This is a topic about Nintendo, the company that sells 32 millions copies of Animal Crossing and 35 of Mario Kart.
Do you think they care about the 200k units sold of whatever third party game, on which they only earn a fraction of what they earn with every copy they sell from an in-house game ?
Too big a risk, imagine it sold like WiiU, it would probably wipe them out.
They could have made it work if they wanted to. These seem like the go to issues or excuses at the time, but looking at the picture as a whole, third parties stance on Nintendo hasn't changed since relations soured in the NES era. The bad blood was potent. It was steadily down hill from there, to the point where Nintendo is now on pace to have the best selling platform ever, selling software in truck loads, and AAA Western third parties are still showing trepidation.That's because Nintendo have been releasing the most weirding hardware. If they just release a PC like console they would get easy ports.
N64 was on cartridges
GameCube had mini disks, but even still it got decent 3rd party support, if it had regular disks it could have got more support.
Wii U, developers had to cater for the weird touchscreen.
Nintendo haven't ever released a normal system that's PC architecture with regular disk drive. So we still don't know the sort of 3rf party support they would get if they were to release a regular console.
This is wishful thinking. Nintendo are perfectly satisfied with running their business this way. Always have been, otherwise, they would have made tremendous efforts to shake things up. But obviously, they haven't.It's all about expansion. Why not both. Why not continue to sell Animal Crossing and Mario Kart, but also provide better 3rd party support by having decent hardware so they can make more money with Call of Duty and FIFA or whatever games that sell a ton of coppies and microtransactions. Most companies aim to expand and look at growth and future potential, and not just be satisfied in doing more of the same.
Nintendo is a popular hardware maker and I'm sure it wouldn't be hard for Nintendo to find a way to sell more coppies and microtransaction if they had a platform where this was possible without taking away from the market they already have.
Finally! Skeletal character deformation for Mario. I've always wanted that.they have nvidia and arm. If they wait enough for a portable they'll be able to have UE5 nanite with DLSS, and even future nanite which might handle skeletal character deformations too.
Red Stinger baby, let's goooooSega will have a console again before that happens.
It's no coincidence they are lagging behind on the technical specs now, as opposed to before... If you thinking diminishing returns is something that doesn't exist, and that it doesn't affect Nintendo, you haven't been paying attention.
They have no reason to stay in the race for horse power.
Wow, thanks for stating the obvious.Doesn't matter how powerful it is because Nintendo will downclock it for battery life anyway. They don't care about competing for the most powerful console they just care about creating compelling games.
Switch is making WAY more money than 3DS X Wii U, so they obviously made the right choice to streamline into one console/portable hybrid devision.One of the smartest parts of the Switch being a "hybrid" is that it effectively blinded fans from the news that Nintendo has given up on dedicated home consoles for good.
If they had ever actually announced that, there would have been war. But instead, fans can just say "The Switch IS a home console! It's both!" even though it can have none of the advantages of dedicated hardware.
None of this is to say that Nintendo made the wrong decision - they were entirely correct with the Switch. But chasing power and home console specs? That's over.
That said, Switch 2 should be far more competitive than Switch 1. Diminishing returns between hardware generations are going to keep working in Nintendo's favour from now on.
Switch is making WAY more money than 3DS X Wii U, so they obviously made the right choice to streamline into one console/portable hybrid devision.
This is the time where it makes the least sense for them to.
Wii U was when they should have gone all out, with Wii mote instead of the game pad and just called it Wii 2.
Now, they are handheld focused, have a modern architecture, and will have access to dlss with their next handheld in an era where engines are more scalable than ever.
They’re not going to move back to home consoles. An ampere based Nvidia handheld will give them more than enough legroom to get ps5 ports, let them make visually stunning first party games and still keep hardware margins high.This is the time it make the most sense as they are at the top of their game. Mindshare for Nintendo is at its highest. It's best to strike while you are hot. Yes you can carry on doing the same thing and still be successful but great businesses think outside the box and think how they can expand and make more money while they are at the top.
They’re not going to move back to home consoles. An ampere based Nvidia handheld will give them more than enough legroom to get ps5 ports, let them make visually stunning first party games and still keep hardware margins high.
It makes zero business sense to adopt a loss lead model.
Not if they charge $500. People wouldn’t buy it for their kids.I already stated PS5 is not selling at a profit. Switch OLED and lack of vanilla Switch price drop has shown people are willing to pay a premium for Nintendo. They can sell a powerful system day 1 with a profit and still sell a Switch 2 with a bigger profit. It's just a way to give options and expand the market just how Microsoft has done with Gamepass, Series S and Series X.
Sony tried to have a successful portable and home console and failed because they spread themselves too thin.3DS was a shit successor to DS, Wii U was a abomination. You can't make comparisons like that.
What if Nintendo made Switch and a PS4 like system. They would have 2 hardwares to sell so more money to be made, as well as more cut from 3rf party ports.
And people will continue buying a Playstation to play these games. They don't think for a second whether the games are available elsewhere. They just buy the new PS, and their couple games.FIFA and COD
You can always cap the framerate using fraps and vsync and it will play well at 30fps. At 30 a lot of games are just ok, the problem is when it goes under that... damn, just can'tthere is definitely some framerate issue with the pc, maybe frame pacing or maybe something else. The n64 was rumored to run some games at 15-24~fps, I had no issue. But gaming at 30fps on pc, is somehow bothersome.
