EAD Tokyo, EAD Zelda, Monolith Soft and Retro would all use every inch of power given to them.  Heck, even the MarioKart team would, and so would Smash.  Nintendo teams not pushing power limits is a myth.

EAD Tokyo, EAD Zelda, Monolith Soft and Retro would all use every inch of power given to them.  Heck, even the MarioKart team would, and so would Smash.  Nintendo teams not pushing power limits is a myth.

Super Mario 3D World looked nice, so does Captain Toad but I don't think those games use "every inch" of power of the Wii U. Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze certainly does not either. 

When you get into this level of hardware it's not about power, it becomes as much about budget/time, yeah it's great that the developer may want to tap that power, but is Nintendo going to finance say a $40-$60 million dollar budget Metroid game that might sell only 1 million copies? 

Nope. 

Super Mario 3D World looked nice, so does Captain Toad but I don't think those games use "every inch" of power of the Wii U. Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze certainly does not either. 

When you get into this level of hardware it's not about power, it becomes as much about budget/time, yeah it's great that the developer may want to tap that power, but is Nintendo going to finance say a $40-$60 million dollar budget Metroid game that might sell only 1 million copies? 

Nope. 

I agree with the posters who said a very powerful Nintendo console would be a bad idea. I think there are some common false assumptions people make when they want Nintendo to make a powerful console.

1) Good third party support
A powerful home console wouldn't get better support. The main reason Nintendo's home consoles don't get as much support as Sony and Microsoft is because their consoles and games cater to the lower end of the market. Third party developers are not interested in supporting a console with a different user base. Additionally, Nintendo has a strong software presence on their platforms and they know how to target their customers very well, so third parties have to compete with Nintendo quality-wise (and quality is defined as "the job your customers want your software to do", it is *not* an absolute term).

2) "Hardcore gamers" would buy a powerful Nintendo system
I don't think this is true. People say they want a powerful Nintendo console but you don't buy a console for its specs. You buy it for the games. And Nintendo's games have a very distinct style that makes them less appealing to hardcore gamers but more appealing to the mass market consumer.

3) Everyone thinks "power = quality"
This is not true at all. Nintendo's customer base doesn't seem to care much for powerful hardware. Posters on gaming message forums are not a good indication here: Most of Nintendo's customers don't see much added value in a more powerful system. But they do see reduced value in a system that is more expensive!

4) Nintendo could compete with Sony and Microsoft in a sustaining innovation battle
Sony and Microsoft have more resources than Nintendo and they target the higher end of the market. That's where the money is for them and that's why they make Scorpio and Neo: Because it will make them more money and their customers appreciate stronger hardware. Nintendo's customers don't and neither does their software (with some exceptions like open world Zelda). Simply put: Sony and Microsoft have the motivation to put money into R&D and to put out more powerful iterations of their hardware every other year. Nintendo doesn't. Thus, Sony and Microsoft would always out-compete Nintendo when it comes to targeting high-end customers. Nintendo would very likely lose that battle and what good is a powerful NX if Scorpio and Neo will be even more powerful right after the announcement? 

The Wii U is 352 GFLOPS. 176 GFLOPS is less than the 360 and the PS3.

True, but still, 352 is the number I've seen the most, and I'm inclined to believe that's the real figure. The PS4 just isn't 10x more powerful than the Wii U.

Nintendo games will always look like Nintendo games wont they?  I can't see them making ultra realistic games. 

Super Mario 3D World looked nice, so does Captain Toad but I don't think those games use "every inch" of power of the Wii U. Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze certainly does not either. 

When you get into this level of hardware it's not about power, it becomes as much about budget/time, yeah it's great that the developer may want to tap that power, but is Nintendo going to finance say a $40-$60 million dollar budget Metroid game that might sell only 1 million copies? 

Nope. 

The Wii U only launched 4 years ago and they're only now really getting the hang of HD development. To have another full generation leap so quickly I don't think was ever going to sit well with Nintendo.

