Nintendo Switch

A more obvious answer would be "Bring back the ability to host our own servers in-game, the hardware is obviously powerful enough."

I don't think mobile games and Xbox games are the same market save for both competing for disposable income. Neither is a fit stand in for the other.

Obviously a sample size of one - you can disqualify just about every comment anyone makes in such a way, so I'm not sure I see the relevance of it in the context of a discussion explicitly mentioning personal experience? It is of course completely possible that he's the only kid in the world who sees it the way he does.

I don't see them as equal in terms of specs, but I'm not interested in the same things as a 10 year old. I asked my stepson about it this morning, and he gave what I think was a pretty well-reasoned argument off the cuff about it, mostly that the games on the iPad are completely different to those on the xbox, and he prefers the games that are on whichever platform they are on, and he likes the portable nature of the iPad, but the xbox because multiple players can play together. Sounded like a more coherent review of the differences than I've read on some websites.

It's not all about specs, it's about gameplay. I'd actually say I've -enjoyed- playing games on the ZX Spectrum more than some PC games (with infinitely better graphics, sound etc), because I enjoy the game more, and because they could never rely on looking flash to engage you, so they -had- to be excellent games. Technically, there's no way that Manic Miner is a better game than all the FPS that my eldest stepson plays, but I'd take Manic Miner any day of the week.

They also compete for a limited amount of time. There are very few console gamers who also don't have a smartphone or tablet with some games on it. They may not explicitly choose to game on their phone over Xbox, and they may acknowledge that they enjoy console games more. But on a given night, maybe they choose to watch tv, and second screen some games on their phone. And if that phone didn't exist, they would have chosen to play on their console. So they aren't equivalent, but they can still substitute for each other, and compete for time/money/attention.

You keep missing the most important point, which is that these games are very fun. That's the reason for someone who hasn't played a Mario before to pick it up.

> As a person who hasn't own a Nintendo console in a decade, what would be my incentive to buy one to play Mario?

Because it's a lot of fun.

> How the heck would I be able to tell that the Nintendo Switch Mario is any different than the ones that came before?

If you haven't played the ones before, then you don't really have a point for comparison. But in that case, the question doesn't seem meaningful at all. Why does it matter that it's different than the previous games, as long as it's fun? You certainly don't have to buy the latest console just to play Mario, you could buy an older console in order to play the older games. Or you could buy the latest console and then pick up older games on the Virtual Console. That said, if you're going to start with Mario (or Zelda or any other Nintendo IP), it's never a bad idea to go with the latest, then if you like it you can pick up the older games. Of course, if you're playing games from older platforms, the visuals won't be as good as the more recent ones. And you may also find that they're not quite as polished as the later ones, because they learn from their older games so that way each new one is better. Most notably, the current level design philosophy they have with Mario started with Super Mario Galaxy 1 (and refined in 2 and then Super Mario 3D Land), so the older games will feel a little different (info about this level design philosophy can be found in this interview - http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/168460/the_structure_o...). And of course there's an obvious important difference between the 2D Mario games and the 3D Mario games.

> If it is in fact different, why the heck isn't it in a different series?

Why? It's not radically different, every Mario game has a lot of commonalities (though each new game tends to introduce something new to the formula). And just in general, why throw away an IP that millions of people love? There's literally no upside to doing that.

Also, if we consider Zelda instead of Mario, even though each Zelda game is a brand new story, they're all connected to each other (a timeline of all games through Skyward Sword can be found from the book Hyrule Historia, or at https://zeldawiki.org/images/7/7c/Timeline_Hyrule_Historia.j...). But there are also really big differences between the games. As one example, The Wind Waker takes place on a series of islands scattered across a large sea, and you have a boat (that talks) that you literally sail from island to island, and with a lot of related mechanics around that. Compare that with the other Zelda games, where every other game takes place mostly on land without any sailing (except for Phantom Hourglass, which was a direct sequel to Wind Waker). Similarly, almost every game follows an entirely different character, but each character is basically a reincarnation of the Hero Of Time (Link).