Mr Khan said:
The key is that Nintendo does not have it in them to build a red-ocean console. The core idea for the Wii U was sound: we crushed numerically with Wii but got none of the third party support. Let's remove the excuse *and* continue to provide the kinds of games that made Wii excel. The problem with that is how Nintendo was shooting for the PS3 and 360 as the "parity" target, knowing full well that those were on the way out, but part of it was their obsession with form factor and power consumption. The continued embrace of Yokoi's "lateral thinking with withered technology" mantra is not necessarily a bad thing, but if Nintendo really wanted to make a console that'll get all the third parties, they will have to chuck that mantra out the window. That was what kicked them in the teeth with GameCube, too, they wanted to make a console that could be a viable alternative for PlayStation to get back what they lost to the PS, but again, their engineers just didn't have it in them to make a PS2 with a Nintendo label, and while GameCube was strong, the need for lateral thinking in its design helped sideline it in other ways. Basically, they either need to go all-in and fight Microsoft and Sony on their terms (which is a terrible idea in the long-run, but would get them the support they need in the short run as long as the box had power parity), or go back to the mentality that birthed the Wii where they go all-in on chucking aside any pretension of competing with Sony and Microsoft, and thereby proceed to beat the pants off of them. |
That sounds about right. Thanks for this explanation.
