Name me one genuinely successful microconsole.





yeah I thought not.

Honestly the whole "Nintendo should bow out of the main race" is kinda silly. There's nothing intrinsic to their company or their resources that makes them nonviable in the main market; quite the opposite, they have the resources available to be very heavy hitters. They just need to stop hamstringing themselves. Sales numbers taken in a vacuum without consideration to surrounding circumstances is not an indication of present or future potential for success.

If anything, they should definitely stick it out because of the big three, they are the most consistently profitable company in this market. If they can stop doing the occasional stupid thing that shoots themselves in the foot (GameCube discs and marketing, Wii U marketing and early launch resulting in gimpy hardware) and they can stick it out and stay consistent, it will probably be just them and Sony not too long from now. The folks at the greater MS company who don't like the Xbox division are only getting more ammunition to use against them every quarter. People always talk like MS being filthy rich means they don't care about the losses but the truth is it's the opposite: MS cares a great deal about losses, that's *why* they are filthy rich, because they cut nonviable divisions.

Also, just cause Google and others see the microconsole as a big market doesn't make it one. The reality is that they just want to capitalize even more on the enormous Play store and similar services but know full well the games there don't stand a snowball's chance in hell against the *real* big boys so they try to smuggle them into the console market via these cheap alternatives. And it just doesn't work. It brings the portable and home console markets together in a way that removes the very things that each demographic wants in their device.

The reason why people want a mainline Pokemon title on a console is so that the Pokemon game will be able to use the power of the home console which is much more powerful than the handheld and not be limited to the power limitations of the handheld. It is not because they want to play the same game on a TV. And yes, this will technically give them that but its not the reason why people want it and therefore it will not do anything to help the sales. They don't want a port of the game they can easily play on the handheld, they want an original Pokemon game that can utlize the full power of the console which is not avaliable on the handheld. And you are drastically over estimating the sales of a micro-console.

Heres an idea, instead of speculating that it will work magically, why don't you give me some examples in cases where such a thing actually worked? I gave you the Vita/Vita TV, so now its your turn

And btw, the Vita sold 2.12 million in NA where has the Vita TV sold < 60k since its launch I believe. That is a bigggg difference. But yes, please, give me some proof because guess what, many 3ds owners also own a wiiU because they want the experience that the console exclusive version gives them and certainly not cause they just want to play the exact same game on their TV

The first sentence is part of my point, there is a large potential audience for microconsoles yet none of them have broke out and shown that potential. I believe not having strong standout software is a large reason for that, which is exactly what Nintendo excels at. Nintendo in my opinion has a very strong chance of being the first company to make a truly successful microconsole.

I don't think Nintendo can't compete with PS/XB, I simply don't think they want to. Nintendo has always been about affordable, family-friendly appeal, a $300-400 device with mostly M-rated games like PS/XB doesn't really fit that philosophy. A $150 device with 100's of games designed for kids/casuals/families does fit that philosophy and in my opinion is a much safer, smarter route for Nintendo to take.

This device I'm describing is more powerful than Wii U, a Pokemon game that uses that power be a very impressive title. How am I over estimating the sales potential?

There are no examples of such a thing that worked, that's why I think Nintendo could perhaps succeed in such a scenario. I have said it at least a half dozen times in this thread already, the microconsole market is a potentially large market, it just hasn't had a device with strong standout software to really put it on the map, Nintendo has the multimillion selling ip to make such a device standout and sell well if executed properly.

Vita is nearly 3 years old, Vita TV is 2.5 months old. Vita sold 400k in about 2.5 months and Vita TV 100k in the same time frame, a much better comparison than urs.

Also why are u assuming people will automatically choose the handheld? 3DS sells so much better than Wii U because of price and vastly larger software library, not simply because it's a handheld (well in Japan being a handheld sells it). If Wii U was the same price as 3DS with the huge library of 3DS, don't u think they would sell more similarly than they currently do?

