Discussion Nintendo should make a powerful console.

[shoptroll]

That’s just… bad business. Sony and MS aren’t gaming companies. Gaming is just part of their portfolio. They sell at a loss to make money from third parties and subscription services. It is another source of revenue for them.

If one day, Sony and MS don’t find it a profitable avenue - they can drop it and still continue on.

Nintendo is a toy company. Their business is hardware and software. Why would they sell at a loss? Especially when they rely on their first party and dev partner studios.

The Dreamcast failure was probably a huge wake up call for Nintendo. That system needed to sell one or two games for each buyer and the games never arrived to form a broad enough library to ensure that.

Nintendo was able to survive the Wii U flopping (barely 3-4 million more units sold LTD than Dreamcast) due to a combination of the system hardware being profitable (or very close to it) and fixing the 3DS situation prior to launch.

If the 3DS had failed too things would be very very different right now.

If power isn't the answer for Nintendo's third party woes, then what is?

Not giving a crap about third parties.

No seriously. Please define “third party” because all I’m reading in this thread is “my favorite big western developer who only makes big AAA games” when the reality is that there are thousands of little indie developers who are supporting this system.

“Third parties” absolutely could support Switch but it’s not cheap to do so. They can’t take mega-hit from the PS5/XSX flip a couple of bits in UE4 and have a working game on Switch. So that means you either have to fork out extra cash to do it right / potentially rebuild for Switch from the ground up or you make something unique for Switch.

This isn’t Nintendo’s problem to solve.

 

[Stephen 776]

Personally speaking, most games I play don't keep up with hardware. Of the 60+ games I played last year, only four needed ps4 specs or higher to run (yakuza K2, yakuza 6, ff7r, and tlou2). The idea of spending $500 just to access a PS5-esque machine and then turn around to play Atelier or Bustafellows or Danganronpa or Pokémon, etc. given those games don't push graphical limits anyway is very unappealing. Even Steam Deck is asking too much; I don't want to spend $400+ for a machine (which I don't think even works with my tinyhands) just to play something like Hashihime of the Old Book Town in a form factor more ideal than my laptop.

More than anything, I find this conversation frustrating since it starts from the perspective that there's no value in a more budget and/or handheld/hybrid console and that "more power" is universal to everyone's gaming experience which just isn't true. The Playstation/Xbox/high end PCs already serve technophiles and have a plethora of games; ain't that enough? Why does all hardware need to be practically the same modulo a few first party titles?

Also "why can't Nintendo do both" just willfully ignores how consolidation streamlined their business. Other folks explained that at length, so there's nothing I can add.

 

[Abzeronow]

If power isn't the answer for Nintendo's third party woes, then what is?

Moneyhats. Also Nintendo is getting pretty good third party support for a relatively underpowered console. Drake should help close gaps even more.

 

[Clix]

The Dreamcast failure was probably a huge wake up call for Nintendo. That system needed to sell one or two games for each buyer and the games never arrived to form a broad enough library to ensure that.

Nintendo was able to survive the Wii U flopping (barely 3-4 million more units sold LTD than Dreamcast) due to a combination of the system hardware being profitable (or very close to it) and fixing the 3DS situation prior to launch.

If the 3DS had failed too things would be very very different right now.


Not giving a crap about third parties.

No seriously. Please define “third party” because all I’m reading in this thread is “my favorite big western developer who only makes big AAA games” when the reality is that there are thousands of little indie developers who are supporting this system.

“Third parties” absolutely could support Switch but it’s not cheap to do so. They can’t take mega-hit from the PS5/XSX flip a couple of bits in UE4 and have a working game on Switch. So that means you either have to fork out extra cash to do it right / potentially rebuild for Switch from the ground up or you make something unique for Switch.

This isn’t Nintendo’s problem to solve.

This. There is plenty of third party on the Switch. I would even argue it’s pretty damn great. What you said nails it. People are talking about very specific third party games from AAAA publishers.

I have 200 games on Switch. I ain’t thirsty. I haven’t even gotten to play half of them, probably more.

 

[MSnap]

This. There is plenty of third party on the Switch. I would even argue it’s pretty damn great. What you said nails it. People are talking about very specific third party games from AAAA publishers.

I have 200 games on Switch. I ain’t thirsty. I haven’t even gotten to play half of them, probably more.

The third party hesitation that bothers me is the Japanese ones that know people want their games on Switch and go “oh you mean PC”

 

[Lant_War]

I don't really care either way. If they make a power-focused console I'll be interested in which games they choose to show it off, if they don't I'll just keep being interested in which games they're making.

