Support NeoGAF

[TAJ]

Nintendo's last three hardware platforms (DS, Wii, 3DS) have been severely underpowered. I'd call that a trend. I expect it to continue, especially with Wii U's (likely) expensive controller.

Power vs. Performance. Yes, the Xbox's was more advanced, and it cost MS dearly.

Nope. It was not owning rights to the design that cost them dearly.

 

[Kandinsky]

I want to pay for a powerfull Nintendo console, not a bunch of controllers and peripherals, I have plenty of Wiimotes +, nunchuks, and CCs

Wii U high price should to be associated to the hardware itself not the Wiimote+, nunchuk package =/

So you want to give up on nunchuck+wiimote support, yeah thats really smart

 

[Fourth Storm]

So you want to give up on nunchuck+wiimote support, yeah thats really smart

Comments like this seem to take for granted that Nintendo will start selling the tablet separately when they have specifically said that they will not. At least they won't at first. Thus, the nunchuck+wiimote will be a requirement for any local multiplayer games. Don't forget either that the amount of wii remotes in people's homes will far exceed the amount of tablets for many years to come (probably forever).

So yeah, let's wait for Nintendo to better outline their strategy before assuming they're giving up on pointer controls and whatnot.

Edit: Let's think about who's going to be buying a Wii U, at least early in its life. I'm assuming mostly Nintendo fans - almost all of whom have a Wii with several remotes (motion+ included). And Nintendo systems have a long history of emphasizing local multiplayer. The pointer isn't going anywhere, whether it's packed in or not. Converts from the current HD consoles were likely not interested in Wii remote controls to begin with, so the tablet should satiate them.

Unless they drastically improve the Wii Remote functionality, I do not want to pay extra to have one packed in with Wii U. I've got 3 motion plus capable remotes at this point and a fourth vanilla remote. $299 with the tablet and some preloaded ware.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

I predict Metroid Prime Hunters 2 as a launch title. That's plausible right? The 1st MPH wasn't made by Retro but NST. Their last game was in 2010 so 2 years to make something for Wii U sounds about right.

Let's just leave the MPH series where it is, and hope for something that's much better and more awesome.

Just to clarify I'm specifically talk about the MP HUNTERS series. A MP4 would be gladly welcomed.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Is it weird that the 3DS has gotten me so pumped for the Wii U? It's crazy what a few months can do for ones excitement level.

 

[MAtgS]

Nintendo's last three hardware platforms (DS, Wii, 3DS) have been severely underpowered. I'd call that a trend. I expect it to continue, especially with Wii U's (likely) expensive controller.

DS was not underpowered, it was clearly a generation up from GBA. Not exactly Nintendo's fault there that Sony decided to jump the gun.

Let's just leave the MPH series where it is, and hope for something that's much better and more awesome.

Just to clarify I'm specifically talk about the MP HUNTERS series. A MP4 would be gladly welcomed.

It does the job of getting a hardcore title that's not Mario out on the system & tiding people over until bigger & better games later on. Plus I figure it would be finally be the game to continue after where Fusion left off. With Samus wanted by the Federation & thus a bunch of other hunters come after her.

 

[Fourth Storm]

Eh, hurts to say it, but the Metroid franchise has absolutely zero chance of swaying over hardcore gamers who aren't already Nintendo fans. It's best chance at that was the original Metroid Prime, but that didn't happen.

If Nintendo are trying to appeal to dudebros, they'll need a new IP. I don't think they're trying to appeal to that demographic, though. Or they're just leaving that market to Ubisoft, EA, etc...

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Nintendo aims for the sweep spot in the cost/benefit curve, while MS and Sony aim above it, and end up losing money in gaming which they never totally recoup. It's a difference in philosophy mostly I think. Nintendo is primarily trying to make a day to day profit, and with the exception of this year, has succeeded wildly at it.

