None of these choices have to do with hardware specs. Certain managers might mention hardware specs in public as a BS justification for why their game Is bombing on PS5 rather than prospering on Switch. None of them will admit to shareholders that their personal biases matter more than maximizing sales and profits.
I do think there's some truth to this to a degree, but I do tend to come at it from a different view.
The common narrative that Nintendo's position was destroyed by the single decision of going with cartridges instead of CDs tends to ignore the relative approaches Nintendo and Sony had towards third-parties. And also vice versa.
As much as people joke about "arrogant Nintendo" or "arrogant Sony", it's hard to argue against Nintendo's arrogance towards third-parties in the NES & SNES heyday. It's also clear that Sony was incredibly developer-friendly and very keen to build good relations.
And of course that had an impact.
Look, this is just how business works.
Part of it really is about relationships, partnerships, and attitudes. Because of course an attitude of, "look, we're building a platform for you to succeed" was met differently to, "we're building a platform for ourselves, we designed it entirely around our flagship game, I suppose y'all can make games for it too if you pony up and follow our rules, but you'll still be competing with us and losing".
The narrative also ignores the effort Sony took to broaden the market, acknowledging that the core demographic was aging and speaking to them directly while attempting to draw in people who had never played games before. Which, funnily enough, is what Nintendo would then go on to focus on.
Anyway, I say all that in a historical context, I have no idea what the situation is
today. But it seems to me that it is unreasonable to think "it's because of hardware" is more logical than "it's because of relationships".
Because think about it. The Switch's lower power profile, in isolation, makes it an easier target. You don't need to go ham on asset detail to stand out, because the bar isn't as high. You still reach an audience of many many millions, with cheaper, shorter development. You can then more easily port your work to the other two because, while the architecture is different, optimisation won't be as much of a pain in the ass.
That isn't how it works in practice. The Switch is "hard to develop for" in comparison to the other two, because it's
not being developed for. It's being
ported to. Its second-class status is given to it by default. Games are made and ported, because it makes financial sense to do so, but there isn't the
will to rally behind it.
For some developers, this makes sense, since their bread-and-butter is cutting-edge experiences.
But for, frickin, Atlas? It makes no godamn sense at all. It absolutely isn't the hardware. It's never been the hardware.
HOWEVER, I doubt Nintendo is the same as it was in those days. Humble pie has been eaten. Maybe the lesson has stuck. I dunno. But it takes time to build relationships, especially when there's historical baggage. I think it's clear the situation is changing, albeit slowly.