Pemalite said:
curl-6 said:
I never said it would be a bad thing for consumers; heck, I would buy such a device myself, as I only play in docked mode. What I'm saying is more that it probably wouldn't be worth it for Nintendo, because such a device would require a huge investment from them while probably selling very little. |
Why would a fixed home console that ran the same games as the portable sell "very little"?
That would be like saying the Switch Lite is pointless because that would also sell "very little" would it not? Why does it apply to one and not the other?
How would it be a huge investment?
You do realize Nintendo is simply using an ARM SoC paired up with cheap LPDDR memory and cheap NAND? There are android "TV Boxes" that do the same...
Let's take some rubbish (H96 Max M9S) Chinese product from Ebay with it's markup... Sells for about $200 AUD.
It's got 8GB of Ram (Twice as much as Switch), it's got a RK3576 SoC with 4x Cortex-A72 cores @ 2.2GHz + 4x Cortex-A53 cores @ 1.8GHz - Vastly superior to Switch, GPU's (Mali vs Tegra) ends up being roughly the same...
Switch Lite is $300 AUD.
So even with better hardware... We are already $100 AUD cheaper by ditching all the mobile components, there are going to be budget-savy households where that is going to be super appealing, especially as inflation and household budgets keep blowing out. |
Switch Lite was pretty much the same hardware as the original, with components cut out to reduce cost, so it would've been very cheap to develop.
The OP describes the device in question as a "powerful console" that would "compete with PS and Xbox"; that would take a lot more than just some cheap mobile components, you'd have to invest some serious money, and I doubt it would be worth it commercially when the audience who wants graphics will still find it lacking due to all its game being held back by the portable SKU.