 

[Spork4000]

I would love a Nintendo console with a super powerful ARM chip and a 3060 ti equivalent GPU, but I think history has shown that I'm a rare bird in that.

 

[Clix]

The third party hesitation that bothers me is the Japanese ones that know people want their games on Switch and go “oh you mean PC”

Oh for sure. Yakuza remaster would be golden. That one I don’t get. Even Wii U got a couple

 

[bixente]

I'm playing this fantastic roguelite atm, Revita. It's out on Steam and Switch. Not the PS4, PS5 or Xbox ecosystems. There's many, many other games like this that have skipped the PlayStation in particular, and I love the Switch catalogue of games. I'm not missing Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed Vallhalla.

Regarding a more powerful Switch, the nVidia leak suggested there'll be 12 streaming multiprocessors compared to the Switch's 2 on the next system's custom chip. Along with DLSS and raytracing.

 

[curl-6]

There isn't room on the market for three similar consoles to do well, there never has been.

Nintendo are thriving by doing their own thing where they don't have to compete with bigger corporations that can out-spend them.

 

[Spyder]

yawn

 

[Supreme Overlord]

So there's a lot of oversimplification going on here to drive a point. Suffice it to say, Nintendo's gone through the research and analytics for this; this doesn't mean they always make the correct call, but they've put much more time, money, research, and consideration into the subject than has happened -- including myriad factors not even considered -- here.

Because you're not entirely wrong. Some of these decisions did have negative effects on the consoles, but the thing is, these weren't the only factors at play. Overall perception, for instance, and conflict between companies, as well, played a role in some of it. How often have you heard of Nintendo's history of pushing away third parties or the refrain that "Nintendo is for kids," for example?

Now, you also neglect to consider other market factors. You contend that putting out raw power will help sell more, but this ignores the question of cost and of pricing out potential customers (especially as costs in general go up all around).

What do you suppose is propelling the Switch in its console apotheosis, if raw power is the answer to everything?

If Nintendo made a powerful console, they'd get the same third party support as Sony and Microsoft, which means more people would buy the console.

The thing is, there's absolutely no guarantee of this. Different companies are going to have different goals, seek different audiences, be willing to spend different amounts of money, consider different costs in various forms, and so forth; even then, other console holders will seek to manipulate the course of things and are able to fall back on other sources of revenue to assist in this.

The market has formed different groups over its history, and formed different narratives, all of which will alter how the different companies will approach any given situation.

Even between Microsoft and Sony, third party parity hasn't exactly been a thing, with one getting instances of support the other lacks; even Nintendo, for all its lack of raw power, is receiving support not afforded its competitors.

Power might help in some, or even many, situations, but this power is not some guaranteed panacea to the question of third party support.

What is true though is that a common point between these two failures is that they were both consoles aimed at being super powerful. Meanwhile the second they dropped the power angle, they sold 250 millions consoles.

Sure, they sought an untapped market with the Wii, and were met as such with grand success. We can't say with any guarantee that power on its own is going to cause problems -- and, really, we might be better off pointing to factors that might be introduced in pursuit of that power --, but it's clear considering and leveraging different market considerations can be a boon.

Even then, there's still potential for error. The Wii led to the Wii U, and there were many factors that played into that debacle, from decisions through the Wii era to hardware and marketing choices with its successor.

Why have Nintendo's handhelds been more successful than their home consoles?

The handhelds typically sell magnitudes more than the home consoles on virtue of being exponentially more powerful, I suspect.

This is actually an excellent counterpoint to this thread, as you can see how different market factors combine to propel these lower-powered devices to success. And consider Sony attempts at entering this market, with all the power it promised, yet all to fail.

 

[Caviar]

Nintendo has found a niche where they excel, and are absolutely dominating in that space. Nobody else on earth can touch them. Much larger companies have tried and failed. I honestly think it would be insane for Nintendo to de-prioritize what they're doing with the Switch in an attempt to directly compete in a lower-margin market with hugely successful and established products from Sony and Microsoft. Why would they do that?

Have you seen what it's taken Microsoft to be able to compete with Sony? They've invested billions into a gaming service that's healthy and growing, but probably still losing them money. They spent a ton of time and money in 2001-2009ish trying to convince people to buy Japanese games on Xbox instead of Playstation and nobody did. And they can do that because it's they're a trillion-dollar company. "Nintendo can afford to blow all their money for 50 years on a failed product line" is not a good business pitch. Suggesting, without any supporting evidence, that alienating existing customers to attract AAA 3rd party support would increase hardware sales, is not a good business pitch. Counter-take, publishers who can release their games on Switch, but don't, are making a much dumber, more nonsensical decision than Nintendo is by not releasing a Gamecube 2. For example, Rockstar is leaving money on the table by not releasing GTA5 on Switch and have more to answer to investors for about that than Nintendo does.

