zorg1000 said:
With a unified setup Nintendo doesn't really NEED anybody to buy both sets of hardware, it's simply about getting as many people into the Nintendo ecosystem as possible. They may lose out on double-dippers but that risk is offset by the potential to attract people who previously did not own any Nintendo device. For example, let's say someone is interested in 6 3DS games but they aren't willing to buy a 3DS just for 6 games, let's say they are also interested in 6 Wii U games but again that's not enough for them to buy a Wii U, but would that person be more likely to buy a single device if it had all 12 of those games? I think so.
It's feasible to release a $199 handheld that can display Wii U level visuals at a lower resolution with a $199 console variant of that with the CPU/GPU running at higher clock rates and having 2x the RAM which allows the games to be displayed in a higher resolution/frame rate and some other minor perks. It's basically the difference between N64 vs N64+RAM pak or GC vs Wii or 3DS vs New 3DS. Being powerful really isn't a huge deal for Nintendo hardware, it's more about offering an affordable device that has a constant stream of fun & unique games, as long as the devices run modern engines like Unity & Unreal 4 than its really not that huge of a concern.
|
While you make some good points, I have to point out that Nintendo has never needed to put out two sets of hardware, or even really one. They do so because they make significantly more money by having two systems serving two oft-overlapping markets. I don't see much in the company's 30+ years of gaming history that implies that they would be willing to invest significant sums in R&D, components, assembly, and shipping, and then leave money on the table by pushing two competing products on retailers and consumers at the same time.
Additionally, let's not forget this is a company that often seems to have no problems delaying finished titles to different quarters simply because they don't want their software investments to crowd each other out: how likely is it that they'll do that with something in which they've invested significantly more time, energy, and resources?
Moving on, I don't pretend to have the technical background to say whether you can have a portable Wii U for $200 or not, to take your example. I do have to question whether that's the best approach though. We've had twenty years to observe companies try the "home console in your pocket" strategy, continuing most recently with the Vita, and the data don't look encouraging. Sega, Sony, NEC, and Atari all tried that strategy. Hudson actually had a full blown portable which let you insert and play the same cartridge as you used in the TurboGrafx. Sega did the same later, with the added ability to plug the handheld in and play the game on your TV. They've largely been commercial flops. Simply put, making home consoles games for portables appears to appeal to only a small amount of people, relatively speaking.
To expand on this a bit and go back to one of your earlier points, I believe Nintendo has remained the undisputed champion of the handheld due primarily, if not exclusively, to the fact that they tailor the handheld experience for the handheld audience. This doesn't just mean the software - although that's critical - it also means the hardware. Amongst other things I think $200 for a portable is simply still too much for the mass market. Children appear to remain the primary owners of handheld consoles, and it's my belief that asking parents to spend $200+ for a handheld is an effective way of continuing to get more hand me down smartphones in childrens' hands.
On the flipside, I sincerely doubt a $200 home console is going to satisfy that market either. The NX home console is presumably intended to service that market for at least another half decade in the future. Ask yourself: would the market really buy a home console in 2016 that is basically a Wii U sans Gamepad? Will they do so in 2020? Will anyone but Nintendo be making games tailored for this home console?
At the moment I am firmly convinced that the answer is "no." The Wii U was categorically rejected by third parties even before it launched. It is apparently not worth the trouble of porting PS4 games to it. Its tepid support has dried up even further since 2012. It is not going to attract developers this year, let alone for the next several. And you're effectively asking that the NX be something in line, technologically, with the Wii U. I don't see that going anywhere. It would simply lead to a home console that's supported exclusively with upscaled handheld games. It would not be, to use your examples, a Gamecube to Wii , it would be a Gameboy to Super Gameboy situation. I don't believe that will work.
I'm personally still not completely convinced that a one size fits all approach is wise when it comes to portables and home consoles. I am quite confident that a overclocked portable which costs less than a launch 3DS is unlikely to have any appreciable home console market penetration. Your concluding thought that the key is to have an affordable device with a stream of good games is right on the money. I simply propose that a self-cannibalizing compromise that will see little third party support and few games tailored specifically to the home or away experience is unlikely to get that result.
