Pemalite said:
curl-6 said:
What I mean is, even with a Pascal Tegra X2 Switch still would not have been as powerful as PS4/Xbone. So portability, the core concept of the system, rules out being on par with the competition power wise.
|
I never said it has to be as powerfull as the Xbox One/Playstation 4.
But it still could have been better than what it is currently.
curl-6 said:
They could have made Wii/Wii U/Switch stronger, (though I still reckon it would've been an unwise risk to make costlier PS3/360-tier Wii)
|
I disagree. One of the reasons why the Wii's momentum didn't carry on as long as the Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 was that it couldn't attract enough quality 3rd party games to placate some of the more dedicated demographics.
curl-6 said:
what I'm saying is that it makes sense that they didn't, as their only successful consoles since the SNES have opted for low end parts, while their attemps to be power competitive ended in failure. Experience has taught them that trying to fight Playstation head on always fails, while sidestepping the competition with less powerful alternative concepts usually succeeds.
|
The Nintendo 64 was successfull.
But power or lack thereof isn't what makes a console successfull and nor does power limit any innovation... The Wii was a success because of it's motion controls, not because games looked ugly... Because that isn't a selling point.
|
- My point though was that Switch's core concept inherently limits power; by virtue of being what it is, it cannot be power-competitive with traditional consoles.
- We can theorize that now, but hindsight is 20/20. Back then motion controls were unproven and PS3/360 were costing MS and Sony dearly; with what they knew at the time it was just too risky to go with expensive hardware. Plus if they did, they couldn't have achieved the affordability that was a key part of Wii's appeal.
- Nintendo 64 got outsold 3:1 by the PS1 and took Nintendo from owning a majority share of the console market to less than a third of it.
