Jumpin said:
Salnax said:
Ignoring the fact that hindsight makes the Wii U look like a necessary step towards the Switch...
Nintendo could have focused on either trying to make their 2012 console as popular as possible or simply remaining profitable, as with the GameCube. And if they wanted to at least brek even on consoles, that means removing the GamePad. A 2013 estimate from CNN suggests that about a third of the console's price came from just the GamePad. Nintendo could likely have released a "Super Wii" or "Wii HD" around the same time with similar hardware for up to $100 less.
The only question is, could Nintendo have convinced at least 20 million people to buy Super Wiis?
I'm thinking the answer is yes. Most of the best-selling games on the Wii U could have been made without the GamePad, and many already natively support the Wiimote. Games like Mario Kart 8, Super Smash Bros, Super Mario 3D World, and New Super Mario Bros U would basically be unchanged.
The main exceptions to this, best-selling Wii U games that benefit greatly from a GamePad or at least a traditional controller, generally came out after the Wii U had already failed (Splatoon, Super Mario Maker, and Breath of the Wild). These games would either have to be changed to be released on the Super Wii or be delayed to the Switch.
|
I doubt the GameCube was anywhere near profitable. In those years Nintendo was profiting off of its monstrously successful handheld industry, not the failing GameCube.
|
Gamecube was absolutely profitable. Don't equate sales with profit. Gamecube was profitable while (I believe) PS2 was not. Nintendo sold Gamecube at a profit and obviously made profit off their games. Just because it only sold about 20 million systems doesn't mean it wasn't profitable, it was just far less profitable than their better selling systems. No aspect of the Gamecube pipeline was unprofitable.