Sony/MS used the 360/PS3 for like 8 years, and even they both had big headaches and delays of software transitioning to the PS4/XB1. First year for both of those systems was very mediocre software wise.

NX being somewhere in between a PS3 and PS4, maybe even hedging closer to the PS3/Wii U range wouldn't surprise me. Kinda sucks if you're a graphics enthusiast, but if its portable then at least there's some utility that comes out of it. Right now I'd be pretty estatic with a NX that is about a little less than a XB1 in "home mode" (provided it even has seperate power modes). Nintendo games would look phenomonal even at that level.

1) Good third party support
A powerful home console wouldn't get better support. The main reason Nintendo's home consoles don't get as much support as Sony and Microsoft is because their consoles and games cater to the lower end of the market. Third party developers are not interested in supporting a console with a different user base. Additionally, Nintendo has a strong software presence on their platforms and they know how to target their customers very well, so third parties have to compete with Nintendo quality-wise (and quality is defined as "the job your customers want your software to do", it is *not* an absolute term).

2) "Hardcore gamers" would buy a powerful Nintendo system
I don't think this is true. People say they want a powerful Nintendo console but you don't buy a console for its specs. You buy it for the games. And Nintendo's games have a very distinct style that makes them less appealing to hardcore gamers but more appealing to the mass market consumer.

3) Everyone thinks "power = quality"
This is not true at all. Nintendo's customer base doesn't seem to care much for powerful hardware. Posters on gaming message forums are not a good indication here: Most of Nintendo's customers don't see much added value in a more powerful system. But they do see reduced value in a system that is more expensive!

4) Nintendo could compete with Sony and Microsoft in a sustaining innovation battle
Sony and Microsoft have more resources than Nintendo and they target the higher end of the market. That's where the money is for them and that's why they make Scorpio and Neo: Because it will make them more money and their customers appreciate stronger hardware. Nintendo's customers don't and neither does their software (with some exceptions like open world Zelda). Simply put: Sony and Microsoft have the motivation to put money into R&D and to put out more powerful iterations of their hardware every other year. Nintendo doesn't. Thus, Sony and Microsoft would always out-compete Nintendo when it comes to targeting high-end customers. Nintendo would very likely lose that battle and what good is a powerful NX if Scorpio and Neo will be even more powerful right after the announcement?

If they had launched the Wii U (or better yet just scrapped that concept entirely and made a proper 1 TFLOP "New NES" console) in 2012 with a high end chipset, they had an opening there to gain some traction. 

But now? They've given the PS4 a 4-year headstart that is insurmountable, they're even giving the PS4 Neo a head start, they also have the XBOne, and then XB Scorpio which is going to be 6 TFLOPS, so are they somehow going to beat that on power?

At 176 GFLOP the Wii U GPU would out-perform the Xbox 360's GPU at 240 GFLOP anyway.

And yet, lack of power does guarentee minimal to non-existent multiplatform support.
We saw it with the Wii. We saw it with the Wii U, how many more console generations do you need?

The performance difference between the Wii U and PS4 is likely to be larger than that, there were massive efficiency gains when AMD moved from VLIW5 to VLIW4 and then again to GCN.

However everytime you double your graphics quality you need orders-of-magnitude better performance due to diminishing returns.

It's not about Nintendo making ultra-realistic games.

If "Budgets" are your concern...
Then you need to keep in mind that if Nintendo has hardware that is supported by one of the main API's like Vulkan/OpenGL, not just from a software perspective, but hardware feature set as well...
Then it can be supported by all the popular middleware, developer tools and game engines which helps reduce development time and budget.

Not to mention that Nintendo will eventually one-day release a device in the future that will exceed the Playstation 4 in terms of hardware, it's a matter of when not if (If the company still exists). - It's something they will need to come to terms with eventually, won't they?

