Soundwave said:
Yeah but in Nintendo's scenario, a "microconsole" that shares the same library as the handheld would likely have far more games released at a far steadier clip than Nintendo's past recent consoles because their dev teams could all focus on one platform (basically) rather than being split into two. This could also lead to things like more original IPs ... instead having to make two Mario 3D Land/World games for example maybe the team could just make one and then afterwards they're free to maybe make something new for example. That could also be a big boon. It doesn't really matter that it didn't work for Amazon/Google ... for Nintendo's situation, it can't really be worse than we're they're at now. Worst case scenario IMO is they "only" sell about 20 million microconsoles, but at a higher profit margin than the Wii U with a much lower R&D cost. And a situation where it doesn't really matter for the games either, like for example Mario Kart 8 is stuck on the Wii U's low userbase no matter what, but Mario Kart 9 ... even if the microconsole only sold 20 million ... it would still have another 60-70 million of the portable users to sell to. That's a huge game changer for Nintendo too. They can leverage their entire audience in one place now, and all their games have the benefit of being available to both their home and portable fanbase, which means games like DKC: Tropical Freeze, Bayonetta 2, Splatoon, etc. probably all would sell better. It's better for Nintendo and in the end it's probably a better experience for Nintendo fans too. More games, cheaper hardware, more "democracy" in how they play. Wanna play a "real" Pokemon game on your 50-inch TV in 1080p HD? You got it. Wanna play the "real" new 3D Zelda on your bus ride to work? You got it. Right now if you actually think about, Nintendo's "sales pitch" is actually fairly insane. Basically they are asking for about $500 in hardware costs ($300 for the Wii U and $200 for a 3DS XL) just so the average consumer can play all the Nintendo games. Is it really that shocking that a lot of people are choosing say "no thanks" to this proposition? Maybe if there was an option, say a $150 microconsole (maybe even $99 fairly quickly, since Nintendo would use the same chips for the microconsole and handheld the costs would scale down rapidly) ... that gave someone access to ALL Nintendo's software offerings (from Pokemon to 3D Zelda and Virtual Console retro stuff) a lot more people might bite. |
You are assuming everyone wants all Nintendo games. This is an innacurate assumption. If there's one take away from Nintendo's sales history, it's that their home console and handheld dmographics do. not. overlap. The microconsole is a bad idea cause it strips the handheld platform of its advantages and the home console of its advantages. It's no longer portable and it's no longer even in the same universe as any of its contemporaries in power. And handheld game design and home console game design do. not. overlap. That's the biggest lesson to learn from the Vita, which was a blatant "home console on the go" handheld. Play 3D Land and then play 3D World. Play Metroid Fusion then play Super Metroid or Metroid Prime. Even these similar games are adjusted for on the go gaming on one hand and long term home console gaming on the other. It would be better ot expand their operations while maintaining their high efficiency in order to take better advantage of what they have then venture into the blackhole of the microconsole market hoping that there's cake in the center rather than crushing death.
ALSO, "use mobile parts, bye bye fan?!" are you outta your mind? Mobile parts still get hot when run at max, the thing would still need a fan or its going to put out a performance as bad or worse than a tablet if it's any kind of serious hardware.
