I flew too close to the 1TF sun and my Switch wings melted.

[curl-6]

spemanig said:

curl-6 said:

PS1 and PS2 were the most powerful consoles in the world when they came out and were still power-competitive with later rivals like N64 and GCN. On the other side of the coin we have the SNES beating the weaker Genesis and both beating the weaker Turbografx-16, PS1 and N64 both beating the weaker Saturn, PS2/GCN/Xbox all beating the weaker Dreamcast, 

In the end, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the discussion and cheers for keeping it respectful.

 

PS1 and PS2 weren't really "underpowered" systems though; in 1994/2000 when they came out, they were powerhouses, beating anything else on the market. And Wii was lightning in a bottle; Wii U tried the same trick of being a generation behind graphically, and it was a disaster.

Wii was not lightning in a bottle, it was a calculated success that was extremely conceptually short sighted, and Wii U most definitely did not fail because it was a generation behind. It failed because it wasn't convenient, popular, or accessible. It wasn't a good mass market product. It had a bad name associated with a tainted brand. It had bad marketing. It had horrible multiplatform support. It had no software appeal to the mainstream western market it was trying to appeal to. It had cheap looking hardware with poor erganomics. It had no compelling value proposition. And all of this combined resulted in it getting terrible media attention. That's why the Wii U failed. Not because "it was weak."

Power only matters with regards to getting multiplatform games. That's it. Getting software. You have the games? Then you're golden, and all you need to worry about is everything else.

Switch is very unlikely to get strong multiplatform support though. It's not like the PS2 to PS4/Xbone's GCN/Xbox, more like the Vita to the PS3/360. More to the point though, Nintendo gamers just don't buy multiplatform games in enough numbers to justify them.