A Case for a Powerful Nintendo Machine

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
#1
This thread is completely edited from its original incarnation. If you want to see it, become a mod.

In my opinion, the Switch is a brilliant handheld with uncontested handheld visuals. However, as a console...ehhh. I mean, it is still way better than the Wii U. However, the power holds potential 3rd party developers back no matter how you look at it. As a result of holding back 3rd parties, this holds back a considerable market share of gamers who don't want to shell out money just to play Mario on one platform and Battlefield on the other.

However, the hardware holds back Nintendo the most. Believe it or not, Nintendo and their subsidiaries have some very ambitious designs for their games, but every time they get ambitious for their hardware, performance and IQ is compromised. Need anecdotal evidence?
- Bayonetta 2: dynamic lighting and shadows (unlike the 1st game) and tons of alpha effects, but unlocked framerate with tons of fluctuations and no AA or AF, along with other sacrifices (low resolution textures, frame blended "motion blur" during cutscenes as opposed to per-pixel).
The Wonderful 101: tons of on-screen AI, but even more variable framerate than Bayonetta 2.
- Wind Waker HD: AA, decent AF, baked GI, HDR lighting, 1080p...performance is much worse than the original.
- Breath of the Wild (arguably the most ambitious): volumetric light and fog, dynamic weather and time of day with dynamic shadows, real time fire simulation and physics calculations, rayleigh scattering, screen space reflections, physically based rendering, bokeh depth of field, global illumination and a decent SSAO implementation...the game runs between 648p and 720p on Wii U and Switch's portable mode and 810p and 900p when docked on Switch, and the game still runs slow in certain sections; it has no AA or AF either. Though it could be argued that it wasn't very well optimized for Switch since it was a launch game, the point still stands.

Nintendo had very ambitious visuals for their GameCube games. Rogue Squadron II? That was a 480p60Hz launch title, but it used extensive bump mapping and could display 15 million polygons at once, and even had instances of texture mapped volumetric fog. Wind Waker basically pioneered water tesselation. F-Zero GX? Lots of bump mapping. Star Fox Adventures used reflection maps, bump maps, high polygon counts, and tons of fill rate sapping effects. Resident Evil REmake, Zero, & 4's visual design? Same story, supreme beauty. However, none of these games sacrificed IQ or performance to achieve this. In fact, a couple of these are full 60 FPS titles.

So, what would an upgraded fully next gen "Nintendo Switch Plus" look like?
It wouldn't be a mid gen refresh. That's a waste at this point.

It would be a custom GTX 11 series GPU with major upgrades to the memory bandwidth and TFLOP count. These are my theoretical specs: The docked GPU would utilize 8.2 TFLOPS, 2048-bit GDDR6 memory interface, 16 GB/s of RAM, 56 ROPs, 2,816 CUDA cores, 484 GB/s of bandwidth, and 160 TMUs. These specs would be utilized in order to allow developers to support console releases with Nvidia GameWorks features, as well as 4k support. Docked would be clocked at 1506 MHz with memory is running at 7Gbps. The CPU would be a custom 8 core mobile Kaby Lake chip, most likely a i7-8809G.

Undocked would downclock considerably and half performance.

However, with new architecture comes new features, and in the case of Pascal, you get Async Pre-Emption, Mixed Precision Compute, Simultaneous Multi-Projection, 4th gen Delta Color Compression, etc. If Nintendo were also to release a high end hybrid console with the latest Nvidia tech, which they could considering there are already slim mobile computers doing it and they've made more than enough money on 3DS and Switch sales, exactly what would that entail? Well for one thing, G-Sync and HDR are the two biggest contenders. But there's one feature that Nvidia eclipses AMD in: tessellation! This would be a major advantage of a new high end Switch successor compared to the PS5 and Xbox One Y (they really screwed the naming). AMD is around seven percent slower when it comes to tessellation if I recall correctly, and it's a bottleneck which Nvidia seems to like to exploit if The Witcher 3 and Final Fantasy XV are anything to go by. In addition to that, they also have an entire GameWorks library of next generation rendering features.

The system as a whole would use streaming services, Spotify and other music services, an internet browser, backup features, livestream sharing, video recording and editing, games subscription, a second screen mobile app, TV and films streaming rental/buying, music streaming, unified user accounts, achievements and trophies, a voice chat with party and community system, cloud computing services, game streaming, backup/restoration and saving on the cloud, share play, and cloud computing processing.

It would have 1TB of storage space.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

weeman_com

Active Member
#2
Now I understand the wish for this, I dream of the day Nintendo will throw us a powerhouse and be like "hey guys, you know how you always bitch and moan at us for not doing this sort of stuff. Well have at it!" I don't imagine they will do that anytime soon.

But I do think that Switch does lead us to a point where this could be possible. Imagine this powerhouse being able to also have a dock on top of it to connect the switch to either provide additional computation for background tasks or being able to play switch games through it with a bump to performance. This could be the unique factor that gives it a "Nintendo twist".

I agree with what you say that Nintendo basically holds themselves back for the performance limits. I have though been saying for years that I think the biggest influence on the cheaper hardware etc has been Miyamoto.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
#3
it is all about what strategy we think would work for nintendo

why do I like the switch path even though 90% of the time (well a lot more actually) I play it docked. Would a more pwoerful system at likely a similar price point be better for my purposes? YES.... but what is the reality of that situation? the reality is that Nintendo is still divided to 2 fronts, with slow releases...