MS and Sony are not in gaming to make a day to day profit. They're playing a much longer game. They want to be in control of your TV. They want to be the kings of the set top box. They see the enthusiast gamer as being the conduit to that. If they feel that losing money on product to achieve that is the right way to go about it, then they will.

Of course, if they can make a profit day to day they will, but that's very much a secondary goal.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

It does the job of getting a hardcore title that's not Mario out on the system & tiding people over until bigger & better games later on. Plus I figure it would be finally be the game to continue after where Fusion left off. With Samus wanted by the Federation & thus a bunch of other hunters come after her.

1. Just make it a regular Metroid title, 2. this myth that Samus is wanted by the Federation and is going to be hunted after Fusion NEEDS to stop. That is not the ending to Fusion. No where, NO WHERE does it say that.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Eh, hurts to say it, but the Metroid franchise has absolutely zero chance of swaying over hardcore gamers who aren't already Nintendo fans. It's best chance at that was the original Metroid Prime, but that didn't happen.

If Nintendo are trying to appeal to dudebros, they'll need a new IP. I don't think they're trying to appeal to that demographic, though. Or they're just leaving that market to Ubisoft, EA, etc...

Nintendo is in a precarious position with any dudebro type of game. Microsoft and to a much lesser degree Sony will sell better simply due to the community aspect. Nintendo really screwed themselves this gen with their crappy online infrastructure. People are already attached to their friends on XBL. Nintendo really does need to aim for a new IP that would appeal to some degree to dudebros. With that being said, if the Wii U is moderately close to the hardware of the PS4/next Xbox it will sell well but they really REALLY need to have their community features a go at launch.

 

[TAJ]

Nintendo aims for the sweep spot in the cost/benefit curve, while MS and Sony aim above it, and end up losing money in gaming which they never totally recoup. It's a difference in philosophy mostly I think. Nintendo is primarily trying to make a day to day profit, and with the exception of this year, has succeeded wildly at it.

MS and Sony are not in gaming to make a day to day profit. They're playing a much longer game. They want to be in control of your TV. They want to be the kings of the set top box. They see the enthusiast gamer as being the conduit to that. If they feel that losing money on product to achieve that is the right way to go about it, then they will.

Of course, if they can make a profit day to day they will, but that's very much a secondary goal.

I agree completely, but I don't care about these companies' bottom lines.

 

[TunaLover]

So you want to give up on nunchuck+wiimote support, yeah thats really smart

No, just saying that if cost will go up only for peripherals and not enough power capabilities, I'd prefer a more powerfull console. I'm not a big multiplayer anyway.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

No, just saying that if cost will go up only for peripherals and not enough power capabilities, I'd prefer a more powerfull console. I'm not a big multiplayer anyway.

Oh, I definitely agree with that. Let me choose which peripherals that I want to purchase and instead make sure the hardware that I will be using for the next 5-6 years will be capable of receiving the full quality ports of 3rd party AAA games.

 

[BurntPork]

I agree completely, but I don't care about these companies' bottom lines.

Then Nintendo's clearly not for you. They aren't capable of offering what you you want.

By the way, Nintendo has never launched a powerful portable, so you can't really use their handhelds to make a trend for their consoles.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

Nintendo's last three hardware platforms (DS, Wii, 3DS) have been severely underpowered. I'd call that a trend. I expect it to continue, especially with Wii U's (likely) expensive controller.

All Nintendo handhelds are "severely underpowered" essentially going back to the 1980s. That's never given any indicative trend towards what they do with home consoles.

NES, SNES and N64 weren't even top of the line when they released either. I expect Wii U to be more in line with them compared to competitive consoles of the day than Wii however.

 

[Fourth Storm]

Nintendo is in a precarious position with any dudebro type of game. Microsoft and to a much lesser degree Sony will sell better simply due to the community aspect. Nintendo really screwed themselves this gen with their crappy online infrastructure. People are already attached to their friends on XBL. Nintendo really does need to aim for a new IP that would appeal to some degree to dudebros. With that being said, if the Wii U is moderately close to the hardware of the PS4/next Xbox it will sell well but they really REALLY need to have their community features a go at launch.