No way in fuck Nintendo splits the market. Why would they spend money to design hardware just for publishers to port games from other consoles? They care about selling systems and their games and the margins on that activity.Here me out.
Most people expect the successor of Switch to be Switch 2.
And I agree, but I think Nintendo should go the dual console route.
We should get
Switch 2 will be your normal successor, similar to the Switch it can be docked. Will support 720p handheld mode, and 1080p docked.
Switch 2X should be a console only super powered console. All Switch 2 games will be compatible with 2X however they will have higher framerates, RT, 4k support. But the extra thing they can do is have 2X exclusive games that are not held back by portable power. This way they would get all the bug 3rd party games releasing on 2X. Nintendo themselves don't even need to make 2X exclusive games they can support regular Switch 2, but have 2X enhancements such as 4K and RT. All Switch 2 games will be cross buy and work on 2X only we would have some 2X exclusives.
Switch 2 will continue Nintendo's domination of the kids, and casual market.
Switch 2X will bring back the 3rd party Devs that need more power and expand to hardcore gamer audience.
Sony tried to have a successful portable and home console and failed because they spread themselves too thin.
I think Nintendo is much better off focusing all of their efforts in one area. It's 2021, not the Gameboy and NES era.
I can see there being some market for some powerful home Switch line that scales like the XSS to the XSX, but I don't think Nintendo's that interested.
And people will continue buying a Playstation to play these games. They don't think for a second whether the games are available elsewhere. They just buy the new PS, and their couple games.
Not if they charge $500. People wouldn’t buy it for their kids.
$299 might be getting them profits atm but it’s a price that’s attractive to customers. Nintendo knows what they are doing business wise.
It's not a terrible idea from a gamer's perspective. I wouldn't be opposed to it. I don't think Nintendo would do it though. It's not like them.But I didn't say Nintnedo should make a portable. I said they should make a hybrid system like Switch as well as a dedicated powerful console.
And they wouldn't spread themselves goo thin as I have stated in my OP Nintendo would be making games mainly for the hybrid console and just simply have extra bells and whistles (4K, RT) a for their dedicated consoles when those games are played on that system. So Nintnedo wouldn't be making 2 Mario Karts one for each system they would be making only 1 Mario Kart which is enhanced when played on the dedicated console.
In business it's about making money.So after a couple of decades of proving that their game designs aren't hampered by the teraflops, Nintendo should build a 500w monstrosity just so that OP can play Mario and Assassin's Creed or some bullshit on the same box.
And it took tremendous efforts over several generations to achieve this, which is not even taking the majority of the share.then Microsoft entered the market and took some of that marketshare.
Yes, because as I said earlier, Nintendo design their console around their internal need and don't care at all about third parties. It has always been the case since the NES. Third parties are an afterthought. Back in the NES/SNES days, they had contracts to force third parties to stay on their consoles. But once this changed, and because of how they designed their consoles, they naturally left.Nintnedo hasn't even tried to see if they can, GameCube was gimped by mini disks, Wii was too weak and had motion controls, Wii I was too weak and had a weird 2nd screen.
Not going to happen. It would never get the 3rd party games. Which 3rd party is going to want to port their game to a completely different architecture on a tiny install base?
Nintendo would waste time and resources developing a 2nd piece of hardware that is significantly different.
Ahh yes, about making the money. Nintendo has completely failed on that front. They should definitely change course and just staple every feature from Xbox onto their next system. Then straight to making electric cars... I mean, Teslas run some okay games and they are making like a billion a quarter and rising. Could you imagine an entire Nintendo car? How many billions!In business it's about making money.
Nintnedo are in the game industry. And one of the best ways to make money is from getting a cut from your 3rd party partners. They can continue there game design power is nothing to do with it.
It wouldn't tho. ...because that means Nintendo would have to port their games to this new architecture.The architecture would be similar to a gaming PC.
Ahh yes, about making the money. Nintendo has completely failed on that front. They should definitely change course and just staple every feature from Xbox onto their next system. Then straight to making electric cars... I mean, Teslas run some okay games and they are making like a billion a quarter and rising. Could you imagine an entire Nintendo car? How many billions!
I am grateful we are having this intelligent business conversation.
It wouldn't tho. ...because that means Nintendo would have to also port their games to the architecture.
The Switch runs on ARM. Switch 2 likely to follow suit. Now they are going to have 2 different architectures again? Never going to happen.
I like your idea, but that super power console will not succeed. Nintendo has been away from AAA gaming development for 18 years. I don't think they will be able to suddenly manage USD 200 million projects.
ARM isn't x86. PS5/Xbox are x86. Switch is ARM. PS5/Xbox use aMD gpus. Nintendo would indeed use Nvidia. Emulators don't just appear out of thin air day 1 and work. Nevermind the cost and development time needed to support what will surely be a tiny install base. Not going to happen.Nintnedo would be using NVidia.
I'm sure NVidia would be able to come up with a solution where they can emulate and enhance their handheld architecture on their dedicated powerful console. The architectures can share some similar components but not all the same. There are even rumours that ARM will be able to do big things in the future when it comes to power. NVidia now owns ARM. Even the same architecture from their handheld may even be able to run way better without thermal and battery limitations. Just a more powerful chip but same architecture.