Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Can NINTENDO make traditional home console that sells well?

Atleast 50 million?

Yes 25 38.46%
 
No 40 61.54%
 
Total:65

They could, of course, but they would have to actually build a system that can handle current gen games.
They would also need to learn to play nice with third party studios, and spend more on game development.

I don't think any of those will happen though, they made their choice clear with the switch. They're happy doing handheld gaming and underpowered home consoles, keeping churning out uninspired Yoshi, Kirby or Pokemon games.

And you have to take also the mobile market into account, where they are just doing what everybody else is doing: copying successful concepts and slapping a skin of their own IPs on it.

Nintendo is still able to make some great games, but they really are starting to be the exception in a library full of mediocrity and easy cash grabs. And even if those games are great they still are held back by underpowered hardware and useless gimmicks.

I use to love Nintendo, but at this point, if they stopped making games, I would only miss Zelda and Mario. All the other things I miss about Nintendo has been already gone for a very long time.



Around the Network

nope. that time has went the way of the dodo

handhelds are their strength and will be for a long time.

along with slap-assed together android/ios money grabber apps (aka games). according to the new shitastic president.



 

Soundwave said:
Jumpin said:
A traditional Nintendo console is different from a traditional Sony console.

Nintendo’s philosophy is simplification and expansion: they add new interface options (whether d-pad, portability, shoulder buttons, analog stick, extra ports, touch screens, motion controls, or unique combos of each. The Switch is heavily revitalizing and expanding local multiplayer while keeping it simple.

Sony’s philosophy is updating hardware.

While the markets are the same, each company has two different traditions.

4/6 of Nintendo's traditional consoles were large hardware upgrades from what was available prior (NES-SNES-N64-GameCube), it's only post GameCube that for two gens (Wii + Wii U) they went a different way. 

That’s not true at all.

Each one of Nintendo’s consoles, except the Gamecube, GBA, 3DS, and Wii U, advanced or expanded the way we interface with games. They were not simple hardware updates like the playstations.

The NES introduced a simplified controller with a d-pad, and while consoles existed before the NES was a unique type of console. The SNES gave us the diamond face buttons and shoulder buttons (which Sony and Microsoft have copied every generation since), the N64 gave us four controller ports and analog sticks (again, copied by the competition), the Wii gave us motion controls, the Gameboy gave us portability, the DS gave us touch screens, and Switch hybridized and expanded local multiplayer capabilities through sheer logistics ease.

The Gamecube is the only console Nintendo ever made that resembles the traditional Playstation console.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

maxleresistant said:
They could, of course, but they would have to actually build a system that can handle current gen games.
They would also need to learn to play nice with third party studios, and spend more on game development.

I don't think any of those will happen though, they made their choice clear with the switch. They're happy doing handheld gaming and underpowered home consoles, keeping churning out uninspired Yoshi, Kirby or Pokemon games.

And you have to take also the mobile market into account, where they are just doing what everybody else is doing: 1) copying successful concepts and slapping a skin of their own IPs on it.

Nintendo is still able to make some great games, 2) but they really are starting to be the exception in a library full of mediocrity and easy cash grabs. And even if those games are great they still are held back by underpowered hardware and useless gimmicks.

I use to love Nintendo, but at this point, if they stopped making games, I would only miss Zelda and Mario. All the other things I miss about Nintendo has been already gone for a very long time.

1) If we're going to level copying as some kind of slur then none of the big three will escape that criticism - I could list endless examples of MS & Sony doing similarly but I think anyone with a bit of knowledge in the gaming industry will know this. If anything, Nintendo is known as the biggest innovator of the 3...

2) Really...? Since Switch launched we've had BOTW, Mario Oddysey, Mario + Rabbids (collaboration), Splatoon 2, XC2, & Snipperclips - all of those are games are in the 8s or higher on MetaCritic. You also have games like Arms & Kirby in the 7s. Unless you class anything under 8 mediocre or a cash grab?

That's of course not counting the numerous high-quality ports that the Switch has received...

If this output, in terms of quality, in just over a year isn't adequate, then can I ask what developer's is? Honest question.



OdinHades said:
zippy said:

Didn't they introduce dual analogue? 

Nah, that came some years later, after the N64 was released I believe. The original one looked a little something like this:

I see. I never had a PS1 ( I was a Saturn boy lol), I just remembered playing Ape escape on PS1 which used dual analogue prominently if I remember.



Around the Network
Jumpin said:
Soundwave said:

4/6 of Nintendo's traditional consoles were large hardware upgrades from what was available prior (NES-SNES-N64-GameCube), it's only post GameCube that for two gens (Wii + Wii U) they went a different way. 

That’s not true at all.

Each one of Nintendo’s consoles, except the Gamecube, GBA, 3DS, and Wii U, advanced or expanded the way we interface with games. They were not simple hardware updates like the playstations.

The NES introduced a simplified controller with a d-pad, and while consoles existed before the NES was a unique type of console. The SNES gave us the diamond face buttons and shoulder buttons (which Sony and Microsoft have copied every generation since), the N64 gave us four controller ports and analog sticks (again, copied by the competition), the Wii gave us motion controls, the Gameboy gave us portability, the DS gave us touch screens, and Switch hybridized and expanded local multiplayer capabilities through sheer logistics ease.

The Gamecube is the only console Nintendo ever made that resembles the traditional Playstation console.

I understand your point but I would have to respectfully disagree.  Regardless of what you said between NES to Gamecube, those were traditional home consoles because Nintendo was the one that originally set the standard of traditional home consoles in the first place.  So to call Nintendo's console from NES to Gamecube different than Sony's and MS isn't right because they jumped into the market following the same path Nintendo laid out for them before they entered.

You can also say all those little things about Nintendo's controllers etc..but every console had added their own features on their controller (ie. PS4's touch pad, Sega Dreamcast mini screen) Sure Nintendo innovated with adding 2 shoulder buttons and an analog stick, but others have perfected it by adding 4 button shoulder buttons and dual anolog stick which is now the standard, and Nintendo now copies that too.  

Anyways, I'm sure many would say that ultimately a traditional home console is a system that must be hooked up to a TV/monitor and playing with a controller that you can sit down on your couch.  Any little tidbits that doesn't sway you away from playing it that exact way is irrelevant (ie whatever extra controller feature it has).  Wii was the true definition of what wasn't a traditional home console for obvious reasons.



With powerfull hardware, Blue-ray, good design, good online service, full third party support, mainline Pokemon, Mario 2D/3D, Zelda, Animal Crossing etc. games, Nintendo traditional home console would sell well (50+ mln).

But Switch is better option for them.



And why would Nintendo want to go backwards?



The question could be "are Microsoft and Sony could make a device that could be a concurrent for the switch 2?



If you look at xbox one x vs switch, I think Nintendo has choose the good way



I don't think there's much of a future in completely traditional consoles. Microsoft is experiencing that now. Eventually, Sony will feel the effects too. People don't want to be limited in how they can access their games library to TV only. I think Sony figures this out though and releases a handheld that in some sort of way can play the same games you've purchases for ps4/ps5 on the go as well using cloud saves. 

Not saying tv gaming won't be popular for a long time. In fact, I think it will be. But that's not how i think we are defining a traditional console. We are defining it by a console that uses an architecture that wouldn't be conducive to a handheld brother or sister that plays the same games. Eventually,  Nintendo comes out with a device that plugs directly into the TV that has more power than their current handheld but shares a similar architecture.