| PortisheadBiscuit said: Innovation and thinking outside the box is their pedigree, so I imagine it could be something never seen before. |
I don't think that'll be the case. They'll stick with the Switch so-long as its a compelling product design. Recall what happened with the Wii U: instead of releasing a Wii HD, they tried to shoe-horn a half-baked concept into it. The Wii U ended up ugly and cumbersome looking compared to the Wii... even the OS of the Wii U was unforgivably sluggish. It came out both too late and with too large of a price point, and failed badly.
While it can be argued that perhaps that failure led to the Switch (as a positive), I felt that direction was an eventuality considering the stress on the dev resources to support two platforms. I think the relevant point is that a more conservative Wii HD coming out in 2010 would have been significantly more successful than the Wii U. It could have been more powerful, or the same power, and cut down a lot in price and dev time because the Gamepad and different OS wouldn't have been required.
Sorry about the kind of off-topic rant (I'm sure to have angered people with my bashing of the Wii U and Gamecube, and perhaps angered still more with my praise of the Wii) - but it ties into this: Nintendo learned their lesson with the failure of the Wii U - just as they learned their lesson about trying to make a "baby" version of the competing consoles with the Gamecube. So, at that point we agree - that they are at their best when innovating, but at the same time, they should learn to be conservative when it is beneficial to do so - the Switch is the best at what it does, and an upgraded version of it may do it better.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
