By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Will the next CEO of Nintendo make powerful consoles to their fullest? Since Iwata has passed away?

Miyamotoo on 06 August 2015
catofellow said:

Miyamotoo said:

Relly!?

What about analog sticks, vibration, touch screen, dual screen, motion controls, 3D screen, tablet controller...you can say that Nintendo late in some things, but you cant say "Nintendo is the most anti-technology technology company in the world", they were always pioneers in lot a things, even today, and you can bet they will have some interesting thing with next hardware too.

Being a computer company and saying online play, and HD graphics are unecessary is anti-technology.  You can't say it isn't.  They were innovative with the NES, and SNES.  They were innovative on N64 in some respects, though going against CD's was the tipping point.  This is 1996 remember.  Next we got the Gamecube, which was the perfect illustration of what I am talking about above in Nintendo's approach.  Nintendo still knew how to hype things at the time.  I rememeber hearing that the same people who made Jurassic Park (a big deal at the time) were working on the N64.

Since then, only the Wii controller was innovative, but why couldn't we also have HD graphics and online play?  The Wii U controller isn't really an innovation as it was a misfire.  I'll take your word on handhelds. I'm not really interested there.

My point was that you cant say "Nintendo is the most anti-technology technology company in the world", they were always pioneers in lot a things, even today. Wii U gampad is inovation (maybe not so big and certanly not successful), 3DS screen same (but again not so successful). But what innovations Sony and Microsoft have this gen!? Stronger hardware isnt innovation.

Like I wrote, Nintendo late in some things, with Wii U they have HD graphics and online play.

With Wii they had great new way of playing (and great new technology) and they thought in order to console success they don't need HD graphics and strong online features, but instead most affordable price on market, thats why Wii is basically overclocked GC with motion controls. And they were completely right, Wii was best selling console of previous generation and they attracted millions of casuals to gaming. While with Wii U they completly failed, but that's another topic..

Also, HD graphics and online play were not big innovations in gaming, certainly in console market, but PC had that years before consoles, but things like touch screens or motion controls not were available even on PC gaming.



Around the Network
Wyrdness on 06 August 2015

C'mon, this is a stretch. Nobody knew about this but for a handful of people.


Not true at all as Neogeo was well known it just had an insanely high price, it was like 400-500 quid, over double the price of its competitors. If we add lesser known consoles it even adds to my point as then we add consoles like the Jaguar into the mix.



ultima-weapon on 06 August 2015
HoloDust said:
DevilRising said:
People really need to let go of this notion that "Yeah, Nintendo can totally keep up with the power race" when it comes to consoles. Not these days, they can't. Not unless you want a Nintendo system that costs $400-$500. I know I don't want to pay that, which is one of several reasons I don't have a PS4 yet also.


Well, they could've easily made Super Wii for $350 that is somewhat weaker, yet in the in the same ballpark as XBO, if they hadn't designed it with Gamepad in mind.

I honestly doubt that it would've sold less than WiiU, had less 3rd party support than WiiU and had worse library than WiiU...quite the opposite, IMO.

pfff, the wii u is already weaker but in the same ballpark as the competitors. unless you think x1 isn't in the same ballpark as ps4, because the difference from wii u to x1 is the same as x1 to ps4.



Miyamotoo on 06 August 2015
ultima-weapon said:
HoloDust said:


Well, they could've easily made Super Wii for $350 that is somewhat weaker, yet in the in the same ballpark as XBO, if they hadn't designed it with Gamepad in mind.

I honestly doubt that it would've sold less than WiiU, had less 3rd party support than WiiU and had worse library than WiiU...quite the opposite, IMO.

pfff, the wii u is already weaker but in the same ballpark as the competitors. unless you think x1 isn't in the same ballpark as ps4, because the difference from wii u to x1 is the same as x1 to ps4.

Not true, PS4 have around 40% stronger GPU and faster RAM than Xbox One, while cpu is the same, in comparison with Wii U Xbox One is at least 3x time stronger than Wii U, much stronger CPU, 4x more RAM and at least 3x strong GPU.



HoloDust on 06 August 2015
Miyamotoo said:
ultima-weapon said:
HoloDust said:


Well, they could've easily made Super Wii for $350 that is somewhat weaker, yet in the in the same ballpark as XBO, if they hadn't designed it with Gamepad in mind.

I honestly doubt that it would've sold less than WiiU, had less 3rd party support than WiiU and had worse library than WiiU...quite the opposite, IMO.

pfff, the wii u is already weaker but in the same ballpark as the competitors. unless you think x1 isn't in the same ballpark as ps4, because the difference from wii u to x1 is the same as x1 to ps4.

