Forums - Nintendo Discussion - NX game price if the library is unified?

zorg1000 said:

They have struggled to supply 3DS with adequate software at times as well. Remember the post-launch drought in 2011? 2012 wasn't really a killer year in terms of Nintendo-published titles either. 2014 & 2015 both saw summer droughts. This will continue to get worse as their devices get more powerful and require longer dev cycles and larger budgets. Let's say, the 3DS successor is above Vita level & the Wii U successor is around PS4 level. Do u think they can supply either device with a steady supply of software? Probably not.

 

Yeah I remember the 3DS launch, it wasn't optimal, but again, launch drought is not a new phenomenon. They managed. But I admit that for handhelds the next generation might be different because smartphones changed that particular market so much (graphics / price point). Nintendo might not get away with another machine that is far behind smartphones in graphics. 

For consoles I still can't say I follow the reasoning. They're making money off of software, not hardware. What do they win if one copy they sell runs on both systems? Had they not messed up the Wii U launch timing and, as a result, lost ALL the third party support, they wouldn't be stretched so thin, carrying the Wii U all on their own. 

I say the unified library is bad news for us users. How will NX games compete with PS4 (let alone its eventual successor) if the common denominator for NX is "handheld"? And the whole situation is so unneccessary! Wouldn't you love a gorgeous Metroid? Mario Galaxy 3? Zelda U? Mario Kart 8? Hell, everybody does! The market is still there. But if you launch with NOTHING and it takes years before your first compelling game... yeah then you're making expensive games for no install base. I'm feeling bad for the Zelda team already - another massive Zelda released as a swansong, it will likely go unnoticed just like Skyward Sword. 



Around the Network
OneTwoThree said:
zorg1000 said:

They have struggled to supply 3DS with adequate software at times as well. Remember the post-launch drought in 2011? 2012 wasn't really a killer year in terms of Nintendo-published titles either. 2014 & 2015 both saw summer droughts. This will continue to get worse as their devices get more powerful and require longer dev cycles and larger budgets. Let's say, the 3DS successor is above Vita level & the Wii U successor is around PS4 level. Do u think they can supply either device with a steady supply of software? Probably not.

 

Yeah I remember the 3DS launch, it wasn't optimal, but again, launch drought is not a new phenomenon. They managed. But I admit that for handhelds the next generation might be different because smartphones changed that particular market so much (graphics / price point). Nintendo might not get away with another machine that is far behind smartphones in graphics. 

For consoles I still can't say I follow the reasoning. They're making money off of software, not hardware. What do they win if one copy they sell runs on both systems? Had they not messed up the Wii U launch timing and, as a result, lost ALL the third party support, they wouldn't be stretched so thin, carrying the Wii U all on their own. 

I say the unified library is bad news for us users. How will NX games compete with PS4 (let alone its eventual successor) if the common denominator for NX is "handheld"? And the whole situation is so unneccessary! Wouldn't you love a gorgeous Metroid? Mario Galaxy 3? Zelda U? Mario Kart 8? Hell, everybody does! The market is still there. But if you launch with NOTHING and it takes years before your first compelling game... yeah then you're making expensive games for no install base. I'm feeling bad for the Zelda team already - another massive Zelda released as a swansong, it will likely go unnoticed just like Skyward Sword. 

Why can't they release a gorgeous Zelda? 

500-600 GFLOP portable, runs the game at 960x540 resolution

2 TFLOP console is a good 4:1/5:1 ratio, runs same game at 1080P resolution + a few added effects + anti-aliasing. Boom done. 

Unified library is good for Nintendo users. For one you don't have to pay $500 to play ALL the Nintendo games, the fact is 80% of Nintendo's own userbase did not bother with either the Wii U or GameCube. Never owned either one. That means it doesn't matter who pretty Zelda U or Metroid Prime looked ... the majority of Nintendo's usberbase never played those games. 