3rd party multiplats could solve that slow time... but only if you want the multiplats on a nintendo system... those games already exist, and are available in a large number of ways...

plus, if you would normaly buy both a nitnendo console and a nintendo handheld, why not use the money saved by only getting a nintendo hybrid and put it towards a ps4 or xbone, or pro or serpico?

all of those 3rd party multiplats... there you go... personaly needs largely met

that only leaves nintendos own games.. which really don't need the performance put out by competing hardware for their cartoony visuals... and the vast benefits of a hybrid FAR putnumber the now incredibly narrow benefits of a dvided base with a consoel and handheld...

for 1 example.. a hybrid means MORE games... because it cuts the redundancies from the lineup....

we don't need hyrule warriors on both wii u and 3ds.. we just have it on switch, and dedicate the 3ds resources to ANOTHER switch game...

which means that by nintedno having a hybrid we are more likely to have more games existing in this world


I don't think about what I want now, I think about what I want in 10 years... and I don't think nintendo would fare well on their old path, nor do I think so if I want breath of the wild 6, I need to think about the steps nintendo are taking now that lead towards that future...

otherwise, to me at least, it is like saying "hey, lets eradicate the cow species from the face of the earth and have a great bbq... then we can just throw away the rest... what? you want a hamburger next year too? why? "
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
#4
I think it's quite obvious that the Switch was held back in terms of graphics because of cost. Given the design of the Switch in general, there's really no other chip out there that can match the X1 in terms of cost/performance ratio, especially for the time table Nintendo had to launch it.

And just for your examples with some of the Wii U titles on the system, Bayo 2, W101, Hyrule Warriors, WW HD. All those games would be able to run flawlessly with the Switch compared to the Wii U. BotW I consider the exception due to time. It's obvious BotW has received some improvements since its launch, although it's certainly not perfect, but it's not that big of a deal really. I'm even enjoying it a lot on Wii U,
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
#5
I think @theMightyME nailed it. Nintendo will be giving Switch their entire offering on one device. If you were willing to buy a Nintendo portable and console in the past, doesn't a Switch plus PlayStation combo make even more sense. I just don't understand why people want a Nintendo PlayStation. Just buy a PlayStation if your so hungry for those multi plat games. Switch plus PS4 would offer the most robust lineup of games on the market.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#6
A little while ago, I posted a thread on IGN's Nintendo board making a case for it. In it, I described what my theoretical specs would be.


The general consensus was that it was too similar to the Scorpio and that it lacked a unique punch to it, and that the last time Nintendo attempted something similar, it failed...ignoring the fact that the GameCube was a failure due to Nintendo's arrogance and unwillingness to evolve with the industry (see Emily Rodger's article on it).

In my opinion, the Switch is a brilliant handheld with uncontested handheld visuals. However, as a console...ehhh. I mean, it is still way better than the Wii U. This holds potential 3rd party developers back no matter how you look at it, and you can argue that visuals are seeing diminishing returns, but until every game can support a fully real time GI system with frustrum traced soft and hard shadows on console, I doubt it. As a result of holding back 3rd parties, this holds back a considerable market share of gamers who don't want to shell out money just to play Mario on one platform and Battlefield on the other.

However, the hardware holds back Nintendo the most. Believe it or not, Nintendo and their subsidiaries have some very ambitious designs for their games, but every time they get ambitious for their hardware, performance and IQ is compromised. Need anecdotal evidence?
Hyrule Warriors: tons of on-screen NPCs with little pop-in, but sub-30 FPS, sub-720p in co-op, and no AA or AF.
Bayonetta 2: dynamic lighting and shadows (unlike the 1st game) and tons of alpha effects, but unlocked framerate with tons of fluctuations and no AA or AF, along with other sacrifices (low resolution textures, frame blended "motion blur" during cutscenes as opposed to per-pixel).
The Wonderful 101: tons of on-screen AI, but even more variable framerate than Bayonetta 2.
Wind Waker HD: AA, decent AF, baked GI, HDR lighting, 1080p...performance is much worse than the original.
Breath of the Wild (arguably the most ambitious): volumetric light and fog, dynamic weather and time of day with dynamic shadows, real time fire simulation, global illumination and a decent SSAO implementation...the game runs between 648p and 720p on Wii U and Switch's portable mode and 810p and 900p when docked on Switch, and the game still runs slow in certain sections; it has no AA or AF either. Though it could be argued that it wasn't very well optimized for Switch since it was a launch game, the point still stands.

Nintendo had very ambitious visuals for their GameCube games. Rogue Squadron II? That was a 480p60Hz launch title, but it used extensive bump mapping and could display 15 million polygons at once, and even had instances of volumetric fog. Wind Waker basically pioneered water tesselation. F-Zero GX? Bump mapping & dynamic lighting. Star Fox Adventures used reflection maps, bump maps, high polygon counts, and tons of fill rate sapping effects. Resident Evil REmake, Zero, & 4's visual design? Same story, supreme beauty. However, none of these games sacrificed IQ or performance to achieve this. In fact, a couple of these are full 60 FPS titles.

Now imagine a consistently 60 FPS Bayonetta game with visuals in line with supersampled looking, insanely post processed 60Hz to titles on current gen systems like DOOM & Infinite Warfare, a 60 FPS Warriors game with visuals in line with PS4 Warriors titles (subsurface scattering & PBR) and no visible pop-in, or an open-air Zelda with no loading times, PBR, real time global illumination, particle effects and polygon counts lifted straight from Infamous: Second Son, Temporal Supersampling with composite texture work, and a consistent framerate. It's salivating to think of, and could only be achieved with good hardware. Multiplatform developers releasing platform parity'd versions of their games would be the best tasting icing ever on the cake and would seal the deal on finally being able to be Nintendo (and PC) only. So I must ask, what's the opposition? I honestly cannot comprehensively get it.

Sent from my SM-G900V using genital warts
Some years ago, yes, but now, it's too late for that. Nintendo can't compete with Sony anymore. The best strategy was to release a HD successor to 3DS and forget the home console market. It's Switch.

Home console market (Microsoft/Sony) is light-years from where Nintendo is not only in 3rd party content but in graphics, online, network, entertainment box features, tools, etc. Nintendo not only are unable to make a console like PS4 or Scorpio but they can't even understand how this market works. Nintendo is like some local site provider and Sony is like Microsoft Cloud or Amazon Cloud.

The handheld/tablet/mobile market is where Nintendo can pull something off and keep his customers.
 

Koenig

The Architect
#7
Some years ago, yes, but now, it's too late for that. Nintendo can't compete with Sony anymore. The best strategy was to release a HD successor to 3DS and forget the home console market. It's Switch.