Building an online community is definitely something important that I agree with you on. However, I don't think Nintendo need to develop a Gears of War type game for the Wii U to be successful. Quite bluntly, appealing to the most stereotypical "dudebros" is a lost cause. They have already developed a blind prejudice against Nintendo, and will simply laugh at any attempt Nintendo make to compete w/ Halo, Gears, CoD, etc.

I figure there are alot of teens now who grew up with PS2 and Xbox and don't have fond memories of gaming on a Nintendo system. However, anyone older than that who had an SNES or N64. Anyone younger who loved/loves their DS. There are millions and millions of those people out there. Female gamers. That's a huge market Nintendo could easily gain the majority of. These are the markets I believe Nintendo aim to capture more so than your stereotypical dudebro. But let's not forget, games like Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty appeal to more than just dudebros. Ugh, I've used that expression way too much in this post...

 

[Kandinsky]

No, just saying that if cost will go up only for peripherals and not enough power capabilities, I'd prefer a more powerfull console. I'm not a big multiplayer anyway.

Oh, I definitely agree with that. Let me choose which peripherals that I want to purchase and instead make sure the hardware that I will be using for the next 5-6 years will be capable of receiving the full quality ports of 3rd party AAA games.

If they do that, you guys can kiss wiimote support goodbye then.

 

[blu]

Nope. It was not owning rights to the design that cost them dearly.

Yes. Both NV's royalties and the rest of the sheer BOM was costing ms dearly.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Nintendo's last three hardware platforms (DS, Wii, 3DS) have been severely underpowered. I'd call that a trend. I expect it to continue, especially with Wii U's (likely) expensive controller.

Its hard to place the 3DS under the "under powered" category for me. Its already got a short enough battery life as is. Its capable of games like RE: Revelations for less than $200. I think its powerful enough.

 

[HylianTom]

Quite bluntly, appealing to the most stereotypical "dudebros" is a lost cause. They have already developed a blind prejudice against Nintendo, and will simply laugh at any attempt Nintendo make to compete w/ Halo, Gears, CoD, etc.

I figure there are alot of teens now who grew up with PS2 and Xbox and don't have fond memories of gaming on a Nintendo system. However, anyone older than that who had an SNES or N64. Anyone younger who loved/loves their DS. There are millions and millions of those people out there. Female gamers. That's a huge market Nintendo could easily gain the majority of. These are the markets I believe Nintendo aim to capture more so than your stereotypical dudebro. But let's not forget, games like Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty appeal to more than just dudebros. Ugh, I've used that expression way too much in this post...

Hey.. it's a convenient, concise term.

And I largely agree. Nothing that Nintendo does in order to compete for that crowd's attention/approval will ever be good enough, and it won't ever be good enough for the gaming media entities that mostly cater to and influence this crowd. These folks are gone.

Nintendo is at its best when it's doing its own crazy thing, seeking other gaming audiences, catering(pandering?) to its own crazy-rabid fanbase, trying unique new ideas, refreshing old franchises, etc. If any of their efforts happen to appeal to the high schoolers and college kiddies on Live/PSN, that's great.. but I don't want them to waste resources going out of their way in pursuit of this crowd.

 

[DCKing]

By the way, Nintendo has never launched a powerful portable, so you can't really use their handhelds to make a trend for their consoles.

I don't know when you got that idea, but the GameCube and N64 definitely categorized as powerful when they were released. The NES was too.

Those three also definitely used 'cutting-edge' GPUs, which you asked last page. The NES 'GPU' was never seen anytime before, and was probably one of the first occurrences of a chip dedicated to graphics operations in a consumer product. The N64 shared its GPU architecture with high end graphics workstations, and the Flipper design influenced the R300+ series of GPUs that made ATI the best GPU maker for the five following years.