Sure is annoying to always be hearing consolebros tell you all about how portable hardware is inherently less valuable, gimmicky, and unappealing though. Acting like the only reason why people like Nintendo portables is because they have no other options. FOH. Tired of "handheld ghetto" arguments.

 

[Clov]

Nintendo should make a console that makes me coffee and does my taxes

 

[Imitatio]

What this industry really doesn't need is yet another locked down, pre-built "desktop" PC (aka home console) aiming for basically the same demographic as the others.

It's been roughly two decades and some seemingly still can't accept that Nintendo clearly don't want the above either. Nor should they, given the direction they have been heading into these last two decades.

 

[PixelKnight]

In no particular order:

1. Software that people want (Animal Crossing, Pokémon, etc)
2. Consistent software releases compared to their console
3. Often cheaper
4. Mostly well made & throughout products compared to their consoles
5. Able to tap into other audiences which their consoles are spotty on
6. Outside the PSP no one really could match them in the space

Just to add a few more to the list of why Nintendo have dominated the portable space for 33 years now-

7. Portables are a personal device so it’s easier to sell more than one per family.
8. Convenience. Some people have dead time on a commute or don’t want to take up the living room to play games, especially if they live with their family or flat mates.
9. There’s a synergy between smaller indie games and portables, particularly those with a short gameplay loop.
10. The closest a portable came to shaking Nintendo in the portable space was Monster Hunter on the PSP in Japan. But the reasons why it was so popular, years later, weren’t unique to Sony, so as soon as Nintendo’s portables could run it, the MH portable games moved to the hardware line that’s more consistent when picking a target platform the next game. Which is one reason why third party AAA games often don’t target Nintendo consoles.
11. A Nintendo portable’s only purpose is play. That’s why parents are happy to buy them for kids, as it’s something they can do quietly for a bit rather than take up the living room, and is a safer use of screen time than the internet. The Switch just has the advantages of both portables and home consoles as a hybrid, in that your kids can use it quietly on one evening but then you can all play together the next.
12. The big software on home consoles has moved more and more towards adults over the years. This hobby started out as one for kids, but as adults want adult themed stuff that’s rated for adults, it’s no wonder young kids end up with the handheld with Pokémon when the sales rack of home console games looks like a load of 18-rated violence. Because parents aren’t blind to seeing that the industry wants to sell to 20-35 years-old guys rather than kids.


I think @Tentacle-tropes points 1 and 5 are huge though. The idea that not everyone wants the latest big, graphical intensive, explosive game to play on their home cinema system is something often people who don’t use portables struggle to understand. They didn’t get why people are happy to sit either curled up on the sofa or unwinding on the train after work, tapping away at Animal Crossing, Pokemon, Professor Layton or tons of rpgs where they are often relaxing timesinks over action games. They often don’t get that there’s other markets rather than the one the latest bloodsoaked action game is aimed at either. ‘Why aren’t these people just using phones for throwaway games’ was a common refrain when the last days of the DS/PSP and the early days of the Vita/3DS were facing down the App Store, ignoring that kids wouldn’t get hand-me-down £600 smartphones as consoles for a long time, and that smartphone didn’t have Pokemon on it, or the games that commuters like me wanted to play.

When the App Store launched, it wiped out a lot of the portable stuff you see for free on phones now- pretty much all the puzzle games. And that’s totally understandable- why would you pay £25 for a puzzle game on a portable when there’s hundreds on your phone for peanuts. Pretty much everyone thought that would kill portables. That’s why the 3DS went big on trying to find something that phones couldn’t replicate, leaving it slightly floundering at launch. But, 15 years later, Nintendo portables are still co-existing with the App Store. And ultimately it comes down to people being happy to pay for specialised for play devices with the software they want, that are pitched as wholesome stuff for families/kids, that are convenient and fit into their lifestyle, that are fun, that don’t have a hundred other tools and functions and alerts competing for their time.

The ‘but a generation behind! More power!’ argument falls apart when you realise people chose the Nintendo portable back when it only had games in four shades of grey and green while the Game Gear had a palette of four thousand colours. Because power isn’t the only thing worth considering when settling on the right mix for your platform that is (at least partially in the case of the Switch) appealing to the handheld market.

 

[BGBW]

Switch is a powerful handheld console. You could say it's the first time they've really pushed for power when it comes to their handheld consoles while still trying to maintain the most important aspect - battery life. Weird thread.