Home console market (Microsoft/Sony) is light-years from where Nintendo is not only in 3rd party content but in graphics, online, network, entertainment box features, tools, etc. Nintendo not only are unable to make a console like PS4 or Scorpio but they can't even understand how this market works. Nintendo is like some local site provider and Sony is like Microsoft Cloud or Amazon Cloud.

The handheld/tablet/mobile market is where Nintendo can pull something off and keep his customers.
I do think Nintendo could compete with Sony and Microsoft IF they actually bothered trying. It would take at least a generation fighting tooth and nail to do it, but it is possible.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
#8
I do think Nintendo could compete with Sony and Microsoft IF they actually bothered trying. It would take at least a generation fighting tooth and nail to do it, but it is possible.
Oh sure, it's possible, but is it ultimately worth it? Everyone is always talking about how Nintendo is doomed this, and doomed that, so would Nintendo fighting tooth and nail really change that?
 

Koenig

The Architect
#9
Oh sure, it's possible, but is it ultimately worth it? Everyone is always talking about how Nintendo is doomed this, and doomed that, so would Nintendo fighting tooth and nail really change that?
With enough time and continued effort, yes.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
#10
Its not like its rocket science on building a powerful console. I, me, a total novice in the gaming PC world can go on New Egg right now and build a PS4 Pro level gaming PC for $500. This is retail parts, not wholesale like a console manufacture would pay. You can even buy PC cases that are small and look pretty similar to your typical console. With architecture becoming more and more standardized, consoles are becoming little more than Steam Boxes. More user friendly, but Steam has closed the gap a lot. Anyway, its not a question if Nintendo can build a powerful console or not, but if its going to result in a high level of success? Nintendo isn't shooting for 30-40 million users with their devices, but two to three times that. As we have seen with the Xbox One, a standard console isn't a guarantee success story. We have also seen that most consumer do not choose the more expensive more powerful box. PS4 is outselling the PS4 Pro by a 4 to 1 margin. I expect similar sales for the Scorpio. People seem to think its as simple as releasing a powerful console, hit the easy button, and win big. Its not.

Nintendo's biggest chance for success is by circumventing the competition, offering something very different from what they offer. Nintendo was losing ground in the console market, so instead of fighting an uphill battle with Sony and Microsoft, why not give their next portable the added perk of also working as a home console. Guys, the Switch concept is working. Nintendo is better equipped to support the platform with a steady flow of high profile titles, and the concept seems to be attractive to consumers with a busy life style.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
#11
Its not like its rocket science on building a powerful console. I, me, a total novice in the gaming PC world can go on New Egg right now and build a PS4 Pro level gaming PC for $500. This is retail parts, not wholesale like a console manufacture would pay. You can even buy PC cases that are small and look pretty similar to your typical console. With architecture becoming more and more standardized, consoles are becoming little more than Steam Boxes. More user friendly, but Steam has closed the gap a lot. Anyway, its not a question if Nintendo can build a powerful console or not, but if its going to result in a high level of success? Nintendo isn't shooting for 30-40 million users with their devices, but two to three times that. As we have seen with the Xbox One, a standard console isn't a guarantee success story. We have also seen that most consumer do not choose the more expensive more powerful box. PS4 is outselling the PS4 Pro by a 4 to 1 margin. I expect similar sales for the Scorpio. People seem to think its as simple as releasing a powerful console, hit the easy button, and win big. Its not.

Nintendo's biggest chance for success is by circumventing the competition, offering something very different from what they offer. Nintendo was losing ground in the console market, so instead of fighting an uphill battle with Sony and Microsoft, why not give their next portable the added perk of also working as a home console. Guys, the Switch concept is working. Nintendo is better equipped to support the platform with a steady flow of high profile titles, and the concept seems to be attractive to consumers with a busy life style.
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
#12
Guys, the Switch concept is working. Nintendo is better equipped to support the platform with a steady flow of high profile titles, and the concept seems to be attractive to consumers with a busy life style.
Yeah, I'm a little confused as to why now that Nintendo's finally hitting it out of the park right from launch with no signs of stopping (let's not pretend that MK8, ARMS, and Splatoon 2 aren't going to keep the momentum going), we're hearing talk about what Nintendo needs to do to compete with Sony and Microsoft. It's like, they DID the thing for competing with Sony and Microsoft. It's the Switch.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
#13
Yeah, I'm a little confused as to why now that Nintendo's finally hitting it out of the park right from launch with no signs of stopping (let's not pretend that MK8, ARMS, and Splatoon 2 aren't going to keep the momentum going), we're hearing talk about what Nintendo needs to do to compete with Sony and Microsoft. It's like, they DID the thing for competing with Sony and Microsoft. It's the Switch.
That is sort of what I was getting at. Who says Nintendo are not already competing against Sony and Microsoft? They have always competed against the competition, regardless of what Nintendo says. Nintendo says they're doing their own thing, but no matter what they say, they are always in competition. And the Switch is currently THAT console.

If Nintendo keeps this momentum up, there's no telling what it'll do or what it could do against the PS4 and Xbox One. Scorpio is I think Microsoft last hurrah, or make or break console, and the PS4 is really on cruise control. Switch may be doing its own thing, but it still provides a conventional gaming experience like the PS4 and Xbone do...except it also has the advantage of natively providing gaming on-the-go, which is something neither of them can do natively. And Remote Play on PS4/PSV is not the same, so you can't truly compare the two.
 

simplyTravis

"A nice guy, but looks like a f'n Jedi!"
#14
That is sort of what I was getting at. Who says Nintendo are not already competing against Sony and Microsoft? They have always competed against the competition, regardless of what Nintendo says. Nintendo says they're doing their own thing, but no matter what they say, they are always in competition. And the Switch is currently THAT console.

