To get us partially back on topic... 14nm would be pretty cool...? I guess...?
I just have trouble getting into the nitty-gritty hardware talk because it's nearly impossible to conceptualize what it's legitimately capable of, so rumoured developer commentary sits easier.
That is my argument. I'm not saying Nintendo is doomed, I'm saying that people need to look at the reality of the situation and that just because Nintendo is having another fresh start with another new well-specced console, that doesn't mean that ongoing trends in the market, squandered mindshare among the PS4/XB1 demographic they so desperately want and bad relations with 3rd parties will be swept under the rug.
"Another" new well-specced console? We haven't seen one of those in 10 years, and when we look at said "ongoing trends in the market" since then, like the business need to have multiplat games on everything that can run them to net as many sales as possible, it paints a slightly different picture. The industry isn't where it was when it could exclude a platform on a whim like in the PS2 era, so using the GameCube as some metric of how developers and publishers will treat Nintendo in the modern era has to come with a lot of really serious caveats.
And their relations with 3rd-parties are only measurable from the outside based on games coming to the platform and their dissatisfaction with the Wii and Wii U, but very little is known about their relationships with Nintendo beyond that, so I always look at people quoting "bad 3rd-party relations" and wonder if there's key insider knowledge that has been shared with the public that I missed or how much of it is just conjecture over 3rd-parties not supporting Nintendo's vanity projects on the hardware front with games and no real insight into their publisher relationships.
But since that conjecture is rampant, among other preconceived notions about what Nintendo is and isn't, I can absolutely concede to there being a major mindshare problem with gamers as a whole.
I've seen people honestly suggest that because this thing is powerful, it will definitely get a tonne of 3rd party support, and it will definitely eat into PS4 and Xbox One's marketshare. And why? "Because it will". Father Brain's posts in this thread are well aligned with my own thoughts, and sum up the situation pretty well. It's an uphill struggle for Nintendo.
Perhaps it's a poorly communicated response to this understanding of a change in the market. The market isn't in a position to leave money on the floor, so NX will likely at least START with good 3rd-party support. The trick is always how well it's sustained and no one can definitively know that without seeing how it plays out.
It's certainly and absolutely an uphill struggle for Nintendo, painting themselves as ambivalent of market trends or too slow to do anything about them hasn't really put them in a good position. Success will be measured in how much and how quickly they can erode their mindshare problem, which is a really difficult needle to move, but not insurmountable.
The hardware it sounds like they have with NX finally opens doors to talks with 3rd-parties that were previously bricked over by the reality of what the Wii and Wii U were. And unless you think Nintendo is unaware of its problems entirely, somehow doesn't WANT those 3rd-party games or plans to sit on its thumbs and do nothing, I think there's absolutely room to see major improvements on that front, depending on the actuality of where their relationship with publishers is, which none of us truly know.
Are people being over-zealous in their positivity? Sure... but it's equally as silly to say that positivity over the situation somehow means that people expect another Wii situation to happen like you did. Because it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition.
Make it a perfect rectangle just like the other two and we have a winner.
EDIT: now we're talking!
It's.... beautiful... is everyone hoping that they go down this route?
They can easily have the second screen by using their own handheld using connectivity features like how Nintendo used to do that sort of stuff way back when.
If the idea is to make handheld games playable on NX, then you're basically charging for a $150-200 peripheral, when the more likely thing to do is to shave costs by using the same touch screen as the handheld to shave costs on the screen and use the cheaper and better developed Miracast boards (which did not really exist when Wii U was manufactured and launched) with proprietary tweaks for latency.
I feel this controller is a bad idea if it's even close to being true. The GamePad was very expensive and clearly it didn't exactly really help Wii U now did it?
I agree they should just do this with the handheld. Honestly there should be no reason to do the controller, unless it's optional.
Like maybe one box comes with a standard controller for $299, and a second premium one comes with the screen controller for $399. Said controller can be bought on its own for $100 or more.
This way it's not forced upon consumers, but devs are required to make this remote play function a standard (shouldn't be hard). Hopefully local like Wii U and online like PS4 so you have both options.
As for anything control-wise, I dunno. Maybe devs can be allowed to use 2nd screen controls if they feel the need to? That sounds bad as it'd be telling people "you need to buy a $100 controller to play this game".
Now if this is also done with the handheld, then that's a much better pill to swallow. But honestly Nintendo should NOT give people a "cheaper" option in place of just getting the handheld itself, kind of self-competition no?
NX seems structured to be less about selling both handheld and console then it is about selling more games that work for both hardware types, which makes them more money than a hardware sale in the long run. So your proposition makes little sense.
Keep the screen in the controller, manage the costs better as mentioned above, don't make it a focal point of development but merely an existing option. Problem solved.