Absolutely agree...
...but!
Sony had just sold folks a PS4 Pro 4 years earlier. This reset the clock in a number of ways. It slowed down first party development, as Sony needed to deliver 4k experiences on the platform, and it tapped the users who are usually first to move to the next console.
Sony likely didn't have much of a choice but to continue to support the PS4 for an extended amount of time, simply due to dev resources and need to recoup costs, and Sony had established the idea of a reduced/enhanced experience across console versions. What started as a 4k/HD division because 4k60/4k30/1080p30.
It's impossible to actually tell how well this gambit worked for Sony overall, as demand for game consoles was at a fever pitch by the time the PS5 launched, and millions of ex-gamers and new gamers suddenly couldn't leave their house, and the chip shortage constrained Sony's ability to deliver any system period.
Sony could deliver the same game across 3 consoles that were all with 2.5x of each other, and then use that to drive console sales to their OMGGRAPHIX core market. I find it harder to believe that Nintendo could deliver the same game across 2 consoles that are over 6x performance difference between them, and then use that to drive console sales to their "i don't care how dogshit it looks, i wants pokeman" market
But maybe that is a lack of imagination on my part.
I will say, gently, that the same crowd who seem to think that Nintendo can and will launch the console quickly, with a cross-gen library, are the often the same folks who seem to be most optimistic about the device's core performance. I don't care if it's the TARDIS, if the library is substantially cross-gen, then you and David Tennant are going to be playing lightly uprezzed Switch games together.
The PS4 still had legs by the time the PS5 came out and it made sense to run on them. But I feel like the move here is, instead, to simply run out the Switch's legs entirely before moving on. I could be wrong!