That second-to-last paragraph neatly sums up my question about this change: Why? The clients are already developed. It would seem that the major changes would be needed on the back end, not on our devices. So unless these changes were necessary to support games on systems other than the PS3 -- which still wouldn't explain it from a technical standpoint -- then I'm not pleased with this decision (though from Sony, I'm not surprised).
@Keivz_basic: It's not as odd as you may think. Nintendo consoles never follow the price curve of other consoles, and they're typically more expensive by the time you add all the accessories and controllers you need.
This makes sense. I always think it's a bad decision to pull the rug from under gamers, especially those who are still willing to spend money on your wares. Plus, it will take time for gamers to make the move to the new hardware, so this will smooth out the transition period for Nintendo fans.
@FBohler: Okay that makes sense. But I suspect that the Switch will be more like a successor to the 3DS that has cool TV output and multiplayer features than like a traditional home console. The real selling point is that you don't need separate home + portable systems.
It would be nice if it had massive processing power, but Nintendo hasn't been the high-tech leader for more than a decade now.
@FBohler: I'm not sure if you're new to gaming or the world of electronics, but expecting a handheld system that releases in five months to have the same processing power as a home system that releases in a year is setting yourself up to be disappointed.
theKSMM's comments