There are other benefits to unified platform too ... less/no droughts for one. The other is a better diversity of games. If the Mario Kart team doesn't need make two Mario Kart games, because one Mario Kart suffices for the entire NX ecosystem then they can work on something else like a new franchise of making bringing back something like Wave Race or F-Zero. 

There actually are little/no benefits to a segregated library in this day and age. You pay $500 for hardware to largely play the same 10 franchises over and over and over again. Even most Nintendo buyers are saying "no thanks" to this proposition. Unless Nintendo has a miracle controller that can sell the console on its own, this situation is not likely to improve. They are making money off console software but they're also leaving a lot of money on the table ... Splatoon should easily have sold 2x whatever it's going to sell. This is no way to run a business, you don't keep your best products away from the majority of your userbase. 



Soundwave said:

Unified library is good for Nintendo users. For one you don't have to pay $500 to play ALL the Nintendo games, the fact is 80% of Nintendo's own userbase did not bother with either the Wii U or GameCube. Never owned either one. That means it doesn't matter who pretty Zelda U or Metroid Prime looked ... the majority of Nintendo's usberbase never played those games. 

There are other benefits to unified platform too ... less/no droughts for one. The other is a better diversity of games. If the Mario Kart team doesn't need make two Mario Kart games, because one Mario Kart suffices for the entire NX ecosystem then they can work on something else like a new franchise of making bringing back something like Wave Race or F-Zero. 

There actually are little/no benefits to a segregated library in this day and age. You pay $500 for hardware to largely play the same 10 franchises over and over and over again. Even most Nintendo buyers are saying "no thanks" to this proposition. Unless Nintendo has a miracle controller that can sell the console on its own, this situation is not likely to improve. They are making money off console software but they're also leaving a lot of money on the table ... Splatoon should easily have sold 2x whatever it's going to sell. This is no way to run a business, you don't keep your best products away from the majority of your userbase. 

Again, you're holding it the wrong way around. No one denies that, between Wii U and 3DS, Nintendo's most ambitious efforts are wasted on Wii U. That's because Wii U is a failed ecosystem. Had Nintendo not botched the launch, there's no reason why a Nintendo home console couldn't be just as successful and financially viable as PS4 is right now. It's not about "this day and age" and something something "days long gone". PS4 and PC are proof that the traditional model still works. Sony et al make hugely expensive AAA titles, and they sell 10 million copies and more. 

The other thing where your perspective is off (imho) is when you say Nintendo "doesn't need make two Mario Kart games". If Nintendo makes 2 Mario Kart games, chances are fans will buy them both! Yeah yeah not MK8, for the same reason as above - Wii U was dead in the water from the start. Under normal circumstances MK8 would have been the bestselling entry in the series, and I wouldn't want to miss neither MK7 nor 8. 

Let me say this, if Nintendo manages to build what you proposed – a handheld powerful enough to scale AAA home console games nicely - fine. But you must admit that it would go against everything they've always done. Every single Nintendo handheld was lo-fi, built like a tank and cheap. And that's why they're so successful. 



Most, if not all AAA games should have $59.99 as the price point for both HC and HH. Then some A/AA games would be around $49.99 like what Nintendo is already doing this generation on the Wii U.



OneTwoThree said:
Soundwave said:

Unified library is good for Nintendo users. For one you don't have to pay $500 to play ALL the Nintendo games, the fact is 80% of Nintendo's own userbase did not bother with either the Wii U or GameCube. Never owned either one. That means it doesn't matter who pretty Zelda U or Metroid Prime looked ... the majority of Nintendo's usberbase never played those games. 

There are other benefits to unified platform too ... less/no droughts for one. The other is a better diversity of games. If the Mario Kart team doesn't need make two Mario Kart games, because one Mario Kart suffices for the entire NX ecosystem then they can work on something else like a new franchise of making bringing back something like Wave Race or F-Zero. 