If Nintendo keeps this momentum up, there's no telling what it'll do or what it could do against the PS4 and Xbox One. Scorpio is I think Microsoft last hurrah, or make or break console, and the PS4 is really on cruise control. Switch may be doing its own thing, but it still provides a conventional gaming experience like the PS4 and Xbone do...except it also has the advantage of natively providing gaming on-the-go, which is something neither of them can do natively. And Remote Play on PS4/PSV is not the same, so you can't truly compare the two.
I agree with this whole-heartedly. Remote play is essentially what the Wii U was. A way to play on a smaller screen with a ton of variables to do so. For the WIi U it was the fact that you couldn't go past a certain distance and the system had to be plugged into a steady power supply often with the ability to start up on the TV. The Ps4/psv combo requires you to have amazing internet connection and, y'know, an actual PSV. That's just too much to ask.
 

weeman_com

Active Member
#15
a lot of great compelling discussion in this thread. I do agree with you all about how the switch is doing the job of what Nintendo wanted and needed within the marketplace. Their strategy seems to be spot on with this one.

But, do you not all wish Nintendo had a powerhouse beast to truly see what they were capable of?
I know they are the king of optimisation, they make the most out of the hardware that they have, but if they didn't have to worry about that and optimisation didn't hold them back.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
#16
I agree with this whole-heartedly. Remote play is essentially what the Wii U was. A way to play on a smaller screen with a ton of variables to do so. For the WIi U it was the fact that you couldn't go past a certain distance and the system had to be plugged into a steady power supply often with the ability to start up on the TV. The Ps4/psv combo requires you to have amazing internet connection and, y'know, an actual PSV. That's just too much to ask.
Precisely. I mean, in all fairness, Remote Play does similarly what the Switch does in concept. But the key thing is it can't do it natively like the Switch can, and not only that, but it requires an internet connection, and you need to buy a separate device to make it work. Some might quickly say, "Well, I already had a PS Vita." Doesn't matter. The point is you cannot do this sort of thing with only the PS4. It requires a separate device, an internet connection, and even after all that, it still won't be perfect, nor as intuitive as remote play. I don't doubt that remote play is nifty, but like the Wii U gamepad, it's still being tethered to the main device.

Currently, no other gaming device can do what the Switch does.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#17
Its not like its rocket science on building a powerful console. I, me, a total novice in the gaming PC world can go on New Egg right now and build a PS4 Pro level gaming PC for $500.
A console in 2017 is not only a box. Nintendo can't pull off a lot of that is necessary to compete in the home console market:

The hardware itself
The network features
The online shop
The market for 3rd party content

Those are some of the main areas to pull off a console product that Nintendo can't deliver a high quality service.

To deliver a home console is not only make a hardware box, you need the datacenter, the servers, the software, the market know how and the relationship with all the stakeholders, etc.


Guys, the Switch concept is working. Nintendo is better equipped to support the platform with a steady flow of high profile titles, and the concept seems to be attractive to consumers with a busy life style.
Agreed.
 
Last edited:

Odo

Well-Known Member
#18
Yeah, I'm a little confused as to why now that Nintendo's finally hitting it out of the park right from launch with no signs of stopping (let's not pretend that MK8, ARMS, and Splatoon 2 aren't going to keep the momentum going), we're hearing talk about what Nintendo needs to do to compete with Sony and Microsoft. It's like, they DID the thing for competing with Sony and Microsoft. It's the Switch.
He means compete in the powerful home console market.

Nintendo is still a game company as Clash of Clans developer is a game company. But both Nintendo, Clash of Clans and Sony are fighting in 3 different markets, so they're not exactly competing against each other.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#19
But, do you not all wish Nintendo had a powerhouse beast to truly see what they were capable of?
I know they are the king of optimisation, they make the most out of the hardware that they have, but if they didn't have to worry about that and optimisation didn't hold them back.
I have in the Wii days, but now, what can Nintendo do that they can't on Switch in terms of quality gameplay and story?
 

weeman_com

Active Member
#20
I have in the Wii days, but now, what can Nintendo do that they can't on Switch in terms of quality gameplay and story?
you see your limiting the true point in powerful hardware.

powerful hardware has no way to improve gameplay and story so that is not the point of it.
the hardware improves capabilities in gamespace, graphics, physics anything that is affected by the limitations of hardware not the limitations of creators imaginations. I understand you are happy with the creativity of Nintendo, what I hope is that sometime they will hardware to show their technical capabilities for the times without limitations
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
#21
Some years ago, yes, but now, it's too late for that. Nintendo can't compete with Sony anymore. The best strategy was to release a HD successor to 3DS and forget the home console market. It's Switch.

Home console market (Microsoft/Sony) is light-years from where Nintendo is not only in 3rd party content but in graphics, online, network, entertainment box features, tools, etc. Nintendo not only are unable to make a console like PS4 or Scorpio but they can't even understand how this market works. Nintendo is like some local site provider and Sony is like Microsoft Cloud or Amazon Cloud.

The handheld/tablet/mobile market is where Nintendo can pull something off and keep his customers.
They most likely need new leadership if they are to accomplish this. As the GameCube showed, you can have good hardware, but if your direction is run by arrogance, it's not destined to do well.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
#22
Its not like its rocket science on building a powerful console. I, me, a total novice in the gaming PC world can go on New Egg right now and build a PS4 Pro level gaming PC for $500. This is retail parts, not wholesale like a console manufacture would pay. You can even buy PC cases that are small and look pretty similar to your typical console. With architecture becoming more and more standardized, consoles are becoming little more than Steam Boxes. More user friendly, but Steam has closed the gap a lot. Anyway, its not a question if Nintendo can build a powerful console or not, but if its going to result in a high level of success? Nintendo isn't shooting for 30-40 million users with their devices, but two to three times that. As we have seen with the Xbox One, a standard console isn't a guarantee success story. We have also seen that most consumer do not choose the more expensive more powerful box. PS4 is outselling the PS4 Pro by a 4 to 1 margin. I expect similar sales for the Scorpio. People seem to think its as simple as releasing a powerful console, hit the easy button, and win big. Its not.