I'd even argue that the 3DS is one of Nintendo's least underpowered handhelds they ever released. Sure, an off-the-shelf Snapdragon would outperform it in many ways, but within Nintendo's cost and package limits I find it quite remarkable how powerful the system really is. For certain figures it's even more powerful than the Wii.

 

[BurntPork]

I don't know when you got that idea, but the GameCube and N64 definitely categorized as powerful when they were released. The NES was too.

Those three also definitely used 'cutting-edge' GPUs, which you asked last page. The NES 'GPU' was never seen anytime before, and was probably one of the first occurrences of a chip dedicated to graphics operations in a consumer product. The N64 shared its GPU architecture with high end graphics workstations, and the Flipper design influenced the R300+ series of GPUs that made ATI the best GPU maker for the five following years.

I'd even argue that the 3DS is one of Nintendo's least underpowered handhelds they ever released. Sure, an off-the-shelf Snapdragon would outperform it in many ways, but within Nintendo's cost and package limits I find it quite remarkable how powerful the system really is. For certain figures it's even more powerful than the Wii.

By the way, Nintendo has never launched a powerful portable, so you can't really use their handhelds to make a trend for their consoles.

I said nothing about their consoles being underpowered.

 

[DCKing]

Whoops. Had a drink too much last night, I guess.

 

[TAJ]

Its hard to place the 3DS under the "under powered" category for me. Its already got a short enough battery life as is. Its capable of games like RE: Revelations for less than $200. I think its powerful enough.

It's only priced where it is because Nintendo saw its sales numbers and panicked. It launched at the same price as Vita, less than ten months before, as hard as that is (for me) to believe.
The price drop was a great move, though. They have some real momentum now.

 

[ozfunghi]

It's only priced where it is because Nintendo saw its sales numbers and panicked. It launched at the same price as Vita, less than ten months before, as hard as that is (for me) to believe.
The price drop was a great move, though. They have some real momentum now.

That makes it overpriced, not underpowered.

 

[EricDiesel]

Sony continually overpowers their devices, if anything. Especially the PS3. Other than the Wii, Nintendo does what I'd consider acceptable generational leaps. If the leap from the PS3 to the PS4 is the same as PS2 to PS3, realistically we might be looking at a $699-$799 console. I sure as hell am not paying that for an entertainment device.

I don't get these inflated expectations. The PS3 being $599 isn't a mistake Sony is likely to repeat, I'd hope. I'm hoping for something in the ballpark of $399-$450 from Sony/MS this time around, myself.

 

[Übermatik]

Sony continually overpowers their devices, if anything. Especially the PS3. Other than the Wii, Nintendo does what I'd consider acceptable generational leaps. If the leap from the PS3 to the PS4 is the same as PS2 to PS3, realistically we might be looking at a $699-$799 console. I sure as hell am not paying that for an entertainment device.

I don't get these inflated expectations. The PS3 being $599 isn't a mistake Sony is likely to repeat, I'd hope. I'm hoping for something in the ballpark of $399-$450 from Sony/MS this time around, myself.

Gamecube to Wii was not an acceptable leap. And you can't really have 'overpowered'... unless you're referencing price.

But I know what you mean - Wii to WiiU is great for me. HD graphics are now imperative, unlike at the Wii's launch. Nintendo have met the standard of graphics. Sony and Microsoft like to go beyond, whilst compromising price and size.

 

[royalan]

Hey.. it's a convenient, concise term.

And I largely agree. Nothing that Nintendo does in order to compete for that crowd's attention/approval will ever be good enough, and it won't ever be good enough for the gaming media entities that mostly cater to and influence this crowd. These folks are gone.

Nintendo is at its best when it's doing its own crazy thing, seeking other gaming audiences, catering(pandering?) to its own crazy-rabid fanbase, trying unique new ideas, refreshing old franchises, etc. If any of their efforts happen to appeal to the high schoolers and college kiddies on Live/PSN, that's great.. but I don't want them to waste resources going out of their way in pursuit of this crowd.