There actually are little/no benefits to a segregated library in this day and age. You pay $500 for hardware to largely play the same 10 franchises over and over and over again. Even most Nintendo buyers are saying "no thanks" to this proposition. Unless Nintendo has a miracle controller that can sell the console on its own, this situation is not likely to improve. They are making money off console software but they're also leaving a lot of money on the table ... Splatoon should easily have sold 2x whatever it's going to sell. This is no way to run a business, you don't keep your best products away from the majority of your userbase. 

Again, you're holding it the wrong way around. No one denies that, between Wii U and 3DS, Nintendo's most ambitious efforts are wasted on Wii U. That's because Wii U is a failed ecosystem. Had Nintendo not botched the launch, there's no reason why a Nintendo home console couldn't be just as successful and financially viable as PS4 is right now. It's not about "this day and age" and something something "days long gone". PS4 and PC are proof that the traditional model still works. Sony et al make hugely expensive AAA titles, and they sell 10 million copies and more. 

The other thing where your perspective is off (imho) is when you say Nintendo "doesn't need make two Mario Kart games". If Nintendo makes 2 Mario Kart games, chances are fans will buy them both! Yeah yeah not MK8, for the same reason as above - Wii U was dead in the water from the start. Under normal circumstances MK8 would have been the bestselling entry in the series, and I wouldn't want to miss neither MK7 nor 8. 

Let me say this, if Nintendo manages to build what you proposed – a handheld powerful enough to scale AAA home console games nicely - fine. But you must admit that it would go against everything they've always done. Every single Nintendo handheld was lo-fi, built like a tank and cheap. And that's why they're so successful. 

There's nothing stopping them from making two Mario Karts, it's just the way it is now, those teams have no choice but to work on the same franchise for like 4-5 years straight. The portable *has* to have a Mario Kart, and then the console which probably is selling even worse than the portable obviously also needs a Mario Kart. 

So there's no choice given to those developers, they're stuck basically working on the same thing for a half-decade where at least in a unified structure, maybe the NX still gets two Mario Karts, but in between now the team has the luxury to develop something else, like maybe (gasp) a Splatoon type idea. 

I think regarding price, the best thing they can do is to up the value proposition of the next handheld. Let it run Android apps/games, Nintendo can pick and choose which ones are available through their eShop and even take a small cut of profit from downloads. But this gives the system a lot of value, because that regular Android tablet doesn't play Nintendo games, but now suddenly you have one device that has both. 

I also think letting the portable be a mini-console in and of itself (can stream to a TV) wouldn't be a bad idea too. A lot of people simply don't want to buy two seperate Nintendo devices, not everyone has $500 lying around to play Mario. So if you have a good chip in the portable, it'll be able to display good graphics on a television. 

So now I think you can charge $249.99 to launch instead of $199.99, you have enough value, just make sure you launch with *strong* games, no more launching with Nintendogs and nothing else for 6 months nonsense. Start with Zelda day 1, Smash All-Stars wouldn't be bad the following month, then Mario NX 2-3 months later, come out swinging. Throw in a free Amiibo too. For $250 this blows the shit out of a $200 3DS XL and this is good proactive evolution of Nintendo's portable brand in the wake of low-cost cheapo tablets, you have to differniate now from them too and there is no product like this on the market.

In a year you'll be able to drop to $199.99, but you'll have a platform that has sooooooo much more developer support because you chose a powerful chip that lets devs actually bring over the content they're making in the modern generation, rather than having to rework a game from scratch for the portable. 



Around the Network

Everyone think NX is new HC and new HH, i think NX is a wiiu handheld, Nintendo going to put a ARM processor to remplace PowerPC, and use more récent graphique core then Wiiu, but nearly the same power... This HH will streaming pictures on TV with help of a case wifi connecte in hdmi to the TV
NINTENDO will unified library of Wiiu and new HH.. That is why Nintendo don't cut wiiu price, and don't tell about wiiu games de for 2016, 2017... New wiiu games are the line up of NX... And You can be sure MK 8, splatoon, bayonnetta, Mario Maker, xenoblade, SSB and zelda wiiu will arrived quickly on NX.