Nintendo's biggest chance for success is by circumventing the competition, offering something very different from what they offer. Nintendo was losing ground in the console market, so instead of fighting an uphill battle with Sony and Microsoft, why not give their next portable the added perk of also working as a home console. Guys, the Switch concept is working. Nintendo is better equipped to support the platform with a steady flow of high profile titles, and the concept seems to be attractive to consumers with a busy life style.
The Xbox One isn't doing as well as the PS4 because of the rise of Digital Foundry's influence on purchasing decisions. Microsoft embarassed themselves with Forza 5's downgrades and lack of content (dynamic lighting, baked weather, and cars/tracks) compared to GT6, falsly advertising Ryse as 1080p with the main character featuring more than 100k polygons only to do a 180 turn, a last gen remaster like Tomb Raider running at almost half the framerate as the PS4 version, and having titles like Battlefield 4, Killer Instinct, and Dead Rising 3 running at 720p, and consumers laughed along. On hardware level, the Xbox One is a mess, especially when it comes to working with deferred renders. On top of that, the initial price because of Kinect, as well as the DRM, threw them off.

The PS4 Pro is being outsold by the standard PS4 because consumers haven't warmed up to mid gen hardware refreshes yet.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
#23
a lot of great compelling discussion in this thread. I do agree with you all about how the switch is doing the job of what Nintendo wanted and needed within the marketplace. Their strategy seems to be spot on with this one.

But, do you not all wish Nintendo had a powerhouse beast to truly see what they were capable of?
I know they are the king of optimisation, they make the most out of the hardware that they have, but if they didn't have to worry about that and optimisation didn't hold them back.
This is what I mean. Whenever Nintendo makes ambitious games nowadays, their hardware holds them back. Look at the games listed in the OP and try telling me that they have good image quality or solid framerates. Xenoblade X is really the only ambitious Wii U game to hit a solid 30 FPS, and they cut so many corners to the point where some areas looked like they could've been a PS3 launch game. The pop-in, flat lighting, wax character models, pre-baked shadows (especially noticable during day and night transitions, shimmering, collision detection (or lack thereof), and texture resolution all stick out like a sore thumb and really show what kind of corners had to be cut to deliver a solid framerate on such hardware. Assassin's Creed IV on Wii U looks better and has more going on in terms of effects work, but that game's framerate is abysmal.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

Koenig

The Architect
#24
The Xbox One isn't doing as well as the PS4 because of the rise of Digital Foundry's influence on purchasing decisions. Microsoft embarassed themselves with Forza 5's downgrades, and lack of content (dynamic lighting, baked weather, and cars/tracks) compared to GT6, falsly advertising Ryse as 1080p with the main character featuring more than 100k polygons only to do a 180 turn, a last gen remaster like Tomb Raider running at almost half the framerate as the PS4 version, and having titles like Battlefield 4, Killer Instinct, and Dead Rising 3 running at 720p, and consumers laughed along. On hardware level, the Xbox One is a mess, especially when it comes to working with deferred renders. On top of that, the initial price because of Kinect, as well as the DRM, threw them off.

The PS4 Pro is being outsold by the standard PS4 because consumers haven't warmed up to mid gen hardware refreshes yet.

Sent from my SM-G900V using genital warts
I mean, it did not help that Microsoft butchered the X1 reveal so bad they had to do a complete 180 and backtrack on all their anti-consumer bullshit to even have a chance of competing. Knowing that Microsoft would have gone through with it if they could have really damaged their image in the eyes of many potential consumers, and set a a bad reputation with the X1 that they have been having to clean up ever since.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
#25
You give DF too much credit. They have less than 500k subscribers. Your average gamers isn't even aware of DF. Only those of use who frequent forums and gaming websites. Do not get fooled into believing we are in the majority, we are not. Microsoft got caught with a more expensive device launching directly against the PS4. Sony had a far more compelling marketing message with better pricing. Once a console gets going, its hard to stop. Friends and colleges have a certain console, and in order to join in the fun, you must also purchase that same console. Sony also has released a lot of exclusives for the PS4. Xbox has jack shit other than Gears and Halo. At least PS4 launched with Killzone Shadowfall. What exclusive did X1 launch with? If X1 had launched with a new Halo and shorty after a new Gears, perhaps things would have played out differently. Microsoft didn't have the software to help drive their hardware. PS4 had what the X1 had with more exclusives and a cheaper price.

Nintendo doesn't pursue the powerful console market for the same reason Sony will shy away from the portable market. Why fight an uphill battle when you can double down on what has already been very successful. Switch is a portable with the added perk of being a home console as a bonus. Nintendo's exclusives will look great on both the portable screen and HD tv. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe proves this. This is the first time mobile tech has been sufficient for the larger screen. Vita games blow up on the big screen didn't look so great. 3DS would be even worse. Switch is the NES of this concept. Its successor will be the SNES of the concept. The ability to play anywhere will stack up very well against modest improvements a dedicated home console can offer.
 
Last edited:

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
#26
The Xbox One isn't doing as well as the PS4 because of the rise of Digital Foundry's influence on purchasing decisions.
To think an entire generation is being won by framerate and resolution analysis on DF is...well, projection. Which doesn't hold up to much logical scrutiny - people would be buying PS4 Pro by the bucket loads if they were incredulous at getting anything less than the best possible visual experience (you cannot say "consumers don't want a mid-cycle refresh" while simultaneously saying flashy hardware that tech nerds influence us to love is what is pushing sales in a particular direction - that's contradiction town, population you). The XBox One isn't doing as well as the PS4 because Sony blew Microsoft out of the water at E3 2013. They undercut them on price, got a healthy chunk of good press for being more consumer friendly with used games, then spent an unholy hell of a lotta money on marketing the ever loving shit out of the PS4. MS was playing PR/marketing defense, and launched a more expensive device with a technological hook no one cared about. Nintendo never once communicated anything clearly about the Wii U. Sony was the only one who did their job when they launched this generation of consoles, and the sales show it.
A console in 2017 is not only a box. Nintendo can't pull off a lot of that is necessary to compete in the home console market:

The hardware itself
The network features
The online shop
The market for 3rd party content

Those are some of the main areas to pull off a console product that Nintendo can't deliver a high quality service.
Eh, 3 out of 4. Nintendo could have just as easily sold a $400 console that is spec-ed the same as the PS4. There is no magic, secret sauce to what Sony did with the PS4 to reach its price point.