Besides, budgets are only that high because professional actors are being hired with full motion capture and voice work, there are extravagent advertising campaigns and more, plenty of indie developers are making some pretty amazing games these days and they don't have budgets higher than $1 million smacko's.

You do realise the Xbox One and Playstation 4 are only "HD" consoles as well right?
High Definition is just a resolution, it's no more trickier than sub HD, you just need better quality assets and use some smart techniques to hide the more visible graphics limitations that comes with the increased clarity.
With more powerful hardware you can side-step allot of the issues too.

As for the 360 and PS3 transition to Xbox One and Playstation 4 delays, that was more of a result of trying to cater to the old generation who still had 10's of millions of gamers, these are business's remember, whose primary purpose is to make cash.

The other reason they don't get support is due to performance, newer games just aren't doable on the Wii U's archaic hardware.
Last generation it wasn't feasible to port Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 games to the Wii due to the generational difference, sure you got some games reworked and stuff... But they were far from the same experience.

With the Wii U of course you also have the issue of making it financially feasible, the Wii U flopped which results in poor sales for 3rd party's, it's one thing to downgrade a game... It's another if it's financially risky.

But let's be realistic here. 2016 isn't the same as last generation or the generation before that and customer bases have shifted.

I buy a console partly because of hardware specifications, granted it's  typically a secondary consideration, but I am also an Enthusiast, I have needs.

But when you need to bring up something like Digital Foundry to pick out the minor nuanced details between the Playstation 4 and Xbox One, then obviously hardware is less of an issue between those two devices aren't they?
And then you look at Nintendo which looks like it's a generation behind, the choice then becomes very clear for allot of people doesn't it?

Nintendo's customer base didn't really transition from the Wii to the Wii U, customer bases have changed for Nintendo.. A massive chunk wen't mobile another massive chunk weren't really gamers to begin with. - It's clear Nintendo cannot pander to that customer base that's for sure.

It's not about trying to 1-up Sony and Microsoft, it's about having an expected degree of graphical fidelity... If the console looks last generation by comparison to Microsoft and Sony, then your average joe is certainly going to notice aren't they?
If you need a magnifying glass to pick out the details, then hardware certainly becomes less of an issue.

One thing is for sure though, with the Playstation 4 even a massive chunk of the more casual/average joe knew that the PS4 was faster than the Xbox One, that may have translated into sales.

This doesn't mean that Nintendo should forgo it's gimmicks or ways to differentiate itself, but it also doesn't mean that they should stop trying to compete with Microsoft and Sony either, you can actually have both pieces of cake and eat it too.

And Nintenedo SHOULD be ridiculed if their hardware isn't up to snuff, fair is fair in love and war.

Your use of flops to compare hardware is just silly and useless.

The point remains. 

If Nintendo wanted to compete against the PS4/XB1 and the current machines, the time to launch a credible machine was in 2012 ideally/2013 at the latest. 

They chose to launch an underpowered successor to the Wii instead, squandering several years, and letting Sony have all the time in the world to remobilize and retake the console market. 

Launching 2017 and spotting the PS4 more than 4 years headstart, allowing Microsoft to not only have the XB1 but the Scorpio too, and even letting the PS4 Neo have a headstart too ... 

There is no room for them in the market. A freaking 4+ year headstart is ridiculous too, the Sega Saturn would've beaten the Playstation and N64 if you gave it a 4 year head start, the GameCube would've destroyed the PS2 with a 4 year headstart. 

Beyond that which one of these COD/Destiny/FIFA/Madden fanatics is buying the 4-5 years "me too" Nintendo console that they can't play with any of their friends online with because they all already own a PS4/XB1? 

The online communities have cemented themselves too, no one wants that type of console that they can't play against their friends with. 

Too late now for Nintendo, they had a window of oppurtunity in 2012/13, you can't be so sloppy in this business and think you can just show up when ever you want and say "sorry" and gamers will come flocking back. Ask Sega and the Dreamcast. People move on with their gaming preferences and become comfortable with someone else.