I would try to go the Sony/MS-route with the next console and just try to offer a system without too much gimmicks. It may be that this space is already too crowded with Sony and MS being there, but I don't think that a gimmick-focused console will work either (unless the gimmick is really good).
And Nintendo could launch their next system 2-3 years before Sony/MS follow (if they plan to release next-gen systems at all), which would give Nintendo 2-3 years of having the most graphically capable console. In addition to offering the typical Nintendo franchises the console should be capable of playing multiplatform-games at 1080p60, even if the release on the XOne only offers 720p30. I think that Nintendo should also follow suit and switch to a x86-platform. This would make the development for their new console easier. Nintendos own franchises are enough to differentiate them from the competition.
And I always liked the codenames for their consoles, and despite my proposed console only being an evolution of the current ones I would call the Wii U successor the Nintendo Revolution. Sets the name apart from the Wii label, while still being connected to it, and could be marketed quite easily.
Here are the specs (and some other stuff) I would give the Nintendo Revolution:
- release: Holiday 2017
- GPU: ~3x as powerful in all areas as the PS4 counterpart
- CPU: ~2x as powerful as the XOne/PS4 counterpart, but with only 4 cores (so 4x as powerful per core)
- if this CPU is strong enough to emulate the WiiU-CPU I would add other minor stuff that enhances WiiU emulation (e.g. the 32MB eDRAM from the WiiU as an L3-cache)
- RAM: 16GB stacked RAM @ ~600 GB/s (with 4GB reserved for the OS and background applications)
- standard gamepad (but compitability to Wii U Gamepad and other similar devices)
- integrated 256GB m.2-SSD @ ~1000 MB/s sequential
- USB 3.1 support and the option to connect an external HDD (I actually liked that decision with the current WiiU)
- HDMI 2.0 support (most games would still render in 1080p60, but higher rendering resolutions would be possible)
- if ~64 GB SD-cards are really affordable at the end of 2017 in addition to digital distribution all games should be delivered via SD-cards (but the cost of a 64 GB SD-card needs to be <10$ to allow this); if not possible a BD-drive capable of reading discs with a size of up to 128 GB should be included
Price: 399$ (the PS4 will probably be around 249-299$ when this console launches); if Nintendo can exclude a BD-drive this might even be profitable on itself
So and now I'm going to contradict myself a little bit: I really hope that VR kicks off. And if it does I would like to have an additional Nintendo Revolution SKU (called the Nintendo Revolution VR/3D Edition), that performs better with the VR-"gimmick" and offers "1440"p72 @ 90° FOV, 2x1080p60 on 3D televisions and 1x1080p72 when used on 72/144 Hz displays. I think that it could be enough to only render the 1920x1080 field in the middle of the VR-display in full resolution. For the outer parts the rendering resolution could be dropped by half in each dimension, reducing the required additional computational power.
Changes to the standard SKU would be:
- GPU with 1.5x as many units, overclocked by 20%
- CPU overclocked by 20% to offer stable 72 FPS
- improved cooling system; system would still be slightly louder than the standard SKU when running in VR/3D mode
- includes "entry-level" VR-headset (maybe in cooperation with Oculus?) with an 1440p72 display and 90° horizontal FOV optics, that isn't limited to usage on the Nintendo Revolution but can also be used on PCs and other devices; other VR-headsets are also supported but anything outside the assumed 90° FOV just remains black and only 72 frames/second are delivered to the headset even if it would support more (except when game developers add support for other resolutions, FOVs and/or refreshrates themselves)
- 16 GB stacked RAM @ ~1200 GB/s (different setup with 8 packages instead of the 4 used in standard SKU)
Price: 599$ (maybe an additional SKU without an included VR-headset for 469$ could be offered)
But as I said, I would only suggest to do this if VR really kicks off. No need for Nintendo to push it. They should just be ready if VR starts delivering (they probably will have to decide at around the end of 2016).