But for the rest? More or less. Some of those critiques are more meaty than others, of course. They haven't put together a Network system to tie everything together and give us system-wide chat, but it's not like people are saying now "no I don't want a Switch because I can't use a gamer ID that I made on the Wii U console that I...didn't buy." Nintendo can't get their online shop shit together, and that's a problem to me (how many times can they launch a new device without a virtual console?). They don't have the bank to pay for third-party games while simultaneously funding their own robust game development; that's the nature of the beast and has been for awhile.
And just for your examples with some of the Wii U titles on the system, Bayo 2, W101, Hyrule Warriors, WW HD. All those games would be able to run flawlessly with the Switch compared to the Wii U. BotW I consider the exception due to time. It's obvious BotW has received some improvements since its launch, although it's certainly not perfect, but it's not that big of a deal really. I'm even enjoying it a lot on Wii U,
Well, not only that, but those aren't necessarily great examples to begin with. Warriors games are not famed for their tech wizardry, Bayo 2 was a rescue job for a game that was abandoned mid-development for other consoles, Wonderful 101 was thought up to be a Wii project (which probably accounts for some of the constraints in art style and likely the camera angle; Wii projects were all crazy about forced perspective cameras), WW HD did not have "much worse" performance than the GC, and BotW was only one of the biggest, most ambitious games ever developed for any platform ever and is hardly alone in open-world game design to have frame jitters here and there (which have largely been ironed out).
Its not like its rocket science on building a powerful console. I, me, a total novice in the gaming PC world can go on New Egg right now and build a PS4 Pro level gaming PC for $500. This is retail parts, not wholesale like a console manufacture would pay. You can even buy PC cases that are small and look pretty similar to your typical console. With architecture becoming more and more standardized, consoles are becoming little more than Steam Boxes. More user friendly, but Steam has closed the gap a lot. Anyway, its not a question if Nintendo can build a powerful console or not, but if its going to result in a high level of success? Nintendo isn't shooting for 30-40 million users with their devices, but two to three times that. As we have seen with the Xbox One, a standard console isn't a guarantee success story. We have also seen that most consumer do not choose the more expensive more powerful box. PS4 is outselling the PS4 Pro by a 4 to 1 margin. I expect similar sales for the Scorpio. People seem to think its as simple as releasing a powerful console, hit the easy button, and win big. Its not.

Nintendo's biggest chance for success is by circumventing the competition, offering something very different from what they offer. Nintendo was losing ground in the console market, so instead of fighting an uphill battle with Sony and Microsoft, why not give their next portable the added perk of also working as a home console. Guys, the Switch concept is working. Nintendo is better equipped to support the platform with a steady flow of high profile titles, and the concept seems to be attractive to consumers with a busy life style.
This. It's not like there's "opposition" to the idea of a powerful Nintendo console because we'd all rather be playing on DS-level hardware for perpetuity. It's that a Nintendo-badged PS clone would not equal success. There is no magic button. Power was not the reason the Wii U didn't get GTA V, or BioShock Infinte, or Far Cry, or DmC, or any of the other games of those in-between years. Enough power was there for those games. It was not technological constraints that prevented those games from arriving, it was economic reality. Games launch where they sell, even if it takes more work to get them there (it ain't like the Cell processor was easy to work with). You could have tripled the Wii U's power and sold it for $100 more. It likely would not have saved a console whose very idea could not be sold.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#27
but it's not like people are saying now "no I don't want a Switch because I can't use a gamer ID that I made on the Wii U console that I...didn't buy."
Switch is doing great, that's not my point.

Eh, 3 out of 4. Nintendo could have just as easily sold a $400 console that is spec-ed the same as the PS4. There is no magic, secret sauce to what Sony did with the PS4 to reach its price point.
You guys are missing the point. It's not only specs.

Considering the last 10 years, Nintendo is light-years from home console market. Wii U barely deliver features that PS3 had in 2007. Nintendo has never been able to pull off a simple voice chat, unified user account system (the most basic thing ever in the internet years), online shop on the web (they took like what? a decade to deliver that?), backup features, cloud saving, basic network capabilities.

The home console market is not like it was in 1997 that you just need to put a piece of hardware and cartridges in the shelves. It's a whole bunch of services integrated in an powerful x86 cpu entertainment device. It includes of the top of my head:

Client side

Blu-ray player
DVD player
CD player
Media player
Photo manager
Netflix, Amazon, Hulu and other streaming services
Spotify and other music services
Internet browser
Backup features
Virtual Reality
Livestream sharing for services like Twitter, Facebook, Twitch, Ustream, NicoNico, Youtube etc
Video recording
Video editor
Games subscription
Apps for lots of things
Remote play on PC
Voice comands
Second screen mobile app
Hard drive upgrade
Parental controls for each account
HDR and 4K

Server side:

TV and films streaming rental/buying.
Music streaming
Unified user account
Achievements and trophies
Voice chat with party and community system
Cloud computing services
Game streaming
Backup/restoration and saving on the cloud
Share play
Cloud computing processing
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
#28
System wide voice chat is a choice for Nintendo. The OS was basically developed by DeNa and Nvidia. Anything missing was a choice by Nintendo.

Missing streaming services was done to keep players engaged with games on their Switch. They didn't want gamers watching Netflix on their Switch when they could be aying games. They really wanted to drive home the idea of Switch being a gaming console, front and center. Not a Zelda box that becomes a tablet shortly after. A lot of this stuff will be in place by the end of the year. People getting the device for Christmas will never even realize they were missing.

Virtual Console missing is Nintendo giving the Neo Geo games the spotlight for a bit. You may not agree with Nintendo on these choices, but I can promise you, they are deliberate decisions.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
#29
You guys are missing the point. It's not only specs.

