It's amazing the last GTA is at 75 million shipped.

Except when they launched on the ps4 it was updated graphics... This cannot be said about the switch version

When it launches with the ps360 version im sure youll bend over and take it like a champ for $60...

Better support those last and last last gen games or goodbye third partys

Again, you're talking hypotheticals about a game that hasn't even been announced and likely isn't even in development. You just love thinking you know everything about everything, don't you?

The biggest limiting factor graphics-wise for GTA V on PS3/360 was RAM, which the Switch appears to have much more of. The biggest graphical updates in the PS4/XBO version were the resolution bump, the textures, and additional stuff like more foliage. All of which needed that extra RAM.

And no, if it launches on Switch I'm not buying it. I've already played the game, and the online community has gone down the drain. Portability wouldn't make me buy it, regardless of price. Rockstar should just move on to new games.

Except you don't know how much of Rockstar North is even working on Red Dead Redemption two for all you know they already have another team hard at work on Grand Theft Auto 6.

I'm not even entirely sure that Rockstar North is actually making Red Dead Redemption 2 as opposed to Rockstar San Diego the team that originally made Red Dead Redemption.

Rockstars made up of several teams the same team that actually made Red Dead Redemption is not 100% the same team that made Grand Theft Auto V.

@Ed:

I know that Rockstar has multiple teams.

That doesn't change the fact that their big open world games are always spaced years apart.

Red Dead Redemption, developed by Rockstar San Diego, was released in 2010.

Grand Theft Auto V, developed by Rockstar North, was released 3 years later.

So I'm just going down by their release history. Seeing how Red Dead Redemption 2 is supposed to come out this year (with a delay to 2018 being very likely), it's very possible that we won't see GTA VI until about 2 or 3 years after RDR2 releases.

The 360 is almost 11 years old and that's the comparison for a new console?

But that trade-off is simply the argument of handheld versus Home console dedicated.

This is exactly why I made it very clear that Nintendo's biggest mistake regarding marketing this was even trying to call it a Home console despite ignoring that it was a handheld primarily.

It's GPU CPU motherboard LCD screen and everything else composed of the actual platform was made to be portable in the first place there for it's going to have a limitation on its actual power.

The only reason people are even making these comparisons is because Nintendo themselves have put themselves in this category that doesn't make sense.

Did you see people listing games that were on PlayStation 3 that were not coming to the 3DS?

People are only making this comparison because Nintendo classified this platform as something it clearly is not.....

Consider your argument is no different than saying if I own it PSP and I'm playing something like Metal Gear Solid 1 that the trade-off of portability is pretty awesome yet you're disregarding I cannot play Metal Gear Solid 4 or 5 on the PSP.

Well you're not going to be playing Grand Theft Auto 6 or Red Dead Redemption 2 on the switch I'm sorry but everything about this device screams the PSP Circa 2004.

ie it's only powerful in comparison to the previous system like the PlayStation 2 but in this situation it would be the Wii U...

BUT just like the PSP was not getting Xbox level games like Half-Life or do or Chronicles of Riddick or anything like that the switch is not receiving games like Grand Theft Auto 6 or Red Dead Redemption 2 etc

The argument for the actual trade-off of portability versus performance is actually the same argument for all handheld.

That argument doesn't really make sense for home consoles but it makes absolute sense for handheld if that is what you prefer.

This tells me simply that Nintendo's mistake was how they marketed this platform and that if they simply just came out and said we have the most powerful handheld that is released on the market in comparison to our competitors they would never have been getting these type of comparisons.

I always felt this was going to be a very bad idea if they went towards that direction as consumers are now looking at this device with the glass half empty and not the glass half-full.

No one was saying they were not going to buy the 3DS because it could not play Mass Effect or Assassin's Creed or anything like that it was fully understood that it could not.

But then again Nintendo was not calling that platform a Home console