 

[PixelKnight]

Switch is a powerful handheld console. You could say it's the first time they've really pushed for power when it comes to their handheld consoles while still trying to maintain the most important aspect - battery life. Weird thread.

I think it’s one of those things where the compromise of a portable in weight, size, power, screen, battery life etc is an interesting one- there’s always a trade-off, but Switch definitely leans towards power more than any previous Nintendo portable.

I suspect many people that just want a powerful home console under the TV, where size and battery aren’t an issue, see that home cinema setup as ‘default’ and portables as inately compromised in a way that default isn’t, as it’s own disadvantages are irrelevant to them. Personally I see having to play in a particular location, with a massive device attached to a screen and taking up a whole room, abandoning convenience and portability, as a different kind of compromise, with the Switch as an elegant third compromise between them. It’s just a matter of which compromises we see as either irrelevant, critical or unattractive I guess.

 

[BradenAndEggs]

Nintendo isn't trying to do what Sony and Microsoft are trying to do. Also, why would they push for power when pushing for versatility was clearly the right call for them?

 

[Irene]

I kind of like how each of the big three nowadays have their own niche: Switch with the handheld market, Xbox with game pass, and PlayStation with their more traditional approach. Granted, I also think it’s necessary for the ambitions of Sony and Microsoft to overlap somewhat, since competition is good, but personally I’m fine with things being the way they are.

 

[Thraktor]

What this industry really doesn't need is yet another locked down, pre-built "desktop" PC (aka home console) aiming for basically the same demographic as the others.

It's been roughly two decades and some seemingly still can't accept that Nintendo clearly don't want the above either. Nor should they, given the direction they have been heading into these last two decades.

Two decades? We're quick to forget that the Wii U, the console right before the Switch, was a home console which in many respects was the most powerful console on the market when it launched. Nintendo also really pushed the ability to play western AAA games like Mass Effect and Batman when they launched it. Of course the Wii U failed for a variety of reasons, but being able to play AAA third party games wasn't one of them.

People seem to ascribe the Switch's success purely to the form factor, but the form factor is really just providing the path of least resistance for people who may be interested in buying it. The biggest reason the Switch has been successful is quite simple: it plays Nintendo games. In previous generations they've had to separate their development resources across two different platforms, but with the Switch they can provide a single platform which someone can buy into and get access to 100% of Nintendo's games. Incidentally, they chose pretty much the most powerful hardware they could get when they were doing this.

Nintendo has established a platform with a complete monopoly on people who want to play Nintendo games, but if they can also target people who want to play Call of Duty or Elden Ring or Assassin's Creed, without having to separate their own development resources again, then they would absolutely do that. This is the beauty of the Switch as a platform, not just as a single gaming device, in that they can release other form factors without having to develop software separately for each device. They've shown this with the Switch Lite (which many people insisted would never exist), and there's absolutely nothing stopping them releasing a home console in the Switch family, and nothing stopping that being a "powerful" console.

Now, that's not to say I expect them to release something in the vein of an Xbox Series X, but something more like a Series S, which can play the latest AAA games without pushing the envelope too far, could be feasible. The key limitation (aside from an unwillingness to take a loss on the hardware, which would make a Series X style device extremely expensive) is the need to make development across the devices in the Switch platform as smooth as possible. If they made something like a Series X, then it would be difficult to really make use of that performance without higher quality assets, updated lighting systems, etc., which would add to the development cost and diminish the benefit of having a single platform to develop for. With something more like a Series S, they could make reasonably good use of the hardware just by increasing the resolution, LOD, shadow quality, foliage density, etc., which have a low cost in development resources (mostly tweaking parameters) but a relatively high return in visual quality.

 

[Shinespark]

A Nintendo console on par with the PS5 and Xbox Series X would most likely do very well. Imagine a Nintendo console with amazing first party AND third party games, and having Mario and Zelda in 4k and 60 FPS.

I feel like they're going from a commonly accepted premise (more third parties would publish games on their console if it was more powerful), but you're making several leaps in areas where questions remain. For instance, publishers/developers have questioned the business sense of putting games on Nintendo consoles bc there's not enough demand. Nintendo could make a PS5 clone that is less popular than the Switch, and all these third parties would hem and haw about the audience size.

At the end of the day, Sony and Microsoft have spent decades building relationships with certain developers and Nintendo has worked with others. That's what impacts third party support more than anything and new hardware won't undo decades of history.