Akeos said:
Everyone think NX is new HC and new HH, i think NX is a wiiu handheld, Nintendo going to put a ARM processor to remplace PowerPC, and use more récent graphique core then Wiiu, but nearly the same power... This HH will streaming pictures on TV with help of a case wifi connecte in hdmi to the TV
NINTENDO will unified library of Wiiu and new HH.. That is why Nintendo don't cut wiiu price, and don't tell about wiiu games de for 2016, 2017... New wiiu games are the line up of NX... And You can be sure MK 8, splatoon, bayonnetta, Mario Maker, xenoblade, SSB and zelda wiiu will arrived quickly on NX.

Knowing Nintendo ... I would say it's possible. 



Soundwave said:

There's nothing stopping them from making two Mario Karts, it's just the way it is now, those teams have no choice but to work on the same franchise for like 4-5 years straight. The portable *has* to have a Mario Kart, and then the console which probably is selling even worse than the portable obviously also needs a Mario Kart. 

So there's no choice given to those developers, they're stuck basically working on the same thing for a half-decade where at least in a unified structure, maybe the NX still gets two Mario Karts, but in between now the team has the luxury to develop something else, like maybe (gasp) a Splatoon type idea. 

I think regarding price, the best thing they can do is to up the value proposition of the next handheld. Let it run Android apps/games, Nintendo can pick and choose which ones are available through their eShop and even take a small cut of profit from downloads. But this gives the system a lot of value, because that regular Android tablet doesn't play Nintendo games, but now suddenly you have one device that has both. 

I also think letting the portable be a mini-console in and of itself (can stream to a TV) wouldn't be a bad idea too. A lot of people simply don't want to buy two seperate Nintendo devices, not everyone has $500 lying around to play Mario. So if you have a good chip in the portable, it'll be able to display good graphics on a television. 

So now I think you can charge $249.99 to launch instead of $199.99, you have enough value, just make sure you launch with *strong* games, no more launching with Nintendogs and nothing else for 6 months nonsense. Start with Zelda day 1, Smash All-Stars wouldn't be bad the following month, then Mario NX 2-3 months later, come out swinging. Throw in a free Amiibo too. For $250 this blows the shit out of a $200 3DS XL and this is good proactive evolution of Nintendo's portable brand in the wake of low-cost cheapo tablets, you have to differniate now from them too and there is no product like this on the market.

In a year you'll be able to drop to $199.99, but you'll have a platform that has sooooooo much more developer support because you chose a powerful chip that lets devs actually bring over the content they're making in the modern generation, rather than having to rework a game from scratch for the portable. 

I don't know what's your issue with Mario Kart (or other major series like 3D Mario, Zelda). So between console and handheld we get a new entry every 3-5 years. Is that too frequent? It sure isn't for me, cause these series are my main interests in gaming. Also, since we're talking efficient use of Nintendo's teams, it makes a lot of sense to keep one team working on one franchise. 

Generally you're sounding somewhat dismissive when you state people can "get their Mario fix" cheap or "not everyone has $500 lying around to play Mario". When I say AAA Nintendo titles, I'm thinking game changers like Mario 64 or Mario Galaxy, and masterpieces like console Zelda entries. A game like Galaxy is totally worth buying a system for. MK8 is in the same league. It annoys me when all things Mario are just summed up as "bit of jumping'n'running, same old, should be free on smartphones".