Not true, PS4 have around 40% stronger GPU and faster RAM than Xbox One, while cpu is the same, in comparison with Wii U Xbox One is at least 3x time stronger than Wii U, much stronger CPU, 4x more RAM and at least 3x strong GPU.


You've probably figured it out already, but that's just another Zero's alt - he is persistant one in his delusions about WiiU and making new alts, I give him that. But whenever you see some silliness like that post, you can pretty much bet it's one of his alts.



Around the Network
catofellow on 07 August 2015
Miyamotoo said:
catofellow said:

Miyamotoo said:

Relly!?

What about analog sticks, vibration, touch screen, dual screen, motion controls, 3D screen, tablet controller...you can say that Nintendo late in some things, but you cant say "Nintendo is the most anti-technology technology company in the world", they were always pioneers in lot a things, even today, and you can bet they will have some interesting thing with next hardware too.

Being a computer company and saying online play, and HD graphics are unecessary is anti-technology.  You can't say it isn't.  They were innovative with the NES, and SNES.  They were innovative on N64 in some respects, though going against CD's was the tipping point.  This is 1996 remember.  Next we got the Gamecube, which was the perfect illustration of what I am talking about above in Nintendo's approach.  Nintendo still knew how to hype things at the time.  I rememeber hearing that the same people who made Jurassic Park (a big deal at the time) were working on the N64.

Since then, only the Wii controller was innovative, but why couldn't we also have HD graphics and online play?  The Wii U controller isn't really an innovation as it was a misfire.  I'll take your word on handhelds. I'm not really interested there.

My point was that you cant say "Nintendo is the most anti-technology technology company in the world", they were always pioneers in lot a things, even today. Wii U gampad is inovation (maybe not so big and certanly not successful), 3DS screen same (but again not so successful). But what innovations Sony and Microsoft have this gen!? Stronger hardware isnt innovation.

Like I wrote, Nintendo late in some things, with Wii U they have HD graphics and online play.

With Wii they had great new way of playing (and great new technology) and they thought in order to console success they don't need HD graphics and strong online features, but instead most affordable price on market, thats why Wii is basically overclocked GC with motion controls. And they were completely right, Wii was best selling console of previous generation and they attracted millions of casuals to gaming. While with Wii U they completly failed, but that's another topic..

Also, HD graphics and online play were not big innovations in gaming, certainly in console market, but PC had that years before consoles, but things like touch screens or motion controls not were available even on PC gaming.

You're confusing innovation with technology.  Things like more powerful hardware, HD graphics, online pay, abillity to play DVD's, higher capacity storage options, voice acting, etc. may not be innovative, but to exclude these things, and to tell potential consumers that they do not want or need those things is anti-technology.

To not market the very hardware you are trying to sell like every other console maker and for that matter computer, phone, tablet, etc. manufaturer has (hey look at us, we are more 2x powerful, faster, better, we can do all these things etc.) is anti-technology.



Lifetime Sales Prediction - 6/29/2013
Wii U - 38 million
XBOX One - 88 million
Playstation 4 - 145 million

Nintyfan90 on 16 August 2015
catofellow said:
Miyamotoo said:

My point was that you cant say "Nintendo is the most anti-technology technology company in the world", they were always pioneers in lot a things, even today. Wii U gampad is inovation (maybe not so big and certanly not successful), 3DS screen same (but again not so successful). But what innovations Sony and Microsoft have this gen!? Stronger hardware isnt innovation.

Like I wrote, Nintendo late in some things, with Wii U they have HD graphics and online play.

With Wii they had great new way of playing (and great new technology) and they thought in order to console success they don't need HD graphics and strong online features, but instead most affordable price on market, thats why Wii is basically overclocked GC with motion controls. And they were completely right, Wii was best selling console of previous generation and they attracted millions of casuals to gaming. While with Wii U they completly failed, but that's another topic..

Also, HD graphics and online play were not big innovations in gaming, certainly in console market, but PC had that years before consoles, but things like touch screens or motion controls not were available even on PC gaming.

You're confusing innovation with technology.  Things like more powerful hardware, HD graphics, online pay, abillity to play DVD's, higher capacity storage options, voice acting, etc. may not be innovative, but to exclude these things, and to tell potential consumers that they do not want or need those things is anti-technology.

To not market the very hardware you are trying to sell like every other console maker and for that matter computer, phone, tablet, etc. manufaturer has (hey look at us, we are more 2x powerful, faster, better, we can do all these things etc.) is anti-technology.

Ninty can do whatever the hell they want with THEIR platform. They made the Wii the way they did to conquer the very market they conquered. It was brilliant to say the least. It made Ninty more money then they could ever imagine. They would never see that type of success going head to head with Sony. Thats precisely why some Sony fans need to grow up and realize the market is better off with Ninty and Sony working together to grow the market.



