Current vs Last, a Console Sales Story (COMPLETE!)

[Osc89]

RolStoppable said:

Osc89 said:

If what you say is true, and there is no business reason for third parties avoiding Nintendo, then they should do what they can to fix it. They would be a good backup to keep a decent marketshare if they don't manage to have a big hit in a generation. Without them they rely completely on having a "must have" console or peripheral every generation, which I personally think is a far riskier strategy.

How much more would power parity cost them? The PS4 sells for $399 at a small loss, so with XB1 hardware plus the cheaper Wiimote+ they could be comfortable around that price. That's only $50 more than the Wii U (or at least the version that sold). You don't think it would have done better? Also surely with all the consoles being so similar the cost of the hardware would drop faster, making it cheaper to produce in the long run.

There's a fundamental flaw in your line of thinking. Third parties can't be used as a backup plan, because third parties will abandon ship as soon as the Nintendo console isn't a hit.

A $400 Wii U to achieve hardware parity wouldn't have sold better than the actual Wii U. Third parties certainly wouldn't have invested into using this hypothetical Wii U's power at launch, nevermind that hardcore gamers would have still waited to see what Sony and Microsoft will bring to the table. Also, even with all things being equal between all three consoles, why would they not stick to the same brand as the last time around? The only reason why they would buy a Nintendo console would be exclusives, and with third party exclusives being a thing of the past (hence why Sony and Microsoft go after exclusive DLC nowadays) it comes down to first party games. If it comes down to Nintendo games anyway, Nintendo might as well make their console as cheap as possible to increase their chances to sell to those gamers. Nobody is going to pay $400 for what is going to be a secondary console at best. And good luck with convincing Nintendo-first gamers to pay $400 for a console.

As for manufacturing costs, consoles may be similar, but they are not identical. Savings for one console manufacturer don't translate to another.

With all the leaks the hardcore gamers would have known what Sony and MS were bringing pretty quickly. And things aren't equal if the Wii U is already out. You don't think they could have taken advantage of the mess of the XB1 reveal if they had the same powered box for $100-$150 less? There would be a lot more attention on the Wii U if it was considered even part of the same race. And given a big problem with the Wii U is people not knowing it exists, having it come up in every PS4/XB1 conversation would help.

I still don't understand why third parties would abandon Nintendo when they didn't for Sony and MS. If they are what saved the PS360, then why doesn't Nintendo create a similar situation for themselves?