| zorg1000 said: PS3 launched 5 years earlier and accumulated 100's of games before Vita released and actually they have been the same price for the entirety of Vita's life. Vita launched in late 2011/early 2012 at $249-wifi, $299 -3G, PS3 at the time was $249-12gb HDD, $299-250 gb HDD. Now Vita is $199, the same price as the 12gb PS3 and I believe $249 for the 500gb sku. If u make devices with the exact same games, the majority of people will choose the much cheaper option, I have a hard time seeing many people buying the Nintendo console that is $299 when they can buy a Nintendo handheld with the exact same library for $199. And the fact that's just a bunch of extra power that isn't needed. If a $199 device can offer 1080p/60fps games on a TV, why does it need to be much more powerful, since u already said most Nintendo games are just going to use Wii U level visuals anyway? U haven't actually explained any reason why adding a bunch of extra power does anything for this device besides adding unnecessary costs. |
No, I said that most Nintendo games don't need to be much more complicated than the Wii U's games. Look at the jump from the Wii U the Wii U. How many games truely use the power difference for more than just visual upgrades?
It's not an unessecary cost. People want more power on their home consoles. That's a major reason the Wii U is selling like garbage. If Nintendo releases yet another console in two years that's still not on par with the PS4 and XBO, it'll sell even worse. People are willing to pay more money for stronger hardware. Why would anyone buy a handheld for $200 when they could buy a stronger console with the same games for literally the same price? And a blanket statement like
"If the console can be 1080p for $200, why does it need more power?" Doesn't hold up at all. The games should scale down, not up. The types of games you can potencially make in 1080p 60fps with PS4 hardware will always be more impressive with the types of games that can be made in 1080p 60fps with Wii U hardware. With the Wii U successor having $100 more power than the 3DS successor, it would have much bigger games to scale down. With the gap in hardware power, it differenciates the two platforms. Do I value better looking games with a smoother framerate and better controls on a bigger screen for more money or do I value portability and all the above significantly downgraded for less money, or do I value both and buy two systems?
What I'm saying makes sense while yours doesn't. People simply want the higher performance and are willing to pay more money for it. If you asked someone if they'd rather buy a PS3 to play Destiny or a PS4 to play Destiny, the vast majority would pick the more expensive and more powerful PS4. That difference is stretched even further with a handheld to console difference. If you asked 100 people if they'd rather buy a $300 or even $400 Nintendo console to play the newest 3D Metroid or a cheaper $200 handheld to play the exact same game, the vast majority would chose to pay the extra $100-$200 just for the superior console experience.
The difference is that with a unified platform, Nintendo still gets the people who would rather play it for less on the handheld.