Thank you. Corroborating these two points:

- As I said in the recent joke thread about uber-realistic graphics on Switch, Nintendo enjoys working within some hardware limitations. Not displaying super-detailed graphics leaves an "imaginary gap" to the players, and Nintendo likes that. People inside Nintendo still actively ask themselves if they need the HD graphics provided by the Switch - do they need a Nintendo BoxStation 5X for the next Mario or Animal Crossing?

- From a business perspective, we should note a lot of Nintendo games have a different audience than PS5/XB games. A Nintendo BoxStation 5X would probably be too expensive for the millions of people buying Animal Crossing and Ring Fit (two games which, as said, would gain nothing by running on a more powerful machine). And the millions of people buying Pokémon and Animal Crossing enjoy playing on the go. We also have millions of people buying Mario Kart who enjoy racing with friends both on TV and during a picnic thanks to the Joycons.

- Back during the GC era, when Nintendo had the second most powerful console around (and it was close to the 1st place), top people on Nintendo were saying things like




These are not one or two random devs. These are the President, the soon-to-be-President and the leader of the software development teams, sharing the same overall message in three different contexts. (And no, I'm not buying that mini-DVDs were chosen only to send a message - I'm pretty sure there were some other pragmatical reasons here. And yet, while I'm sure Miyamoto is not telling the whole truth here, I think he is not lying either).

So I think it's pretty clear that even when Nintendo could be focused on graphics, they weren't interested in the idea. But even without Yamauchi, Iwata and Miyamoto flat-out saying this, most Nintendo games don't need a super-powerful machine. On the other hand, the uniqueness provided by the Switch suits a lot of these games.

Additionally, a hypothetical Nintendo BoxStation 5X would not see plenty of third party support -- for a year the Wii U was the most powerful console on the market, and yet some key third party games (Tomb Raider or Dark Souls 2 come to mind) skipped the machine. Notably, some Japanese third party games which could easily run on the Switch are still only released on PS5/XB (like SMT Soul Hackers 2), or in the best case scenario Switch gets a laughable Cloud version (Kingdom Hearts 1-2 which, let's all remember, were PS2 games). If you think third party support on Switch is someone lacking, fine -- I get where you are coming from and to an extent, I agree. A more powerful hardware would not be the solution though.

Fantastic post, you've really illustrated how suggesting Nintendo "just make a powerful console" has way more barriers than implied. I'll also add that it glosses over decades of relationship-building by Sony/Microsoft that wouldn't change with a new piece of hardware.

I think my biggest issue with OP's suggestion is that it's unclear to me why Nintendo shouldn't focus on increasing power for their successor enough to satisfy the enormous cohort of developers that drove the 110m sales (and counting) and instead should pursue a tiny group of narrowly focused developers. Nintendo's priority should be everyone who has driven them to the third most popular console of all time, and maximum power isn't going to impress them.

 

[Caviar]

Two decades? We're quick to forget that the Wii U, the console right before the Switch, was a home console which in many respects was the most powerful console on the market when it launched. Nintendo also really pushed the ability to play western AAA games like Mass Effect and Batman when they launched it. Of course the Wii U failed for a variety of reasons, but being able to play AAA third party games wasn't one of them.

It's extraordinarily disingenuous to suggest that the Wii U ever had any intention of competing for power, or that ports of 5-year old previous-gen games were at all indicative or predicative of its ability to attract 3rd party AAA support.

People seem to ascribe the Switch's success purely to the form factor, but the form factor is really just providing the path of least resistance for people who may be interested in buying it. The biggest reason the Switch has been successful is quite simple: it plays Nintendo games.

There are 11 distinct platforms that play Nintendo games and they range in sales from 13m to 154m. Surely it's not that simple. There are individual games on Switch that have outsold entire consoles. How can Animal Crossing: New Horizons outsell every previous AC game combined if the main appeal is quite simply that it's a video game made by Nintendo? All AC games are video games made by Nintendo. Only one of them sold 37m copies.

Nintendo games are appealing of course, but here's a very, very strong point of correlation - Nintendo hardware sells literally an order of magnitude better when the hardware itself is appealing too. Very few people feel trapped or stuck buying a DS or a Switch because it's the only place they can play Nintendo games, and the people who do are almost entirely contained to enthusiast message boards.

 

[Beard]

I don’t think Nintendo needs a powerful system, but it would be pretty cool if Switch 2 was around the same power level as an Xbox Series S, when docked.

 

[Leo]

I don't see how Nintendo games would benefit that much from a PS5 level hardware, and I don't think Nintendo's internal teams are big enough to handle developing games with that level of fidelity in a consistent basis to carry the hardware like they do now.