I disagree that it's safer.  The "market" you are suggesting their target doesn't actually exist; it is a market that supposedly exists according to marketing analysts and Google but everyone who has tried to access it has found it to be fool's gold.  The reality is that the microconsole concept misreads demographic desires.  People who want a console want a *console* with all the perks, but microconsoles by definition sacrifice the vast majority of it, largely in favor of being afordable.  However, the mobile demographic that this affordability supposedly helps them target 1) still doesn't find it affordable, smart phones are free with contracts and 2) doesn't care about the tv exprience they want something mobile.  And a $150 microconsole would be cheap, yes, but offer nothing really new other than new Nintendo titles.  Hardware wise, it would be very weak, weaker than PS4 and Xbox One which will probably be near $150 by the time the next Nintendo platform launches with larger libraries and all the perks of a full console.  In short, I think that the microconsole market is just a bunch of smoke a mirrors that companies like Google really, really want to be real.

What is a micro-console anyway? What is it that defines a console as a "micro"?

People mentioned Ouya and VitaTV but I have not used either one of them so I don't really know what the difference is between them and let's say Wii U, since we talk about Nintendo. Ouya is an Android-driven low-price console with weaker hardware and an ugly controller and poor game library. Pretty much all I know about it. VitaTV is like PSV but you connect it to your TV instead, like a home console version of PSV, right?

A microconsole is a very small, very cheap console alternative.  Their nature usually means they have no optical drive and are an all digital platform and also are much weaker than home consoles since they use mobile parts from tablets usually that are intended for much smaller screens.  There are a number, but they've never been particularly successful. 

Next Nintendo Console should be a real next Gen Console. I hope that Nintendo, after the big mistake of WiiU, will conceive a better piece of hardware with innovative games and some fresh ideas, and new IPs.

It doesn't matter if the console is more powerful than the wiiU cause the games will be avaliable on the handheld. It is as simple as that. There is no reason for anyone to pay twice the amount for two different hardware if both plays the exact same games, just one being able to play the games on the TV. That is why the Vita failed because a lot of its games can be found else where. And since the handheld has always been popular on Nintendo's side, majority will go for the handheld instead of the console

And if it didn't work with other companies, it wont work for Nintendo for the very same reason.

And what do you mean the Vita sold 400k in 2.5 months vs Vita TV 100k in the same time frame? Just look at the december NPD for example. Last december, the Vita sold 130k and Vita TV sold 20k... That will never result in a number that you gave for the Micro-console vs Handheld if you compare it like that... And the sales of the Vita TV is laughable at best considering its the holidays. And considering it sold 40k in October and November combined, the Vita TV sold 60k in NA LTD...

And the reason why people will choose the handheld is because in the History of Nintendo platforms, their handheld has always sold better than the consoles in the exact same generation. And when they choose the handheld, they wont bother with the micro-console at all where as if they make a standard console, the handheld owners might consider it a lot higher since it will give them exclusive games that cant be played on the handheld. Also nope, if the wiiU is the same price as the 3ds and has the exact same library, there is no reason for anyone to get the wiiU because it will have the exact same hardware as the 3ds if we are going my your logic. No one will pay almost twice the amount for two pieces of hardware that does virtually the samething

Nintendo does what they want, what people on the message boards argue about doesn't really factor into it.

If you asked Nintendo fans if they'd be ok with the Wii (Project: Revolution) being only slightly more powerful than the existing $99.99 GameCube, most would have voted "no" overwhelmingly.

A microconsole wouldn't be so bad if done correctly ... something with 3x say the CPU/GPU cores and double the RAM of the handheld using the same mobile components would be super small, quiet, but still a nice upgrade on the Wii U (assuming the handheld is about a Wii U ... so 3x that). Home console games run at 1080P, handheld games run at 540p-720p, same library. 

And it would be very cheap, since the handheld and microconsole would use the same components, the cost of the components would scale down quickly for Nintendo. It would be low-risk on Nintendo's part in that they wouldn't be subject to potential losses, so long as they don't do something stupid like making a $100 controller again.