Thunderbird77 said:
Soundwave said:
Except chips that powerful do exist and have for some time and are already in devices for under $300. The Nvidia Tegra X1 is in their Shield console and sold at a large profit for $200, the Apple A9X which is probably even more powerful is estimated to cost $35 a pop.
Nintendo doesn't need a fat profit margin on their hardware nor do they need to use a 2K resolution screen or something crazy on their model. It's very feasible.
Beyond that, even at $250 lets say ... what is a better value ... spending $300+$200 on a Wii U + 3DS XL ($500, so cheap right?) or getting a hybrid device that can play ALL the games on the go and on the TV for half the price and perhaps run Android apps and do other things too.
Spending a bit more on the hardware so that it's powerful enough to be a competent console as well as a portable wouldn't be such a bad play for Nintendo, the value proposition destroys the failed model they're using now.
|
Do not. I already know how you see hardware.
|
The majority of Nintendo fans don't even buy both machines. GBA owners were unwilling to buy a GameCube even at $99, 80% of them. It's basically the same ratio for the Wii U to 3DS. Most people if they are willing to buy a Nintendo hardware only buy one, and the one is the portable, unless Nintendo has some kind of ground breaking controller hook.
You may not like it, but them's the facts. Nintendo's own fan base does not have much interest in buying different systems to essentially play the same 10-15 franchises.
