The switch would do fine with the hardware if they provided enough games. Which they don't. It's looking like it will follow in its predecessor's footsteps, unfortunately. Which means I won't buy one for another 2 years (when there are 5 or 6 games available).
It works, sure. It just isn't very good, because of height (your standard table height is a bit too low to play on it comfortably) and viewing angle.
There's a third party stand for the switch that solves both of these issues (plus allowing you to charge the console in tabletop mode). I'll maybe get that eventually.
The wiiu had huge sales out the gate and we all see how that turned out... And zelda being the only must have till the fall when mario comes out is hardly anything to write home about
Does still solve the overpriced 300$ console when the main competitor has more powerful console that has more to offer in every way.
Does it also solve the ridiculous price that has been put on controller and accessories, or the fact that like the WiiU, Nintendo is stupid and cheap to add an ethernet card for people who prefer the wired connection over the shitty and unreliable wifi.
Does it solve the scratching issues or the console failling and having gaphical glitches and/or dead pixels.
Does it also solve the fact the Switch has no game at all except Zelda, available on its previous console. The Wii U version runs just as good as the switch version and look the same there is really no reason to buy a Switch for the game when you can just get it on Wii U or better yet, help yourself to a free wii u copy because piracy on the Wii u is piss poor easy now.
Does it also solve the fact that in 2017, Nintendo went for a pathetic worthless 32GB of internal memory. Sorry but phones and tablets mostly have that or more than that. Meanwhile Nintendo wants to assume the fact we're gonna buy a SD card because they still are too dumb to realize it's 2017 and that we need 500GB if not 1TB at least for storage.
Then there is stupid garbage flash carts they want with. Yes they can hold more than blu-ray and read it faster, but that's a stupid movie anyway, because they cost a lot more to produce while each blu-ray cost cents and can be mass produced quickly. Meanwhile you need to assemble to flash cart one at a time. Then Sony and Microsoft were small enough to make every game installed on the hard drive. The reading speed of a switch cartbridge is so riduclously slow compared to PS4/X1 reading their games from the hard drive, which its read speed is most faster than cart.
Meanwhile, it doesn't matter, Sony has been on Archival discs since 2014. Not only they can hold more space than a shitty cartbridge (they're supposed to hold about 1TB), but the reading speed will be improved, making it a better option than cartbridges. Even when the technology just come out, those new discs will be cheaper to produce than cartbridges. As for the player, I am pretty sure that since we have not heard since 2014, it's because they might be waiting for lower cost. Or Archival Discs are rumored to be Blu-Ray, so anything on the market might be able to read it.
i thought the dodgy controllers were the biggest flaw, followed by terrible internal memory, general lack of power, scratched up screensfrom the dock and dead pixels. Oh and plastic that gets messed up if you put a skin over it.
It adds more new games?
Third party support for $8? Sounds too good to be true.
It gets rid of trolls? Awesome!
It slices and dices and makes hash browns!?
I wouldn't say that's it's biggest flaw.