 

[marmoka]

As long as the Switch successor keeps the hybrid philosophy, with retrocompatibility and has an economic price (well, 350 euros is not cheap but it's better than 500) and has enough power to port PS5/XSX games without issues, even if their resolution and performance is lower like in the actual Switch, fine for me.

I'd like Nintendo to make more powerful consoles tbh, but I don't want to pay huge prices for it. If they are able to make a console that works and coexists with the other two despite of its less power, enough.

 

[Beanstar40]

I would like that, i dont get why there is a lot of pushback to that idea

 

[Shinespark]

I would like that, i dont get why there is a lot of pushback to that idea

I think the pushback is the implication that a) the Switch wasn't a powerful console when it launched in 2017, b) the successor won't be significantly more powerful, and c) Nintendo should make a non-hybrid console again. The first two implications are a reach. The third seems like a bad idea that wouldn't result in the benefits claimed.

 

[Tentacle-tropes]

The Dreamcast failure was probably a huge wake up call for Nintendo. That system needed to sell one or two games for each buyer and the games never arrived to form a broad enough library to ensure that.

Nintendo was able to survive the Wii U flopping (barely 3-4 million more units sold LTD than Dreamcast) due to a combination of the system hardware being profitable (or very close to it) and fixing the 3DS situation prior to launch.

If the 3DS had failed too things would be very very different right now.

the were able to survive because the 3DS carried that generation on its back after a very rocky start. A combination of 3DS’ initial bad start plus WiiU being unprofitable intially (especially the cheaper variant) meant the company was in the red for their first time ever.

 

[Spyder]

This isn't worth discussing tbh

 

[Galgavias]

Would it be nice for Nintendo games to be on cutting edge hardware? Absolutely.
Do Nintendo need cutting edge hardware for their games to look good and play well? No they don't.
Do Nintendo need cutting edge hardware to make big profits? Absolutely not.

Nintendo I think are in a current sweet spot brought on by the diminishing returns of high-end graphics. The gap between the Switch and current gen consoles is nowhere near as pronounced as the Wii and PS360. Plus with mobile gaming being so much bigger people are much more tolerant of low-end graphics in their games now. People don't need their games to be super shiny and new. Good performance and a strong art-style are all you really need these days.

Regarding Nintendo's future I think if they can hold out a bit longer they should be able to get a new Switch similar in power to a Xbox Series S, and that should see them very much in good stead.

 

[Crusters]

I think the pushback is the implication that a) the Switch wasn't a powerful console when it launched in 2017, b) the successor won't be significantly more powerful, and c) Nintendo should make a non-hybrid console again. The first two implications are a reach. The third seems like a bad idea that wouldn't result in the benefits claimed.

The opportunity cost is just unjustifiable.

 

[fiendcode]

Yes they should. So long as you can take it with you.

 

[Clix]

Would it be nice for Nintendo games to be on cutting edge hardware? Absolutely.
Do Nintendo need cutting edge hardware for their games to look good and play well? No they don't.
Do Nintendo need cutting edge hardware to make big profits? Absolutely not.

Nintendo I think are in a current sweet spot brought on by the diminishing returns of high-end graphics. The gap between the Switch and current gen consoles is nowhere near as pronounced as the Wii and PS360. Plus with mobile gaming being so much bigger people are much more tolerant of low-end graphics in their games now. People don't need their games to be super shiny and new. Good performance and a strong art-style are all you really need these days.

Regarding Nintendo's future I think if they can hold out a bit longer they should be able to get a new Switch similar in power to a Xbox Series S, and that should see them very much in good stead.

The issue, when Switch was announced in late 2016 and then price revealed in January, 300 bucks for the size, battery life, weight and internals was cutting edge. You had the Shield and Win... very expensive, battery life that was akin to the Game Gear, possibly worse, and heavy and bulky.

But it seems people have been spoiled by smart phones with yearly refreshes and then PS4 Pro and One X being a thing. It is the nature of consoles. Device came out early 2017, which means everything was finalized early 2016, possibly late 2015. But one year later, people were at the old site already asking for a revision.

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

I really see no point in dredging up Nintendo's hardware failures from over two decades ago and twisting them into what if scenarios in order to prove a point about what they should do in the future. The line of argumentation here has so many fallacies, I'm not sure if there's names for all of them.