The idea that nothing Nintendo does will ever be "good enough" for the dudebros is patently ridiculous and will be the thing that eventually runs Nintendo into the ground. Basically, what it's saying is that Nintendo it too good to compete. Hardly.

The fact of the matter is Nintendo hasn't tried hard enough to compete for that market. And this is coming from a Nintendo fan. I love Nintendo, but you can't build a philosophy around bucking gaming trends and doing your own thing, and then when you're ignored by the hordes of gamers who like those trends (they're trends for a fucking reason), play the "nothing we do will ever be good enough!" card.

If Nintendo wants to be successful in capturing the hardcore gamer crowd once again that have to get off their pedestal and compete. That means they're going to have to do a few things that they've traditionally turned their backs on (getting serious about HD, getting serious about online). I think they can do it.

 

[HylianTom]

The idea that nothing Nintendo does will ever be "good enough" for the dudebros is patently ridiculous and will be the thing that eventually runs Nintendo into the ground. Basically, what it's saying is that Nintendo it too good to compete. Hardly.

The fact of the matter is Nintendo hasn't tried hard enough to compete for that market. And this is coming from a Nintendo fan. I love Nintendo, but you can't build a philosophy around bucking gaming trends and doing your own thing, and then when you're ignored by the hordes of gamers who like those trends (they're trends for a fucking reason), play the "nothing we do will ever be good enough!" card.

If Nintendo wants to be successful in capturing the hardcore gamer crowd once again that hey to get off their pedestal and compete. That means they're going to have to do a few things that they've traditionally turned their backs on (getting serious about HD, getting serious about online). I think they can do it.

Eternal pessimist that I am, I sincerely hope that you are correct.
On the bright side.. if Nintendo does try to compete, its core fans will benefit in some ways.

 

[FyreWulff]

Yes. Both NV's royalties and the rest of the sheer BOM was costing ms dearly.

And nVidia's refusal to lower their royalties also put them on MS's shitlist when it came to future DirectX collaboration and consideration for the 360 graphics hardware.

I wonder if the genius behind lowering the royalties still has his job at nVidia.

 

[freddy]

If Nintendo were to do something like offer cross-platform play or chat with PC gamers I could see them capturing a fair amount of the online mindshare.

 

[Dreamwriter]

Sony continually overpowers their devices, if anything. Especially the PS3. Other than the Wii, Nintendo does what I'd consider acceptable generational leaps. If the leap from the PS3 to the PS4 is the same as PS2 to PS3, realistically we might be looking at a $699-$799 console. I sure as hell am not paying that for an entertainment device.

It's strange that so many people think what happened this generation is what always happens. Sony continually overpowers their devices, just like Nintendo continually releases underpowered but cheap game systems. I mean really, there were *two* consoles last generation more powerful than the PS2, the Gamecube and the XBox. And in the generation before that, the Nintendo 64 was more powerful than the PSX.

 

[TAJ]

It's strange that so many people think what happened this generation is what always happens. Sony continually overpowers their devices, just like Nintendo continually releases underpowered but cheap game systems. I mean really, there were *two* consoles last generation more powerful than the PS2, the Gamecube and the XBox. And in the generation before that, the Nintendo 64 was more powerful than the PSX.

PSP was like alien technology in 2004.

 

[Erasus]

I figure there are alot of teens now who grew up with PS2 and Xbox and don't have fond memories of gaming on a Nintendo system. However, anyone older than that who had an SNES or N64. Anyone younger who loved/loves their DS.

Speaking for myself here but I started on PC then PS1/Gameboy Pocket/Gameboy Advance -> PS2 -> PSP -> Ps3/PC

Even back then N64 was pretty good but had a short lifespan, and cartriges with their small memory led ot bad music/textures etc

 

[FyreWulff]

It's strange that so many people think what happened this generation is what always happens. Sony continually overpowers their devices, just like Nintendo continually releases underpowered but cheap game systems. I mean really, there were *two* consoles last generation more powerful than the PS2, the Gamecube and the XBox. And in the generation before that, the Nintendo 64 was more powerful than the PSX.

