I'd say Xbox One underperformed; I wouldn't quite say it failed. I think Switch's instant success just happens to be underscoring how poorly Xbox is doing right now. Considering Switch is coasting to 20 million after a year, and Xbox is squeaking out 30 after ... five?

I bet this is as much a business decision as a creative one. Partnering with Bandai Namco certainly encourages them to bring their games to Nintendo platforms.

ARMS getting best visual design over Persona 5 is a joke. ARMS is quirky and sort of intriguing, but still too generic.

These graphical differences aren't really a big deal. I do wish some games looked less blurry than they do, but I think that partly comes down to some titles being rushed out and not optimized. I don't have problems with Zelda or Mario looking dull in handheld mode, for example.

@quadknight: I think it's just lazy journalism falling for a press release spin. Like, maybe mention it toward the end but don't put it up top, as if it explains away somehow why Xbox still lost on the month of a much-hyped and funded launch.

Why is GameSpot talking about Xbox winning in dollar sales? What kind of actual irrelevant media spin?

@luxuryheart: OK, so, for starters, the Wii U launched well after 3DS did. And died about mid-cycle for 3DS. Point of me saying that being, this whole argument is almost moot, because they didn't coexist in the same way DS did with Wii.

Beyond that, lots of 3DS games held their own. Animal Crossing, Luigi's Mansion, Resident Evil Revelations (which really stressed the 3D effect, may some remember), Phoenix Wright, Pokemon, Fire Emblem: Awakening--all out before Wii U. And games like Pushmo, Mario Kart and New Super Mario Bros. 2 were all out before Wii U, too--and didn't exactly break norms, as the DS and Wii also shared a NSMB game and Mario Kart.

It's not hard to see games like Wooly World or Super Mario Maker were only put on 3DS to make up for losses. They really had no reason to be on 3DS otherwise.

I'm honestly not sure what your confusion is with Switch. Perhaps you don't own one to know, but its draw is its convenience. Plain and simple. It's not about the touch screen at all so I'm not sure where that's entering the debate. It's not 2004 anymore.

@luxuryheart: That graphic doesn't paint a full picture at all. A lot of those 3DS games were made after Nintendo realized Wii U was dead and they needed to justify the cost of development. It's not like DS was ever put in that situation, and GBA was not graphically capable of making that happen. Console games like Hyrule Warriors and such coming to 3DS is not typical at all, historically.

And Smash Bros. on 3DS is different enough to not be redundant. Lots of exclusive features.

I'll give you the Mario games, though. 3D World and 3D Land did riff off each other a little too much.

I think it's proof that, until we see another substantial graphical leap, graphics don't matter as much right now. I don't find the difference between Switch's output and PS4's output as stark as with, say, Wii and PS3. I imagine most casual buyers would agree.

@PSP107: Horizon could win if Zelda and Mario split the vote.