 

[Blue Monty]

The third party hesitation that bothers me is the Japanese ones that know people want their games on Switch and go “oh you mean PC”

The thing that Nintendo has if they don't fuck up the next console revision is a total dominance of the Japan market (and also most Eastern Asia), 3rd parties tried to save PS4 and they couldn't , right now it's Switch or go full on West competing with Western AAA for almost all the big JP companies and for most of them if they go West they will fail, not all can do as well as Capcom. It's just a question of time for the big 3rd parties to support more the system we already seen even the most Sony loyal companies have start folding like Falcom, everyone will get their turn at one point or other, if Nintendo just does their thing and does it well. Switch is the only successful console globally and Nintendo should use it as a factor for their advantage like Sony used PS4 western performance to get support.

 

[Clix]

I really see no point in dredging up Nintendo's hardware failures from over two decades ago and twisting them into what if scenarios in order to prove a point about what they should do in the future. The line of argumentation here has so many fallacies, I'm not sure if there's names for all of them.

And NGC got some healthy third party support. Lots of bangers too. The NGC had 1. an image problem, 2. lack of DVD player, 3. was not the follow up to the beast that was the PS1

 

[Foltzie]

The handhelds typically sell magnitudes more than the home consoles on virtue of being exponentially more powerful, I suspect.

This is actually an excellent counterpoint to this thread, as you can see how different market factors combine to propel these lower-powered devices to success. And consider Sony attempts at entering this market, with all the power it promised, yet all to fail.

Indeed, I would suspect the answer is portability, price, and ability to sell more than one device per family (due to the portability).

The Switch being able to be more powerful than the Wii U as a n3DS successor is a big deal, all of the benefits of a portable with few of the drawbacks of trying to keep up with the Playstation and Xbox's of the world

Yes it would be nice if Switch ran the full Frostbite or REengine stack. But EA/Capcom couldn't/wouldn't port down and thats fair, they have to justify their investments. Heck, in EAs case, unless the ports are "cheap" putting them on Nintendo systems may not be terribly profitable anyway. Yearly title purchases are already in the Xbox or Playstation ecosystem. What could Nintendo offer them to Switch other than portability?

 

[Deleted member 645]

Most here won’t agree but I agree. There is a caveat though…. They be any fuck it up . As you stated and I’ll use GameCube as an example, using the mini-dvd was the main reason it failed. Not having GTA or Final Fantasy on the system killed it’s sales. If they can actually make a powerful console and architecture and not do something dumb, then it could turn out great.

 

[Supreme Overlord]

The issue, when Switch was announced in late 2016 and then price revealed in January, 300 bucks for the size, battery life, weight and internals was cutting edge. You had the Shield and Win... very expensive, battery life that was akin to the Game Gear, possibly worse, and heavy and bulky.

But it seems people have been spoiled by smart phones with yearly refreshes and then PS4 Pro and One X being a thing. It is the nature of consoles. Device came out early 2017, which means everything was finalized early 2016, possibly late 2015. But one year later, people were at the old site already asking for a revision.

The juxtaposition of Switch as a home console -- though, yes, also a handheld console! -- next to the other consoles is likely a non-insignificant element of this as well; it can be seen even in prior treatment of the handheld consoles, when they weren't directly connected to the home consoles.

The Switch might have packed a punch for its price and form factor, but those attributes have long been ignored in these contexts, from times before the Switch was a concept.

The line of argumentation here has so many fallacies, I'm not sure if there's names for all of them.

If this were a game of D&D, I'd be instructing you to roll for psychic damage dealt.

The thing that Nintendo has if they don't fuck up the next console revision is a total dominance of the Japan market (and also most Eastern Asia), 3rd parties tried to save PS4 and they couldn't , right now it's Switch or go full on West competing with Western AAA for almost all the big JP companies and for most of them if they go West they will fail, not all can do as well as Capcom.

Right, this would be one of those market factors to take into account, both for Nintendo and for the various third parties, when considering goals and strategy.

 

[AgeEighty]

It's not going to happen. Not just because it would mean turning their backs on a proven winning formula with Switch, but also because it would make their platform an also-ran with its competition and offer nothing unique. That's not in Nintendo's DNA.

Making a "powerful" console would mean moving away from making a portable console, and frankly I have zero interest in that. I get annoyed enough when I can't move about the house with my PS5.

 

[Shadow]

Wait, citation for the bolded?

The impression I get from reading this page is that h.265 support has not been excised.
If there's a reason for devs to not use h.265, it'd probably be for dodging the licensing/royalties messiness.

I remember in one of the leaked documents before release it was stated that the support for it was removed. I'll try to find it again, but it's been a while since I went across those documents.

 

[Aether]

The third party argument was valid when there was no such thing as indies and free middleware that supports all platforms.