Yup. Even after Nintendo has repeatedly stated themselves that the Wii wasn't going to be a powerhouse because they looked at the PS2 and saw how well it sold against consoles much more powerful than it was.

People also thought prerendered FMVs were equivalent to real time processing ability.

 

[Dreamwriter]

Nintendo's last three hardware platforms (DS, Wii, 3DS) have been severely underpowered. I'd call that a trend. I expect it to continue, especially with Wii U's (likely) expensive controller.

Would be a trend if it were true. The DS wasn't severely underpowered, Nintendo went from a better-than-SNES power handheld to a better-than-PSX power handheld (while Sony went with a better-than-N64 power handheld). And the 3DS isn't severely underpowered either, that's a system with games that look like low resolution XBox 360 games.

 

[TAJ]

Would be a trend if it were true. The DS wasn't severely underpowered, Nintendo went from a better-than-SNES power handheld to a better-than-PSX power handheld (while Sony went with a better-than-N64 power handheld). And the 3DS isn't severely underpowered either, that's a system with games that look like low resolution XBox 360 games.

...
There are no words.

 

[EloquentM]

The idea that nothing Nintendo does will ever be "good enough" for the dudebros is patently ridiculous and will be the thing that eventually runs Nintendo into the ground. Basically, what it's saying is that Nintendo it too good to compete. Hardly.

The fact of the matter is Nintendo hasn't tried hard enough to compete for that market. And this is coming from a Nintendo fan. I love Nintendo, but you can't build a philosophy around bucking gaming trends and doing your own thing, and then when you're ignored by the hordes of gamers who like those trends (they're trends for a fucking reason), play the "nothing we do will ever be good enough!" card.

If Nintendo wants to be successful in capturing the hardcore gamer crowd once again that have to get off their pedestal and compete. That means they're going to have to do a few things that they've traditionally turned their backs on (getting serious about HD, getting serious about online). I think they can do it.

What? Nintendo doesn't have to do anything. They aren't participating in an arms race like their "competitors". Nintendo likes to make money and will continue to do so which is the reason why they've recently started focusing (for the most part) on software instead of bleeding edge technology. competing with Microsoft and Sony spec wise is not in their best interest. It hasn't been their aim since they released the ds.

 

[Fourth Storm]

The idea that nothing Nintendo does will ever be "good enough" for the dudebros is patently ridiculous and will be the thing that eventually runs Nintendo into the ground. Basically, what it's saying is that Nintendo it too good to compete. Hardly.

The fact of the matter is Nintendo hasn't tried hard enough to compete for that market. And this is coming from a Nintendo fan. I love Nintendo, but you can't build a philosophy around bucking gaming trends and doing your own thing, and then when you're ignored by the hordes of gamers who like those trends (they're trends for a fucking reason), play the "nothing we do will ever be good enough!" card.

If Nintendo wants to be successful in capturing the hardcore gamer crowd once again that have to get off their pedestal and compete. That means they're going to have to do a few things that they've traditionally turned their backs on (getting serious about HD, getting serious about online). I think they can do it.

Hey, as the dudebro trend was growing, Nintendo were creating their own trends which were the complete opposite and even more successful for them. Keeping my fingers crossed, but it seems as if they are getting serious about HD, online, etc with WiiU. Asking them, as a software company, to develop a type of game that they neither have the desire nor experience to create is ridiculous, however. As has been discussed, the days of big 3rd party exclusives are over. It would be great if they had a dev house like the Rare of old (how the hell were they so productive on the SNES and N64? They almost single-handedly supported those systems for a while) or a Silicon Knights (who delivered a horror title when those were all the rage. And surprise, it wasn't as big a hit as they hoped for). They've got Retro, but they can only work on so much. Buying another western developer to develop an FPS might work out or it might not (see Geist). As armchair analysts, it's easy to say "Just buy Insomniac!" or whatever, but the reality is it's damn risky. That being said, I think that type of acquisition (or just opening another western studio/expanding Retro) is inevitable, but when it happens is anyone's guess.

