been more useful. I think that should solve most of the issues people have with the kickstand. And yes, minimal screen protection in the dock is a weird decision..

@KratosMD Doesn't mean the game will be flawed. It just means optimisation, and that takes time. Nintendo is very good at this, their games [read: file size] are very small compared to other games.

I would say most will not be able to play 4k@60fps at full detail. Sure, this should be the gold standard, but most won't be able to achieve that. See: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/
If you look at what people actually have in their PCs, you see that most people have a gpu older than 2 years and those simply can't output the best 'graphics' for the newest games. It is simply the brag factor at play. It is the same as Xbox/PS4 players are doing towards Nintendo fans. I think fans should try and have a more critical eye towards their 'own' brand, because they all do things the makers should be called out for.

Tinkering with graphics settings is something I both miss and don't miss with consoles. Sometimes they have too many options on PC. I wish the consoles had at least some basic settings, something like a slider between performance and graphics. Generally speaking, fast-paced games should have higher frame rates, strategy games is usually better with higher resolution, and the rest should be balanced. And all should have as much details as they can muster at their target.

I do question 4k for most living rooms though. Most people who buy it are going to buy something that is overkill since their sofas are too far away from the TV. Most people just assumes 4k is better since that is what they have been told. When PC-gaming, you sit far closer to the screen, so you will get out the most of your screen.

You can do a simple test to see if your TV are at a optimal viewing distance. Have a 4k (or 1080p if you have a fullHD TV) picture on the screen, not something that moves. Stand close enough that you can easily see individual pixels. Then slowly back off until you can't see them. Here is your optimal viewing distance and where your sofa should be placed, tailor made for your eyes, regardless if you have bad eye-sight or not.

But I would say that even if you don't get the resolution benefit from a 4k, 4k TVs often have better panels in them and tech such as automatically adjust brightness on the screen depending on the surrounding light, they have HDR etc.

_{Language -Tasuki-}

The kickstand should have been centered at least. That is a bit of a bummer.

That was one of my main complaints about carts. Simply put, you can press a DVD/bluRay for cents, while a cart needs to be loaded. Most indies will probably be digital only, but nintendo might subsidize some of them to pad out physical release I imagine. The binding of Isaac is a physical release if I remember correctly.

@Therad I have a 4k TV - in fact its also a HDR TV and whilst 'bigger' than the 'average' at 55" (the average being 48") its still regarded as 'small' for the distance I sit - around 2m away. That being said I can 'clearly' see the difference between 1080p and 4k resolution. Its FAR more obvious with gaming than it is with TV/Film but the difference is still very noticeable.

With TV/Film, the focus is often in the 'foreground' with close ups on the actors/action and often there isn't to much difference between 1080p and 4k. Things like hair for example look sharper - especially when at an angle - not vertical or horizontal. However as objects move further away, at 1080p, the details are lost. Fur/hair/pin-stripes etc stop looking like individual strands - even disappear altogether. A lawn looks 'flat' for example but at 4k still retains its 'texture'.

The overall effect is one that's sharper and more defined with better 'colour' accuracy as less 'mixing' or averaging has to be done. This can be seen more with things like Hair/fur for example. Even clothing like denim which is not all made up of the same 'blue' threads. A blue and white thread will end up looking like a blurry light blue and lose the texture.

In gaming, the difference is far more noticeable because the image is generally much sharper than film. If you own a PS4 Pro, you can play games like Horizon at 4k (albeit checkerboard) and 1080p and the difference is easily obvious. Its more obvious than the difference between 900p and 1080p (unsurprisingly). You don't have to see the individual pixels to get the benefit.

As I said, I have a 4k screen and have SkyQ too. I can compare the 4k films/TV etc to 1080p versions and the difference is obvious. Often I watch something in 4k and see things I didn't notice at 1080p - it may only be small things but they are still noticeable. Whether its a Cats whiskers, the veins in leaves, the individual threads in clothes or more detail and texture in objects further away, its still a noticeable difference. It may not be the 'optimum' difference but its still a very clear difference.

What you are also not taking into consideration though is the upscaling of content and the effect that can have. Something that matches up to the resolution - ie the 720p of the handheld mapping 1:1 with the game looks 'sharper' than 720p on a 1080p screen - even if it was the same size or if you calculated the 'distance' equivalent from a larger screen. People with a Pro and 1080p screen will also tell you that a 'downsampled' higher resolution image is 'better' than a native 1080p image.

Maybe most PC gamers are using 'older' GPU's to game but I bet you if they could afford a better one, they wouldn't hesitate to swap it out. Its not 'cheap' to upgrade their hardware as soon as something better comes out. Last years TitanX cost $1k yet beating in benchmarks by this years 1070 for $400. Does that make those with TitanX's want to upgrade to this years Titan or will they make-do with their current Titan until they can afford an upgrade in 2-3years. In 3-4years time, if they carry out a 'new' survey, I bet most gamers will still have GPU's around 2-3years old meaning that they will have upgraded at some point but still won't have 'the latest and greatest'. I doubt many PC gamers have GPU's that struggle to run games at 1080p with some graphical settings on medium at best at struggle to maintain a 30fps at that level. I bet very few have Radeon 7870's - the equivalent to the PS4 or even a 7770 or 7790, the equivalent to an XB1 GPU - let alone a 'desktop' equivalent to Switch or 4GB RAM at ~26Gb/s bandwidth. I would be very surprised if any offer less than 1Tflop - unless gaming really isn't that important. I bet most of those with 3+yr old GPU's will be thinking or wanting to upgrade in the near future.

Granted not 'everyone' wants or needs a GPU that can handle 4k/60 with the settings at Max. Most probably only have a 1440p monitor at best and don't yet have either the finances or need to upgrade to the 'best' on the market. For some, having to upgrade the monitor, GPU and maybe CPU, RAM, cooling etc is just to much at the moment but I bet given the choice, opportunity etc, they would...

If budget allowed, you wouldn't find many people opting to go out and buy a PC with equivalent specs to a Switch or an XB1/PS4 for that matter for gaming and they certainly wouldn't expect it to last a 'generation' (say 4-5yrs) with that spec.

Ok, so amazingly, I've been given a Nintendo Switch by my work as a thank you for a recent bit of extra effort (clearly my gaming passion is obvious).

My wife is exhilarated at having yet another console in the house.

So I am in a unique position of having a new console but not having paid for it. I'm intrigued if this will make a difference on how I play. For a start, I want to finish Horizon before I move on to Zelda. Still, will crank it out tonight and see what its like.