In current times? Eh. If a game is not worth porting for a third party, whatever.
The indie and AA market is huge, nintendo games stand out even more compared to the games they have under their belt, they managed to move their DS/3DS customers over with FE/AC/Pokemon, ... they will always sell enough with those core IPs for it to be valid as a platform for devs that feel like they can make their game work, and if Doom Eternal works, then i would say with some rare exceptions most games should be doable. (Asuming were talking about a solid step up with switch 2)

Personally: nintendo games, indies, jrpgs, generally japanese games... those are mostly my stuff. Some of the bigger cinematic games would be cool if we could get them, but honestly, there is enough in all other categories to keep nintendo where it is. There are also just games that work kinda better on a mobile platform, stuff like AC, some Rogue likes, VNs, etc.

What they need is a solid and atractive platform, not a beast. Have the next iteration 1080-1440 docked, have it support HDR, maybe have a high refreshrate 720p OLED display (the low resolution with the power increase should make it possible to have som indies, 2d games, or stuff like Animal Crossing run at buttery smooth framerates)

All of those are not "beast" level power, but more or less where mobile tech has come to in the last few years.

 

[CastletonSnob]

I'm just saying that a Nintendo console with Mario, Zelda, Final Fantasy, the latest Bethesda games, Street Fighter, CoD, GTA and Madden would be awesome.

 

[Aether]

I'm just saying that a Nintendo console with Mario, Zelda, Final Fantasy, the latest Bethesda games, Street Fighter, CoD, GTA and Madden would be awesome.

Yeah, but latest Bethesda games and COD are not part of the deal anymore.
With rumors of sony buying square even FF would be up in the air, so... depending on those big studios is not the way forward for nintendo it seems.

 

[CastletonSnob]

Yeah, but latest Bethesda games and COD are not part of the deal anymore.
With rumors of sony buying square even FF would be up in the air, so... depending on those big studios is not the way forward for nintendo it seems.

I was just thinking about how Sony and Microsoft buying studios might make the whole "wanting Nintendo to get support from major third party devs" thing moot.

 

[Clix]

Honestly, the only 3rd party one I would really be sour on if we did not receive games from Square. Not because FF - that series is like a parody of itself at this point (not counting 14, which while good, is still an MMO grind fest). But Asano, niche entries like Dungeon Encounters, Mana, Saga, and of course, Dragon Quest. Considering Enix does not own the rights to the games itself at all, just publishing and trademark, I am hoping something can be done regarding DQ.

 

[Aether]

I was just thinking about how Sony and Microsoft buying studios might make the whole "wanting Nintendo to get support from major third party devs" thing moot.

Oh, ok, yeah. And while with Microsofts strategy i could see them pushing for releases on switch and even more streaming them to switch (if nintendo allows for gamepass... which i dont think so), i honestly cant see this with sony. Microsoft has the whole PC/Play anywhere thing going, sony is dedicated to its Hardware platform from where they currently stand. Then there is still a chane that they revive their mobile gaming branch, buy japanese studios, and keep it as a low budget JRPG machine that can stream PS5 games. (really low chance, but still an existing one).

Honestly, the only 3rd party one I would really be sour on if we did not receive games from Square. Not because FF - that series is like a parody of itself at this point (not counting 14, which while good, is still an MMO grind fest). But Asano, niche entries like Dungeon Encounters, Mana, Saga, and of course, Dragon Quest. Considering Enix does not own the rights to the games itself at all, just publishing and trademark, I am hoping something can be done regarding DQ.

Yeah... if they buy square, it would sting, exactly because of the points mentioned.
Square would cut nintendos JRPG support down massively, and while there still are BamCo/Sega and their own (Pokemon, Xenoblade, FE), i dont see Bamco pushing for a lot of their JRPGs to be put onto the switch (Mostly Tales and Xenosaga)

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Nintendo has enough money to lose money for 50 years and still stay in business. They absolutely have enough money to make a powerful console.

Why do Nintendo fans keep making excuses for Nintendo's unwillingness to make a powerful console?

Technology has evolved enough that I pretty much think making games that don't play well portably is a waste of time. "You have to play the game within a few feet of a stationary device, but there are more blades of grass!"

If Nintendo made a powerful console, they'd get the same third party support as Sony and Microsoft, which means more people would buy the console.

Hey, why are you quoting me talking about how the GameCube will change everything now that cartridges aren't a problem?

 

[Caviar]

MMO grind fest

The game throws so much XP at you that you're encouraged to start leveling up extra jobs so that you're not way over-leveled and "wasting" all the free XP the game throws at you. You hit level cap literally by just playing through the main story. It might actually be the least grindy Final Fantasy game.