 

[BurntPork]

The idea that nothing Nintendo does will ever be "good enough" for the dudebros is patently ridiculous and will be the thing that eventually runs Nintendo into the ground. Basically, what it's saying is that Nintendo it too good to compete. Hardly.

The fact of the matter is Nintendo hasn't tried hard enough to compete for that market. And this is coming from a Nintendo fan. I love Nintendo, but you can't build a philosophy around bucking gaming trends and doing your own thing, and then when you're ignored by the hordes of gamers who like those trends (they're trends for a fucking reason), play the "nothing we do will ever be good enough!" card.

If Nintendo wants to be successful in capturing the hardcore gamer crowd once again that have to get off their pedestal and compete. That means they're going to have to do a few things that they've traditionally turned their backs on (getting serious about HD, getting serious about online). I think they can do it.

Honestly, I doubt even doing that would work. Nintendo has an image in the gaming world, and nothing short of a total re-branding and restructuring will change it. Nintendo could launch Wii U with online on-par with XBL and have Communities standard, and the "dudebros" would just say "Welcome to 2006!" and stick with XBox or PlayStation. (Before you get the wrong idea, I want real online just as much as you do.) Nintendo's success rides on attracting existing Nintendo fans and casuals above all, then the more neutral gaming crowd. Nintendo will never be able to make the XBox CoD or Halo crowd buy their console.

Also, how the hell do you "get serious about HD?" That doesn't make any sense. Are you assuming that their Wii U games won't be HD?

 

[FyreWulff]

What? Nintendo doesn't have to do anything. They aren't participating in an arms race like their "competitors". Nintendo likes to make money and will continue to do so which is the reason why they've recently started focusing (for the most part) on software instead of bleeding edge technology. competing with Microsoft and Sony spec wise is not in their best interest. It hasn't been their aim since they released the ds.

We can't really compare Nintendo's handheld hardware strategy to their home console one. Their handhelds have ALWAYS been at the intersection of power and battery life that has kept it succesful throughout the years. The failure of overpowered, battery sucking opponents throughout the years (Game Gear, etc) only re-inforces that. The DS was a much bigger jump than their previous handhelds at that.

The Wii was the first Nintendo console that was significantly less powerful than the consoles from the other companies at the time, and the first one they sold at a profit out of the gate. This generation was also an exception in that two of the consoles were really close in capability. People want Nintendo to play the homogeny game where their console is just as powerful as the next MS and Sony console, and they're assuming the next MS and Sony consoles are going to be the "HD Twins" again, which was an exception. The only reason that it happened was Sony went "oh shit" and tacked another 256MB onto their console at the last minute.

 

[waicol]

...
There are no words.

Anyway your point was destroyed, whether some 3DS games looks like low res 360 games or not (they certainly not).

 

[Dreamwriter]

...
There are no words.

This is supposed to be "severely underpowered"?

 

[blu]

And nVidia's refusal to lower their royalties also put them on MS's shitlist when it came to future DirectX collaboration and consideration for the 360 graphics hardware.

I wonder if the genius behind lowering the royalties still has his job at nVidia.

I wouldn't be surprised if the genius was Jen-Hsun. He seems to be very 'hands-on' when it comes to selling chips to console makers.

 

[v1oz]

Sony continually overpowers their devices, if anything. Especially the PS3. Other than the Wii, Nintendo does what I'd consider acceptable generational leaps. If the leap from the PS3 to the PS4 is the same as PS2 to PS3, realistically we might be looking at a $699-$799 console. I sure as hell am not paying that for an entertainment device.