Considering the last 10 years, Nintendo is light-years from home console market. Wii U barely deliver features that PS3 had in 2007. Nintendo has never been able to pull off a simple voice chat, unified user account system (the most basic thing ever in the internet years), online shop on the web (they took like what? a decade to deliver that?), backup features, cloud saving, basic network capabilities.
"It's not about specs, but the Wii U hardware couldn't do PS3 features." This is a silly conflation. The Wii U did not lack the hardware capability for voice chat or a better account system; Nintendo lacked the ability or desire to make it so.
It's a whole bunch of services integrated in an powerful x86 cpu entertainment device.
There is no magic sauce in the X86 architecture. Thinking DVD playback, Netflix, an Internet browser, or a game's native resolution is inextricably tied to X86 is utter nonsense.
System wide voice chat is a choice for Nintendo. The OS was basically developed by DeNa and Nvidia. Anything missing was a choice by Nintendo.

Missing streaming services was done to keep players engaged with games on their Switch. They didn't want gamers watching Netflix on their Switch when they could be aying games. They really wanted to drive home the idea of Switch being a gaming console, front and center. Not a Zelda box that becomes a tablet shortly after. A lot of this stuff will be in place by the end of the year. People getting the device for Christmas will never even realize they were missing.

Virtual Console missing is Nintendo giving the Neo Geo games the spotlight for a bit. You may not agree with Nintendo on these choices, but I can promise you, they are deliberate decisions.

Sent from my SM-G360V using genital warts
Aside from voice chat, I'd like to believe it's strategy. I do not. The onus really is on Nintendo to prove they're getting their act together on accounts and VC (like not launching a VC in which off-TV play is something they pretty much winged). I'm hopeful. But history is not on their side. If the thought is "they can't be silly enough to do that," odds are that they really are.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
#30
I just don't believe it's consistent incompetence, but more likely reasoning that doesn't make a ton of sense to us. Some times it may be such a low priority for Nintendo, and takes a very long time to climb up their list. Who knows? We know the App is coming, and it is Nintendo's answer/solution for .any missing features. Streaming services is as simple as getting Netflix and Hulu to port their Apps. Show me very simple seeing as how they are supported in the Shield TV.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#31
"It's not about specs, but the Wii U hardware couldn't do PS3 features." This is a silly conflation. The Wii U did not lack the hardware capability for voice chat or a better account system; Nintendo lacked the ability or desire to make it so.

There is no magic sauce in the X86 architecture. Thinking DVD playback, Netflix, an Internet browser, or a game's native resolution is inextricably tied to X86 is utter nonsense.

Aside from voice chat, I'd like to believe it's strategy. I do not. The onus really is on Nintendo to prove they're getting their act together on accounts and VC (like not launching a VC in which off-TV play is something they pretty much winged). I'm hopeful. But history is not on their side. If the thought is "they can't be silly enough to do that," odds are that they really are.

Nintendo can't pull off a simple user account system.

How can they deliver this?


Client side

Blu-ray player
DVD player
CD player
Media player
Photo manager
Netflix, Amazon, Hulu and other streaming services
Spotify and other music services
Internet browser
Backup features
Virtual Reality
Livestream sharing for services like Twitter, Facebook, Twitch, Ustream, NicoNico, Youtube etc
Video recording
Video editor
Games subscription
Apps for lots of things
Remote play on PC
Voice comands
Second screen mobile app
Hard drive upgrade
Parental controls for each account
HDR and 4K

Server side:

TV and films streaming rental/buying.
Music streaming
Unified user account
Achievements and trophies
Voice chat with party and community system
Cloud computing services
Game streaming
Backup/restoration and saving on the cloud
Share play
Cloud computing processing
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#32
System wide voice chat is a choice for Nintendo. The OS was basically developed by DeNa and Nvidia. Anything missing was a choice by Nintendo.

Missing streaming services was done to keep players engaged with games on their Switch. They didn't want gamers watching Netflix on their Switch when they could be aying games. They really wanted to drive home the idea of Switch being a gaming console, front and center. Not a Zelda box that becomes a tablet shortly after. A lot of this stuff will be in place by the end of the year. People getting the device for Christmas will never even realize they were missing.

Virtual Console missing is Nintendo giving the Neo Geo games the spotlight for a bit. You may not agree with Nintendo on these choices, but I can promise you, they are deliberate decisions.

Sent from my SM-G360V using genital warts
Deliberately or not, they still miss all the things that people look for in a currently home console. Switch is fine, but no Nintendo don't have the resources, the servers, the datacenter, the relationship, etc to deliver things like game streaming, backup on the cloud, share play, live stream, and all those things that are super basic features in any console.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
#33
Deliberately or not, they still miss all the things that people look for in a currently home console. Switch is fine, but no Nintendo don't have the resources, the servers, the datacenter, the relationship, etc to deliver things like game streaming, backup on the cloud, share play, live stream, and all those things that are super basic features in any console.
I'm not agreeing with Nintendo's choices, but I think it's important to differentiate the difference between poor choices and simply incapable of incorporating the features.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#34
I just don't believe it's consistent incompetence, but more likely reasoning that doesn't make a ton of sense to us.
The reasoning is that for them is much easier to make money keeping their handheld market with Switch. This is clever.

Nintendo would have to be an entirely different company to be able to deploy a service like PlayStation. They're on a different path since Wii. They just did what was obvious.

4K, cloud computing, video recording, live stream and virtual reality are just basic things now that anyone would expect from a home console. Nintendo don't have any experience in any of that. They're on a different market.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#35
I'm not agreeing with Nintendo's choices, but I think it's important to differentiate the difference between poor choices and simply incapable of incorporating the features.
Many of the features that I listed are not only a service that you can deploy on a motherboard.

Sony is a corporation that has studios in Hollywood, music labels, online capabilites all over the world in a multitude of services, etc. Microsoft is a huge corporation that has one of the biggest cloud computing services in the world, an operating system with apps on their store, etc. That's just a few examples of what those companies own. What I mean is, Sony and Microsoft integrates an entire set of services on their consoles that are in fact entertainment boxes. Plus, they have experience with that, because they're offering most of those services since PS3/X360.

