PixlBit

Hmmmm. I believe all the Switch has actually proved is that people are down with the NINTENDO console experience on the go. No evidence this would translate to Sony or MS as well.  These are all different brands, Nintendo more different from the other two than the other two are from each other. One of these things is not like the others, so it follows that what works for one of these things would not or might not apply to the others.

I think the way that SonySoft would attack this is to double down on hardware power. But this is a simple minded strategy that has proven to be unsuccessful in the handheld market.  There are other factors to consider like presentation/packaging, ease of use, software environment, brand reputation and perception, etc.  Would they pursue a "badass" presentation and "multimedia center" concept instead of the "light and fun" presentation that, at least I believe, suits the handheld market better? The centerpiece games on the Switch so far are two colorful, lighter hearted games, (BotW relatively so, but LoZ has always been a bit "darker" than Mario) not the DOOMs and Skyrims, which I consider "support" software, like Contra and Castlevania were to Mario and LoZ. They are there to provide the necessary variety alongside the centerpiece games.

Still, I could see this doing well enough to at least not be a financial loss. Switch level success, nah. I think the best approach, economically, would have some kind of WiiU like screen/control that not only transmits games from the consoles, but of course also has their own media drives. But all that other multimedia crap MicroSony like to fool with would be a pointless resource and financial drain. Keep it simple, keep it light. And other things like having different colors that present a less "aggressive" profile.

Or maybe I'm wrong and going in a more aggressive dircection would provide an alternative to Nintendo's profile that would attract its own large audience. But I see Sony taking that direction in the past and it hasn't worked out for them, although I think PSP had a quite a good number of good games.

Oh by no means do I think this would be a Switch level success and absolutely agree that Nintendo's franchises lend themselves better to the handheld market. But I feel that this idea would fit well into where the console market is going. You can get the big beefy console that does 4K at 60 FPS or the tablet you can take anywhere, with the second only losing out on the biggest AAA games (which are becoming less and less appealing each year TBH).

Also in terms of Doom and Skyrim, I would agree that they complement Mario and Zelda, but I think they also are good enough fits for a handheld that games like them could sell themselves on a non-Nintendo platform. Games like Uncharted which are cutscene heavy or Destiny which need online would not be a good fit, but single player games with few cutscenes I think would be a great fit. 

I understand why some people like taking their console games away from the TV, but i am not one of them. I like a good handheld game, but I like them to be different from what I can get on a console for the TV. I like the stuff made for handhelds: smaller games, casual games, games you can play in short bursts. 

I think Machocruz is right about Nintendo being perfectly matched for a handheld experience. MS and Sony maybe not so much. They are too determined to offer the best graphics possible. You just can't do that cheaply on a small device. I can see them coming out with some sort of tablet, though, that might let some games be played remotely. 

The biggest reason handhelds have sort of fallen away is, of course, phones. All the casual fair and shorter games have gone there. No one's going to compete with that. 

I'd get a Sony or Microsoft handheld if there were enough games on them to interest me.  There have been a couple of times I got a non-Nintendo handheld and enjoyed it a lot.  Some examples include the PSP and Neo Geo Pocket Color.

What bothered me with the PSP and the Vita is that Sony forced consumers to buy their proprietary storage that was overpriced. I couldn't justify buying bigger vita memory cards were 50-60 dollars for a comparable SD card that was easily 50% of that price. I would have glady purchased more games if I didn't need to offload games to my PC to make room for new titles. 

Another thing that bothered me was that Vita shoehorned all their fancy controls into games like Uncharted. The cleaning of artifacts by swiping I think on the screen was fun but it felt like it slowed down gameplay. The one thing they did right was portion with the map where you had to raise the Vita to a light to uncover a point was good.  

I definitely agree on both of those counts, especially the memory cards. Switch supporting up to 2TB micro SD I think will really help them in the long term (though hopefully big ones are more affordable sooner rather than later)

I agree on Vita's gimmicks too for the most part. But Tearaway was built on gimmicks and the best game on that platform. Also thought Uncharted's canoe bit was great where you swiped with the back pad while still aiming like a normal shooter.

I'm just wondering what property Sony or Microsoft has that would outsell the actual console at launch, the way BotW did. 

I think they could be successful, but the 110% adoption rate of that game during the Switch's launch is a big part of its success, and as Machocruz said, I'm not sure what non-Nintendo properties would really have the same selling power. 

In any case, I would LIKE for Sony and Microsoft to be competitive in the handheld market and I think your ideas are good, but now I'm really curious: do Sony and Microsoft really have a killer app franchise like that? Personally, I bought my PS4 because of the variety I expected it to have, and I chose correctly, but a lot of the stuff I play wouldn't sell a system on its own.

Well Microsoft used to have two killer apps with Halo and Gears of War, but the Xbox One installments have made the series lose their luster. Gears wasn't even bad, it's just not the leader it once was. MS just seems afraid to take risks with their IPs which is a problem.

Sony is interesting too because Uncharted is theirs, but it's also that because it pushes graphics which you can't do on underpowered hardware. Look at Uncharted Golden Abyss, a strong seller that didn't sell people on the Vita unlike 1-4 which absolutely pushed consoles. Sony's killer apps before were all third party: Final Fantasy VII, Metal Gear Solid, Grand Theft Auto 3. Nintendo just does a better job of retaining IP value than Sony and Microsoft.

Sony actually didn't do too badly in handhelds, especially with the PSP. That said, I liked Sony's handhelds for the niche Japanese games rather than for games like Uncharted. Now those type of games are going to the Switch and PS4. The problem is, Sony's success was built off of third-party games like FFVII and GTA, so the PSP and PSV didn't really have anything to make them stand out compared to Nintendo's offerings. Even GTA didn't keep the PSP from getting hammered by the DS.

As for Microsoft... no, just no. They can't even sort out the Xbox One at this point. A Microsoft handheld would have all the same problems Sony did, only worse. With how dead the Xbox is in Japan, they wouldn't even get most of the niche games that made the PSP and PSV still worth playing after Sony gave up on them.

I think you misunderstand what I'm proposing. I'm saying they should be a portable PS4/XB1, not a new platform. Meaning the Sony one gets all those new niche Japanese games the PSP/Vita did along with its console staples. Meanwhile I think a MS handheld with all its backward compatibility has a strong appeal if you can get a good chunk of 360 and Original Xbox games along with XB1. Maybe not in Japan, but in the rest of the world that's a good value