DevilRising said:
And beyond that, the fact is, MS and Sony both have direct access to their own hardware resources, while Nintendo does not, they have to go outside to other companies for all of their tech. In general I would imagine it costs them more to go after "high end" tech than it would their two competitors because of that. So it's not cost effective for them, or for the consumer, for them to go after a system that is going to cost too much for the average consumer to be able to afford. I can tell you right now, being a single adult with no kids, that I still, if seeing a new Nintendo console priced $400 or above, would very likely say "nope" on buying one, until years later when it drastically came down in price. Not everyone dedicates huge portions of their personal budget to gaming, and not every gamer should have to.
|
Yet I can walk into a store and buy a $200 GPU these days that blows the Wii U out of the water. The thing is the tech Nintendo is using is expensive because are adament in using highly propietary parts with an emphasis on low power consumption, small size, etc.
I don't really see the point, it's not like a console the size of say the NES is unusable, we managed just fine back in the day, but Nintendo's insistence of being a special snowflake and having power consumption so low is puzzling to me. A game console is not like a car, where fuel mileage matters to many people.