| RolStoppable said: Lack of interest is really hard to buy as a viable excuse when it comes to a system where everyone could expect a minimum of at least 50m systems being sold. In the end game development is a business, so foregoing working on a platform because you don't feel like it is... well, it sounds really selfish. Power might be part of the reason, but it's meaningless to have power when the result is still that a lot of games would be absent because the reasons go way beyond power. Ultimately, the reason why various third parties would not develop for the Nintendo console could be once again described as "devs were just not interested". And if power isn't the cure to lack of third party support, then it really isn't important how powerful Nintendo's next system is. What matters is that the system sells and there's simply no evidence that power has ever helped Nintendo to move hardware. I suspected that you would name those four systems. The problem is that the NES wasn't a me-too system and that the N64 and GC can't be described as successes. So there's only one console left and even that one declined in sales from its predecessor; furthermore, it was also launched in the pre-Sony and Microsoft era, and the market dynamics have clearly changed a lot since then. You are right that Nintendo could have produced a 1 teraflop system with 4GB RAM if they spent the money on processing power instead of the Gamepad, but what makes you believe that it would have sold? When it comes to power, it would have still been behind the PS4 and X1, so the market at large would have decided to wait for the other two systems before making a decision. When it comes to third parties, some of them would have still not developed for the Nintendo console for whatever reason they could come up with, which in turn would have made the decision for the market easier to buy a PS4 or X1 instead. Lastly, launching the console with a standard dual analog controller would have turned off the Wii audience even more than the Gamepad did. In the sum Nintendo would basically be at exactly the same point as they are now, trailing far behind the competition in sales. |
The problem with what you're saying is Nintendo has never really made a "me too" system. Or at least not done it well. Every system since N64 has had a blunder of a decsion that negatively impacted it. Carts, mini-discs and pruple boxes, no HD, low power with no hard drive and a tired looking design and name.
Despite your insistence that NES wasn't a me-too system, I remember it at the time as being very much like my ColecoVision, only better. I played DK on Coleco, I now had the vastly superior SMB on my NES. The circular joystick which was prone to breaking was replaced by the much more comfortable, accurate and durable gamepads. Third party arcade-style games like Contra and Gradius were everywhere. It was a gamers dream.
If Nintendo had made Wii U a better system without the gamepad, they might have done better but they certainly wouldn't be doing worse. No one would miss the second screen, but more standard design with more flops, RAM and a hard drive to install games and patches may have coaxed a few more third party titles.
Now, if Nintendo did a me-too system but did it better and with more innovation, that's where they could really kick ass. Wii was great, but if it could have offered the AAA third party experience with games like COD and Ass Creed, it could have been a PS2 level success. I know tonnes of people that bought Wiis first but also eventually bought a PS360 to get the games they were missing.
There is no reason why Nintendo can't make a system that is innovative, cool, has great original content from them, but is also in the same ball park as its competitors in terms of power. 50% of the highest powered system is plenty, and Nintendo should be targeting at least this regardless of other innovations.
