potato_hamster said:
zorg1000 said:
well not really, 3DS is far more powerful than DS so a ton of 3DS games would not have been possible on DS.
on the other hand, is a 3DS successor going to be vastly more powerful than Switch? Probably not, most likely scenario would be somewhere between Vita & Wii U.
Everything you are proposing when it comes to a 3DS successor is just so damn redundant when basically Switch and potential Switch revisions cover everything.
I just dont see how making a seperate system with the same/similar architecture/operating system/hardware power/system features/etc makes any logical sense.
its like the equivalent of Sony releasing a seperate home console that is somewhere between PS4 & PS4 Pro, shares 90% of the same games as PS4, has PS2/PS3 backwards compatibility, lacks PS VR suppprt but has a small selection of exclusive titles that make use of some extra feature.
You would never say such a device has a possibility of releasing.
|
How about a truly portable version between a slightly less powerful than a PS4 pro, is easy to port to so it shares 90% of the same games as PS4, has Vita backwards compatibility, lacks PS VR suppprt but has a selection of exclusive titles that make use of some extra feature?
Yeah, Sony might make that some day in the next few years.
|
bolded part kinda confused me
but no, thats not really the same thing. Your Nintendo comparison is 2 seperate devices that both have handheld functionality while your Sony comparison is one device that is solely a home console and one that is solely a handheld.
In order to be a similar scenario as your Nintendo one, the new Sony device would have to be a home console.
Having 2 seperate handhelds with 90% of the same game is redundant, having a seperate home console and handheld with 90% of the same games is not.
