Soundwave said:
The DSi had a CPU that was doubled in power and RAM increased by 4 times by the way (on top of added cameras). Just so we're clear on that. The "Nintendo would never do, becuase they've never done that before" crowd has taken a lot of losses the last couple of years anyway. When people suggested a hybrid console: "Nintendo would never make a single hardware device, they've always made two hardware lines, a portable and a home console, they'll never change that" (wrong) When people said Nintendo was going to bail on the Wii U: "Nintendo will not stop supporting the Wii U, not before a full five years is up, they've never done that before with a console" (wrong) When reports surfaced of Nintendo choosing Nvidia for the NX chip: "Nintendo won't work with Nvidia, they've never done that before in the past, it will be an AMD chip gaurunteed" (wrong) When people said Zelda would be a Switch/NX title: "Nintendo won't do that. Every Nintendo console has it's own Zelda game." (wrong) Nintendo does things people don't think Nintendo would do all the time. Even last year I remember I was arguing with a poster who said he was a programmer of games and said that multi-tiered platforms ... like a Nintendo system with two graphics settings, a upgraded Playstation 4, and an upgraded XBox One would not only never happen but was impossible for developers to support. Look at where we are today. I feel making Switch an ecosystem rather than a single system is Nintendo's way of co-opting the fact that they've been reduced to one hardware line also. So they'll keep the older weaker Switch around, but IMO they will sell it concurrently eventually with a higher end model too. It makes them money and keeps the Switch concept fresh. |
The DSi had the same DS CPU in the the two arm processors it was not twice the power like you claim one processor was clocked at a higher speed while the other was the same speed as before so it was slightly faster than previous models.
You seem to have a habit of bending things to fit your argument for a start most people were flat out saying NX was more than likely going to be a hybrid as it makes business sense and saves resources. Nvidia were likely to be involved in this case as they already have a family of GPUs that are up for the job and were never sold although it was understandable if people were unsure given Nvidia's past unwillingness to budge on prices, most people expected Wii U to be dropped due to it doing badly and NX being announced two years into its life and Zelda being delayed was similar to the case with TP. The majority of people picked up on most of these likely scenarios just because you argued with a few people here doesn't change that.
The reason why Nintendo is unlikely to do what you're saying with new skus here and there with different power is because of their business model plus the problems it will give developers. Right now the are two configurations and more skus adds two more per sku developers have to deal with plus the games themselves would not change as they'd all be designed for the lowest setting regardless making it a pointless, Nintendo would rather have one performance level for 6-7 years before using the next viable hardware they did it for years when the was no competition so what makes you think they'll change when the is non currently now? It took the PSP to force them to make a 3D capable handheld for reference.
As I mentioned above the may be revisions but I don't see skus with significantly different performances like X1 and Scorpio as the last time they did that with the GBC the revision became its own platform and it only existed because the GBA was delayed as well. The is already an ecosystem Nintendo has mapped out and started and Switch is part of it as is Mobile and all the other upcoming ventures they have planned.
