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. |
I'm all for sharing the same library and i also believe it would allow for creating new franchises and really diversifying their line-up to the likes of 3rd party games.
I just don't think there's really appeal for something in between the mobile market and traditional home consoles.
Again, Google and Amazon didn't fail to set the world on fire because of bad luck.
I took a look at the Amazon Fire thingie and that is more than just a console, it's almost a media center and actually looks pretty cool.
But the point is, in terms of games - what it's actually trying to sell - what it offers, people can experience it already on mobile devices.
If Nintendo decides to offer a micro-console less powerful than Wii U - or even as powerful if it would be possible at the time - the question is: why? What is appealing in that solution when people will have a traditional next-gen console as an alternative.
Core gamers, the same ones Nintendo would want to attract with the ne franchises just wouldn't care because those same kind of experiences would be found on even better hardware, which would reinvigorate the home console market.
Nintendo needs to create 3rd party like games, as much as they need to evolve in terms of HW, so their own games can evolve and become better.
Think of Smash Wii U and how if Nintendo didn't improve the HW, we wouldn't get 8 players at once. That's the type of stuff that is only possible with new and better HW. A micro console as powerful as the Wii U just wouldn't cut it.
Not to mention that it would probably be equal in power as the next handheld, so the home console just wouldn't have a market for itself: same games, same looks. Why bother getting two of the same?
The better solution is different power levels that allow for sharing one library of games but also make sense for handheld and home console consumers.
And if you do a bundle with the handheld and just the home console, you can have a proposition of 400€/$, something that the market will easily accept.