Regarding Android I have no opinion, I'm not following smartphone gaming at all. Not sure how this should make a difference when every human being owns an Android phone anyway. Nintendo's 40-60$ pricing will look even worse when you've got a myriad of 1$ games right there on the same app store. In terms of the system's price/performance your scenario is wishful thinking. 250$ for a machine that's both portable and producing console graphics above Wii U quality? 3DS is somewhere between N64 and GC, NX would have to surpass GC, Wii, Wii U AND be massively more power efficient. Oh and 1/3 the price of an iPhone. 



potato_hamster said:
JustBeingReal said:

 

Nintendo wouldn't be throwing anything away, they'd be gaining so much more, because resources aren't dedicated to making games for 2 or more separate platforms.

Also you're ignoring DX12, Vulkan and Mantle, all of which are not bloated APIs, rather they're all low level and you know what? It's not necessarily the level of abstraction that brings performance gains anyway, it's the ability for all CPU cores to be able to freely talk to the GPU as and when they need to, rather than each core having to wait it's turn to speak or for all CPU cores to speak through a single thread.

Also there's the matter of a HSA set-up reducing the need for excess reads and writes, along with newer Asynchronous Compute tech allowing developers to make better use of GPU time.

Developers would literally only have to pick settings for each platform, when they optimize their game. No one is saying that Q&A testing isn't going to happen or that optimization to make sure things run as they should isn't going to happen here, but you're essentially trying to invent a problem where there isn't one.

Having to optimize for 2 platforms, with the same OS/API, development tools and architecture would be very easy. Hell Nintendo's own tools would likely undergo much quicker improvements because they're not having to divide their teams between 3DS and Wii U, with each existing in a vacuum.

I'm not inventing a problem where there isn't one. I'm taking a very pracitcal stance to this, and while none of what you're saying is false per se, it's very let's say "theoretical" in the sense that it looks good on paper, but not in the real world. This is a legit concern that you're completely undermining. You're downplaying how difficult such a thing would be to do. It absolutely isn't trivial. It certainly isn't "very easy". It might be "theoretically possible" but Nintendo has to execute this idea of yours. Nintendo has to develop an API that is not only super low-level, but incredibly powerful so that developers can just "pick the settings" (making it very high level) but all of the calculations that involve executing these settings have to be carried out on an a razor thin API using little to no processing time or resources (otherwise it's not low level). Are you seeing a problem here? Sure it might "be possible" but it certainly isn't practical.

On top of that, the team that would be doing it is Nintendo. Have you ever had to work with Nintendo? Used their Dev kits or test kits? Used their developer tools? Called up Nintendo developer support? I have. Let me tell you - They are about a decade behind where Sony and Microsoft are right now in terms of making developer tools that are actually useful compared to Sony and MS's offerings. I'm not joking - the original Xbox's developer tools are better and more powerful than the Wii U's in a lot of ways. And now you're going to take a team that for all intents and purposes has been mailing it in for generations, and now make the most advanced, sophisticated, yet light weight and easy to use API the video game development world has ever seen. And you tell me it will be "easy" for them? Sorry. It isn't easy. It's not trivial. Not for anyone, and not for Nintendo.

In an ideal world, sure developers would "only have to choose" x or y to get their game running on a different spec console, and the lightweight API would just make the magic happen, and *poof* game on new platform with minimal testing. But realistically, you and I both know that would be an incredible achievement, would likely win Nintendo dozens of engineering and desgin awards world-wide if they pulled it off. I do not have that confidence in them. Its fine that you think that Nintendo can pull that off, but I'm taking a far more realistic and grounded approach.


P.S. I also love how you act as if this isn't the funamental issue, but and then chalk it up to something that from what I can see, cannot be solved with an API. The ability for CPU core to send and recieve commands from the GPU simultaneously little to do with the API, and far more to do with the hardware design itself. No amount of API coding is going to get around a hardware bottleneck, and create new physical communcation channels where there are none. But I suppose you think that's trivial as well - making super lightweight ultra powerful APIs getting hardware to do something it's not designed to do. Maybe it's theoretically possible, but in the real world, a team actually has to program it to work that way, and that would not be trivial.