Soundwave on 16 August 2015
Nintyfan90 said:
catofellow said:
Miyamotoo said:

My point was that you cant say "Nintendo is the most anti-technology technology company in the world", they were always pioneers in lot a things, even today. Wii U gampad is inovation (maybe not so big and certanly not successful), 3DS screen same (but again not so successful). But what innovations Sony and Microsoft have this gen!? Stronger hardware isnt innovation.

Like I wrote, Nintendo late in some things, with Wii U they have HD graphics and online play.

With Wii they had great new way of playing (and great new technology) and they thought in order to console success they don't need HD graphics and strong online features, but instead most affordable price on market, thats why Wii is basically overclocked GC with motion controls. And they were completely right, Wii was best selling console of previous generation and they attracted millions of casuals to gaming. While with Wii U they completly failed, but that's another topic..

Also, HD graphics and online play were not big innovations in gaming, certainly in console market, but PC had that years before consoles, but things like touch screens or motion controls not were available even on PC gaming.

You're confusing innovation with technology.  Things like more powerful hardware, HD graphics, online pay, abillity to play DVD's, higher capacity storage options, voice acting, etc. may not be innovative, but to exclude these things, and to tell potential consumers that they do not want or need those things is anti-technology.

To not market the very hardware you are trying to sell like every other console maker and for that matter computer, phone, tablet, etc. manufaturer has (hey look at us, we are more 2x powerful, faster, better, we can do all these things etc.) is anti-technology.

Ninty can do whatever the hell they want with THEIR platform. They made the Wii the way they did to conquer the very market they conquered. It was brilliant to say the least. It made Ninty more money then they could ever imagine. They would never see that type of success going head to head with Sony. Thats precisely why some Sony fans need to grow up and realize the market is better off with Ninty and Sony working together to grow the market.


There's pros and cons with that. 

Yes they made a lot of money with for about 4 years or so, but then basically lost that entire audience and are now probably in a worse position than they were before (well objectively they are, the Wii U is selling even worse than the GameCube). 

One good generation ... is it worth being sandwhiched between two incredibly poor ones? 



Nintyfan90 on 21 August 2015
Soundwave said:
Nintyfan90 said:
catofellow said:
Miyamotoo said:

My point was that you cant say "Nintendo is the most anti-technology technology company in the world", they were always pioneers in lot a things, even today. Wii U gampad is inovation (maybe not so big and certanly not successful), 3DS screen same (but again not so successful). But what innovations Sony and Microsoft have this gen!? Stronger hardware isnt innovation.

Like I wrote, Nintendo late in some things, with Wii U they have HD graphics and online play.

With Wii they had great new way of playing (and great new technology) and they thought in order to console success they don't need HD graphics and strong online features, but instead most affordable price on market, thats why Wii is basically overclocked GC with motion controls. And they were completely right, Wii was best selling console of previous generation and they attracted millions of casuals to gaming. While with Wii U they completly failed, but that's another topic..

Also, HD graphics and online play were not big innovations in gaming, certainly in console market, but PC had that years before consoles, but things like touch screens or motion controls not were available even on PC gaming.

You're confusing innovation with technology.  Things like more powerful hardware, HD graphics, online pay, abillity to play DVD's, higher capacity storage options, voice acting, etc. may not be innovative, but to exclude these things, and to tell potential consumers that they do not want or need those things is anti-technology.

To not market the very hardware you are trying to sell like every other console maker and for that matter computer, phone, tablet, etc. manufaturer has (hey look at us, we are more 2x powerful, faster, better, we can do all these things etc.) is anti-technology.

Ninty can do whatever the hell they want with THEIR platform. They made the Wii the way they did to conquer the very market they conquered. It was brilliant to say the least. It made Ninty more money then they could ever imagine. They would never see that type of success going head to head with Sony. Thats precisely why some Sony fans need to grow up and realize the market is better off with Ninty and Sony working together to grow the market.


There's pros and cons with that. 

Yes they made a lot of money with for about 4 years or so, but then basically lost that entire audience and are now probably in a worse position than they were before (well objectively they are, the Wii U is selling even worse than the GameCube). 

One good generation ... is it worth being sandwhiched between two incredibly poor ones? 

That sounds much better than 3 medicre gens due to Ninty trying to be like Sony. What kind of sales do you truly think Ninty would get out of being more like Sony? Thats the question some people here seem to not understand. Why is it so heavily believed that a "Nintystation" would do well? Where would that market come from? Are you hoping for Micro/Sony to lose some of their market? Are you hoping the market would grow because Ninty now has what Sony/Micro already has?