| pokoko said: I do agree with you that staying out of the multi-plat arms race is one option for Nintendo. I don't think it's the only option, though. They could still enter the multi-plat domain on the low end. The one thing that cannot do and hope to succeed is to hit that unappealing middle-ground where the Wii U lives. In order to survive without multi-plats, they need to come in at a price point that is significantly cheaper than the competition. This is where the Wii U failed badly. It's far too expensive to NOT have multi-plats. A Nintendo console that focuses on Nintendo exclusives would have, as I see it, a consumer base mostly comprised of: A) the Nintendo faithful, B) budget- or content-sensitive parents, and C) people who want it as a second console. Two of those three categories are going to hold price to be a very important consideration. Nintendo can continue with their gimmicky/innovative hardware designs but they CANNOT go with another expensive gimmicky/innovative design. They also need variety, which I'm glad they've recognized. It will be interesting to see how the Bayonetta/Devil's Third experiments go. W101 looks to be a failure but the X series will almost certainly be a success. With the Wii U, they decided to compete with Sony and Microsoft and did a poor job of it. They didn't do the groundwork and they didn't bring a machine that could match the PS4 and XO over the long-run. The whole situation is a mess of poor decisions. It's like someone saying they want to get Valedictorian and then not studying. The fierce competition between Sony and Microsoft has raised the barriers of entrying into that mutli-plat ecosystem way beyond the "build it and they will come" philosophy. Now it takes work, it takes investments of time and money, and Nintendo has not shown that they are willing or able to do that in the west. They still could, though. If they started RIGHT NOW, they could build their processes for the new generation. They could hire someone from Sony or Microsoft who has experience with western developers. They could review their mistakes and weak areas. They could enter the market with a console built from off-the-shelf parts (seriously, no one cares about that "low power draw" stuff) that is only slightly lower than the PS5 in both specs and price and they could compete quite well. However, Nintendo has not demonstrated any ability to pull that off. In the end, I mostly agree with you. The safest path for Nintendo would be to go with that "second console" model. Sell to the people who want Nintendo games and/or the cheapest option, then try to sell to the people who already have a Playstation or Xbox. Forget the console war, forget being "number one", and exist within their own ecosystem. It will be very interesting to see which path they take. |
Lateral thinking is certainly deeply embedded in Nintendo's hardware design philosophy, to the point where i'd think it would be impossible for them to ever really think of building an "off-the-shelf" machine. This will only hurt them further into the future as Sony and Microsoft do return to the "Original Xbox" school of console design. Nintendo would *need* an x86 chip, or bust, because they'd have to supplicate themselves before third parties who can build the game once for PC/PS/XB, and then port it to the other two with almost no trouble at all, but then take all kinds of extra effort to go to the Nintendo one?
It's gotten to the point where Nintendo would have to change themselves fundamentally on several levels to get into the multiplat arena. It really isn't worth the effort that could be better expended in finding a third way.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