Yes you are. There's no problem here because Nintendo would be making their own lives much easier, because they only have to develop for one architecture and OS. The whole platform shares this, the only differences between the handheld and the console are power. They go from supporting 2 separate architectures and 2 separate operating systems, to one of each, with one part of the physical hardware being less powerful than the other.

Also for your information Nintendo doesn't have to create a new API, because they're already a part of the Khronos initiative that makes Vulkan, in fact they're one of the contributors and it's likely for this very reason why they joined this group. Vulkan already allows for everything I'm talking about, it does all of this, with a low level of abstraction. An API doesn't need to be thick to allow for multiple pieces of hardware or even multiple architectures to work across more than one.

FYI it's not an API that is "powerful", but rather the hardware that provides the actual power, the API just uses the resources at hand to communicate data between the higher level software and the physical hardware.

 

As I said there is no problem at all, you are inventing issues where there are none and you continue to do so, for no good reasons. You want Nintendo continue on the same path that is failing them?

Optimizing for one architecture, one OS is much more efficient than having to do all of that for 2 separate platforms, this is undeniable.

PC has already shown that there are no issues in making games run on thousands of different hardware configurations, not to the extent of having to build entirely new versions of a game for each one and in the case of this hypothetical NX family of systems there would be even less of a complicated environment, because Nintendo would only have to worry about the few devices they release, as NX hardware evolves.

 

There is no fundemental issue here, Nintendo goes from supporting two seperate platforms, to one that has different form factors and a single OS that works on 2 or more devices. They go from dividing resources, to unifying them and as a result can optimize for each device much easier. You're making this out to have issues where there aren't any and it's downright ridiculous.

Now you start talking about made up bottlenecks for hardware, which would be designed to work as well as possible. Nintendo wouldn't just slap together tech randomly, but build each device with a set idea in mind and a specific audience, like Handheld gamers and Console gamers or whatever (I can't really think of any more audiences).

You're ignoring that the processing architecture would be the same, have the same CPU Core design, the same GPU Core design, the same kind of memory, which means code works natively when it's made for that architecture, there can't be any issues when this is the case. If architecture changes, then new code is written to incorporate that new architecture into the overall NX OS/API and it just works, because that architecture has been taken into consideration and incorporated into the development environment. This fundemental fact is why the issues you're trying to invent don't exist and why developers could literally just choose different settinngs for their games to make them work easily without needing to port them.

 

As for your talk about Nintendo making mistakes in the past and messing up their development tools, well they're a part of Khronos now, they joined last year: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/nintendo_joins_khronos_vid_api_standards_body/



JustBeingReal said:

Yes you are. There's no problem here because Nintendo would be making their own lives much easier, because they only have to develop for one architecture and OS. The whole platform shares this, the only differences between the handheld and the console are power. They go from supporting 2 separate architectures and 2 separate operating systems, to one of each, with one part of the physical hardware being less powerful than the other.

Also for your information Nintendo doesn't have to create a new API, because they're already a part of the Khronos initiative that makes Vulkan, in fact they're one of the contributors and it's likely for this very reason why they joined this group. Vulkan already allows for everything I'm talking about, it does all of this, with a low level of abstraction. An API doesn't need to be thick to allow for multiple pieces of hardware or even multiple architectures to work across more than one.

FYI it's not an API that is "powerful", but rather the hardware that provides the actual power, the API just uses the resources at hand to communicate data between the higher level software and the physical hardware.

 

As I said there is no problem at all, you are inventing issues where there are none and you continue to do so, for no good reasons. You want Nintendo continue on the same path that is failing them?

Optimizing for one architecture, one OS is much more efficient than having to do all of that for 2 separate platforms, this is undeniable.

PC has already shown that there are no issues in making games run on thousands of different hardware configurations, not to the extent of having to build entirely new versions of a game for each one and in the case of this hypothetical NX family of systems there would be even less of a complicated environment, because Nintendo would only have to worry about the few devices they release, as NX hardware evolves.

