| sethnintendo said: So remind me again what you are bitching about |
It's in the post itself, the differences in approach between the Wii U and its predecessor, he earlier said it's underpowered because it followed the same path as Wii however I pointed out Wii U was as powerful as Nintendo could make it in the power game due to the costs of going that route. This is backed by a link I posted earlier that showed the cost inflicted on MS (2.9bn) and Sony (4.9) by their platforms in this approach and they had services like Live and PSN making money for them as well as have a difference licensing structure to Nintendo where third parties don't pay as much plus their (MS/Sony) costs are offset by other ventures in the company so that loss doesn't show the full scale of the costs it would inflict on Nintendo as he earlier said they had 10bn in the bank to do so.
The power talk is highlighting the difference in approach he argues that they went underpowered to copy Wii when they were actually were pushing for power they just got outmatched in a game they should have never played and do what they do best their own thing, Wii was blue ocean focused that audience doesn't care about power so it didn't have a jump in power but a push in a concept to focus on immersion and fun, Wii U tried to play the power game but because Nintendo don't have the size or ventures nor did they have an equivalent service of the other platforms they couldn't come close to the jump their competitors were planning even if you went back in time to 2010 when they started developing Wii U to tell them of the specs their competitors would put out they wouldn't be able to match it due to their business model not being geared to combat companies of that size who can go all in when in a power game.
I don't see where you got the whole notion that only power is important from.
Essay Pro