Cerebralbore101 said:
How does a better console that is only 50 dollars more sell worst than the Wii U? The same way the Vita sold worse than the 3DS despite being $250, when the 3DS was $250, and $200, when the 3DS XL was $200. That's what happens when a system has no games. Third parties were caught with their pants down with the Wii U. A Machine with with a worse CPU than the 7 year old 360. A system with similar architecture to the PS4 and Xbox One wouldn't have presented those problems. The problem there is assuming that our hypothetical powerful Wii U would have gone with a similar architecture to the PS4. It wouldn't have, because it would have launched a year earlier, and Nintendo never does what everybody else does. Also, Wii U was capable of 3 instructions per clock, and had 2 GB of ram. 360 was 2 instructions per clock and 512 MB of ram. Wii U didn't need such a fast CPU because it wasn't constantly grabbing info from the HDD like the 360 was. I agree with the rest of your post, except for the following part... But everyone that I know that owns a switch also owns a PS4. Everyone I knew that owned a Wii also owned a 360 or a PS3. So Switch should be considered the successor to the Wii then right? |
Only one gig was available for gaming and it was very slow ram. I never argued that the Wii U lacked gsmes, it is one of my points. But the power differential still remained a factor in it crashing. The Switch would have crashed too had it not been a portable system. And yeah everybody who owns a switch, owns a PS4 because there is a 100 million PS4s out there, people are getting their cutting edge games in it. The difference here is that most of the 100 million Wii owners were non habitual gamers, the Switch has a lot of core real gamers people in its installed base. It is really a successor to the 3DS more than anything.