 

There is no fundemental issue here, Nintendo goes from supporting two seperate platforms, to one that has different form factors and a single OS that works on 2 or more devices. They go from dividing resources, to unifying them and as a result can optimize for each device much easier. You're making this out to have issues where there aren't any and it's downright ridiculous.

Now you start talking about made up bottlenecks for hardware, which would be designed to work as well as possible. Nintendo wouldn't just slap together tech randomly, but build each device with a set idea in mind and a specific audience, like Handheld gamers and Console gamers or whatever (I can't really think of any more audiences).

You're ignoring that the processing architecture would be the same, have the same CPU Core design, the same GPU Core design, the same kind of memory, which means code works natively when it's made for that architecture, there can't be any issues when this is the case. If architecture changes, then new code is written to incorporate that new architecture into the overall NX OS/API and it just works, because that architecture has been taken into consideration and incorporated into the development environment. This fundemental fact is why the issues you're trying to invent don't exist and why developers could literally just choose different settinngs for their games to make them work easily without needing to port them.

 

As for your talk about Nintendo making mistakes in the past and messing up their development tools, well they're a part of Khronos now, they joined last year: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/nintendo_joins_khronos_vid_api_standards_body/

Great. Nintendo joined Khronos. What exactly does that mean for Nintendo? Does it mean they have unfettered access to everything Khronos creates, for them to use how they see fit? Probably not. That's not how it works. But if it did, you're assuming the Kronos API as it stands does exactly what Nintendo needs it to do, and has a resource footprint that meets the demands of Nintendo. Sure it might be low-level, but it might not be low enough, and it might be nowhere near the level Nintendo needs it to be. I can almost guarantee it does not meet Nintendo's needs as it stands, and Nintendo will have to modify it dramatically to meet their needs. That's if they're even using this technology in the NX. They might have just joined the group to evaluate the technology. You should see all the groups Sony and Microsot is a part of. It doesn't necessarily mean anything.

And FYI, it is the API that is "powerful" in the sense that any piece of software can be more powerful than similar software. Some APIs that are more capable and have more functionality could be considered to be more "powerful" than others. This should be obvious. Don't argue over semantics.

Also you're failing to understand the fundamental issue that creating the infrasture ( the APIs, the development kits, the developer tools etc.) is extremely difficult, and you continuously trivialize this. Making all of this work they way you picture it is an very very very difficullt task. Of course this is theortically possible, but is isn't practical - especially not for Nintendo as I've outlined above. And you just kinda shurg and say "Nintendo will benefit by doing so so they'll just do it". They have to actually be able to execute this!

You keep bringing up PCs as if that really matters, and I'm not sure why.  Sure  PC games run on thousands of different hardware configurations, using engines running on APIs and OSs that are vastly different than what is used on consoles. You can deny that all you want but those are still the facts. Console OSs and APIS are still take a fraction of the system resources PC OSes and APIs do, so it is not the same as comparing apples to apples. Optimizing for one architecture, and one OS might much more efficient than having to do all of that for 2 separate platforms, but optimizing for one architecture and one OS, and one specification is much more effiicent than optimizing for two similar archtectures, two similar OSs, and two similar specifications. The resources required to do so might be magnitudes bigger than optimizing for a single specification - don't forget that.

Also the code will only work natively if the engine that's actually translating the code (you know, one of the dificult part I'm discussing) makes it so. Do you know that for multi-platform games the PS4 and the Xbox One are actually running practically identical code, just compiled differently and running on engines customized for each console? It doesn't "just work" on it's own! People have to put a lot of time and effort making the engines and APIs, and developer kits and tools and all of the other stuff that's needed for it to "just work" and it's the "just work" part that the topic of this discussion.

It is not easy to implement the solution you continue to brush off as trivial no matter what the huge benefit is. Sure the upside is huge, but only if you make it happen, that that if, no matter how much you deny it, is a huge one.