Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
The goal is to maintain an imbalance in the components that allows for a good experience
Cpu like wii u did the CPU was horrible, but if most games were GPU bound, no one would ever find out.
Media, like N64 and GameCube did. Not using CD ROM made Nintendo lose support but using it would make them lose $100 per unit, not using CD allowed Nintendo to have more CPU and GPU power as well as 512kb more memory.
GPU Basically you propose a weaker GPU and save money per unit, however you will face aggressive marketing from the competition, saying that your console runs at a lower resolution even though the games are the same. Using a weak GPU saves money, but when selling the product, its price will have to be cheap, negating the advantage.
Cheap case Making a powerful console but saving on plastic, or something more extreme like not shipping a controller, claiming any controller will do and that the consumer already has one at home. This strategy is good, but having good hardware inside an ugly case is not good.
There's only one way to get the best hardware: pay for it.
The 2001 Xbox was like that, but it lost $4 billion. The GCN failed, but Nintendo made a profit. The average Joe doesn't even notice the huge performance gap between it and the Xbox.
Which option do you choose? This is simplistic, obviously there are other strategic details such as what type of game the hardware will run, etc. One way to hide that your hardware is weak is to avoid third-party productions.
Cpu like wii u did the CPU was horrible, but if most games were GPU bound, no one would ever find out.
Media, like N64 and GameCube did. Not using CD ROM made Nintendo lose support but using it would make them lose $100 per unit, not using CD allowed Nintendo to have more CPU and GPU power as well as 512kb more memory.
GPU Basically you propose a weaker GPU and save money per unit, however you will face aggressive marketing from the competition, saying that your console runs at a lower resolution even though the games are the same. Using a weak GPU saves money, but when selling the product, its price will have to be cheap, negating the advantage.
Cheap case Making a powerful console but saving on plastic, or something more extreme like not shipping a controller, claiming any controller will do and that the consumer already has one at home. This strategy is good, but having good hardware inside an ugly case is not good.
There's only one way to get the best hardware: pay for it.
The 2001 Xbox was like that, but it lost $4 billion. The GCN failed, but Nintendo made a profit. The average Joe doesn't even notice the huge performance gap between it and the Xbox.
Which option do you choose? This is simplistic, obviously there are other strategic details such as what type of game the hardware will run, etc. One way to hide that your hardware is weak is to avoid third-party productions.
but now it wouldn't even have any real use.
