| Soundwave said: Well first of all your Game Boy example is not even historically accurate, Nintendo was fed up with the Game Boy by about 1995 and was desperately trying to replace it, this is how the Virtual Boy got released in the first place, like it wasn't some random thing that Nintendo pulled out of their ass and just decided to release for no reason. Nintendo wanted some secondary product to sell alongside their consoles since the GB had flagging sales Yamauchi insisted Yokoi give him something new to sell and that's how the Virtual Boy was rushed out to market. There was a Game Boy successor already in development circa 1994 that they were planning to release in 1995/96 too (Codename Atlantis, which Nintendo finally showed proof of at GDC like 20 years later) but they couldn't release it because of hardware problems too, so they were actively trying to basically kill the OG Game Boy by '95 it was really just happenstance that they couldn't do it as the company making the chipset for Atlantis (Game Boy successor) fucked up. Secondly though you're operating under an assumption that Nintendo hasn't made chip deals ... the deal is already made likely has been for years. Shit the chip itself for the Switch successor we already know what it is (Tegra T239/Drake). Nintendo doesn't have the flexibility to just back out of this deal, this chip is probably made primarily for them because the Tegra line doesn't really have many vendors that use that tech (it's just too power hungry for smartphones and Android tablet makers don't want a chip that powerful because the only Android tablets that really sell are the dirt cheap ones otherwise people just buy an iPad and keep it for 10 years). So the bill on this chip is going to be due, one way or another and it's likely a very hefty bill as this type of tech is not cheap. The Game Boy was a completely different hardware story, it used generic off the shelf parts that weren't designed really for the Game Boy in particular. Nintendo can't do that with the Switch, they're stuck with Nvidia now (for better or worse) because of backwards compatibility issues. |
Not true as VB was never meant to replace the GB it was in fact in development from as early as the late 80s as Nintendo got the tech back in 85 and it was in R&D alongside the GB not to mention the VB is not a portable platform it's a table top console, the VB was meant to create a new market much like we have home console and portable the VB was meant to create a new branch. Secondly 95/96 would be seven to eight years for the GB just like how now is seven years for the Switch so yes the GB example stands pretty much as I put it as the monopoly allowed them the luxury of taking their time and even the GB further pushes my point because they could afford to have development hiccups and still be fine.
Deals have a wide range of ways they can be done you're the one assuming here as you're assuming things can be done only in one way for example how a bank deals with giving an ordinary person a loan is different from how they deal with giving a loan to a billionaire the are flexibilities, you also miss the point in the having leverage with the market which gives them more clout in negotiating deals which can allows the space to exercise options in tech not to mention some deals aren't closed straight away and have periods where things are left open until a certain deadline. Any company negotiating with them would be well aware at this point that the Switch successor has a potential 100m sales which gives the client Nintendo more ground in negotiations which dictate what kind of deal is agreed.
Last edited by Wyrdness - on 05 May 2023