I don't get these inflated expectations. The PS3 being $599 isn't a mistake Sony is likely to repeat, I'd hope. I'm hoping for something in the ballpark of $399-$450 from Sony/MS this time around, myself.

There is no evidence that Sony overpowers their consoles. PS1 was weaker than N64. PS2 was weaker than GameCube.

The PS3 is just about competitive with the 360, which launched almost a year earlier. If anything it's even weaker on the graphics side.

There's a lot of BS that goes around on the Internet. But if the PS3 were more powerful it would win hands down in real world games (not demos or theoretical discussions) based on sheer brute force.

 

[Boogybro]

There is no evidence that Sony overpowers their consoles. PS1 was weaker than N64. PS2 was weaker than GameCube.

The PS3 is just about competitive with the 360, which launched almost a year earlier. If anything it's even weaker on the graphics side.

There's a lot of BS that goes around on the Internet. But if the PS3 were more powerful it would win hands down in real world games (not demos or theoretical discussions) based on sheer brute force.

To be fair (as minor a difference it makes), PS3 exclusives do have the edge over those on the 360.

 

[[Nintex]]

There is no evidence that Sony overpowers their consoles. PS1 was weaker than N64. PS2 was weaker than GameCube.

The PS3 is just about competitive with the 360, which launched almost a year earlier. If anything it's even weaker on the graphics side.

There's a lot of BS that goes around on the Internet. But if the PS3 were more powerful it would win hands down in real world games (not demos or theoretical discussions) based on sheer brute force.

If IBM didn't use a chunk of the Cell architecture for the Xbox 360 CPU the power difference would've likely been much bigger. Toshiba/Sony/IBM made a deal that they could sell Cell wholesale or use parts of it for other products and designs, Sony never figured IBM would sell the technology to their biggest competitor. There's even a book about it, MS's first chips were produced and they failed, Sony produced their chips and they failed as well. Both were looking at a delay and would miss 2005 but Microsoft had a back-up production run that did have high enough yields to continue production. That right there is how they managed to beat Sony to market with their own technology no less.

 

[DCKing]

It's interesting to think what would have happened if the rumoured Revolution specs were true and Nintendo would have kept those for the Wii. It apparently had 2x 1.8 GHz G5s, 384 MBs of split RAM and some 2006-tech 600MHz ATI GPU. That would have probably put up a rather good fight with the 360 and PS3.

Nintendo likely concluded that would not enable them to sell the console for less than $299 and that it would be more noisy and hot. Given the success of the DS as everybody's console at the time, they probably decided on pimping up the GameCube hardware rather late in development. That's something that worked out well for Nintendo in hindsight.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

DS was not underpowered, it was clearly a generation up from GBA. Not exactly Nintendo's fault there that Sony decided to jump the gun.

It was only a generation up from GBA because the GBA was behind the technology curve when it came out, just like the Game Boy, the DS or the 3DS. They were only an improvement compared to previous Nintendo's handhelds.

Would be a trend if it were true. The DS wasn't severely underpowered, Nintendo went from a better-than-SNES power handheld to a better-than-PSX power handheld (while Sony went with a better-than-N64 power handheld). And the 3DS isn't severely underpowered either, that's a system with games that look like low resolution XBox 360 games.

3DS doesn't offer anything remotely close to 360 games running at a lower resolution. It offers similar performance to a 6th generation console with hardwired support for some extra effects thanks to a more modern design.

 

[EricDiesel]

There is no evidence that Sony overpowers their consoles. PS1 was weaker than N64. PS2 was weaker than GameCube.

Sorry, I should clarify. I only meant the PSP, PS3, and (to a lesser extent, given the advance in mobile technology) Vita. Sony gambled on making the PS3 a cutting edge $600 beast and in doing so lost the massive lead it gained with the PS2. Any console where the pitch is "oh, you can get a second job to afford it" is not a standard increase, or at least it shouldn't be. In my opinion they'd have to be arrogant/stupid to pull a similar stunt this time.