On the other hand, Nintendo has no experience in any of that. Nintendo only has experience in gadgets, AAA games and IP management, that's what they've been doing since 2006. I see no evidence that shows that Nintendo has all the assets necessary to pull off all the services that PS4 delivers today and soon PS5/Scorpio will.

They are incapable of that today, because they decided to follow another path a decade ago and they decided to do that because it was their strategy. So their strategy for the last decade made them incapable of deliver a home console experience today. They can deliver other marvellous things like Switch.

I think one example is Microsoft on their mobile business. Microsoft never had an strategy for mobile, they took to long to decide to compete and now they just cant. Microsoft doesn't have the culture, the assets, the team nor the product vision to compete with Android and Apple. They only have the money and they tried but it didn't work. The culture of Microsoft in the last decade was making money from Windows and Office. That was a deliberate strategy and now they can't respond on the mobile front. They will survive fighting other fronts, but they can't understand the mobile market.

Since 2006, Nintendo hasn't shown any sign that they could cope with the home console market of today. They would have to change a lot or at least open a separate company with a new team to try. Nintendo, as is, is a game company that can be successful with Switch and mobile, but we have no evidence that they could deliver a service like PlayStation considering what they've been doing and the struggles they had.
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
#36
4K, cloud computing, video recording, live stream and virtual reality are just basic things now that anyone would expect from a home console. Nintendo don't have any experience in any of that. They're on a different market.
I agree with you. Much like this, there are a whole host of "basic features" that anyone should expect from their home AV Receivers:
- 7.2 audio channels
- HDMI ins and outs
- USB and Bluetooth compatibility
- 4K resolution compatibility
- Automatic room equalization
- EQ presets ("Rock, Country, Classical", etc.)
- Low frequency crossover
- Audio interpolation ("MP3 restorer")
- Automated power savings management

And so on and so forth. Do all these features mean that Apple made a mistake with the iPod, or that they are making a mistake by not including a 3.5mm jack on their latest iPhone? So while I agree with you that there is such a concept as a "home console" that is meant to be a hydra of entertainment features, and that Nintendo is just not positioned to deliver that kind of console anymore, I also think that market is going to tank hard, and that this is the last generation where that kind of system has mass market appeal. If Sony and Microsoft's next systems (beyond the PS4 Pro and Scorpio) aren't basically a souped up Switch with a few more features, I think they're going to be trapping themselves in a niche market.
 

sjmartin79

White Phoenix of the Crown
#37
Nintendo can't pull off a simple user account system.

How can they deliver this?


Client side

Blu-ray player
DVD player
CD player
Media player
Photo manager
Netflix, Amazon, Hulu and other streaming services
Spotify and other music services
Internet browser
Backup features
Virtual Reality
Livestream sharing for services like Twitter, Facebook, Twitch, Ustream, NicoNico, Youtube etc
Video recording
Video editor
Games subscription
Apps for lots of things
Remote play on PC
Voice comands
Second screen mobile app
Hard drive upgrade
Parental controls for each account
HDR and 4K

Server side:

TV and films streaming rental/buying.
Music streaming
Unified user account
Achievements and trophies
Voice chat with party and community system
Cloud computing services
Game streaming
Backup/restoration and saving on the cloud
Share play
Cloud computing processing
Here's a question to go along with your list, not whether they could, but if they should?
There are things on that list, like remote play on PC, that would make zero sense for Nintendo to do.
I'll admit there are some things on that list that would be nice, but others that I personally would never use.
I don't think any home console needs to be every thing for every person.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#38
"It's not about specs, but the Wii U hardware couldn't do PS3 features." This is a silly conflation.
It's not a silly conflation,

I didn't said "Wii U hardware couldn't do"

I said

"Wii U barely deliver features that PS3 had in 2007".

PS3 and PS4 has many resources that aren't only made by a motherboard and CPU, but requires data centres, services, network and 3rd party services.

User accounting on Wii U is ridiculous and it's not only about hardware.


There is no magic sauce in the X86 architecture. Thinking DVD playback, Netflix, an Internet browser, or a game's native resolution is inextricably tied to X86 is utter nonsense.
Who said those features is inextricably tied to X86?
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#39
And so on and so forth. Do all these features mean that Apple made a mistake with the iPod, or that they are making a mistake by not including a 3.5mm jack on their latest iPhone?
Who said that Nintendo made a mistake?

I don't think Nintendo made any mistake.

When I say that Nintendo doesn't sell modern home consoles it doesn't mean that I'm saying that Nintendo is making a mistake.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#40
Here's a question to go along with your list, not whether they could, but if they should?
Yes, I think they shouldn't. They're right to avoid all this and fight on the handheld and mobile market.

About whether they could: since 2006 they decided to avoid the "powerful home console business and online-focused services", so they have zero experience for a decade.


There are things on that list, like remote play on PC, that would make zero sense for Nintendo to do.
I agree. Going mobile makes more sense for Nintendo. Pokemon Go in 2016 is responsible for almost 50% of their ordinary net income.

Switch and more hits like Pokemon Go are the right strategy for Nintendo.



I'll admit there are some things on that list that would be nice, but others that I personally would never use.
Me too. But it's still basic features in a modern home console service no matter if we use it or not.

I don't think any home console needs to be every thing for every person.
Yes, but we have to have a common definition of home console. For many here at TNE, a home console is a box where you put a cartridge and a game shows on your TV. But for business consideration, when we talk about home console business, all that list of features has to come together with your box.
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
#41
Who said that Nintendo made a mistake?

I don't think Nintendo made any mistake.

When I say that Nintendo doesn't sell modern home consoles it doesn't mean that I'm saying that Nintendo is making a mistake.
I know, I didn't mean to imply that you did, but I wanted to offer that as a response to the thread. I do agree with you that Nintendo isn't able to deliver a home console the way that Sony or Microsoft can, in terms of features. But when it comes to making a case for Nintendo to make a powerful home console, in my opinion that case is working against a changing mainstream where portability is more appealing than feature sets. So while I think Sony can maintain a reputation for making the most powerful home consoles (just like they still have a good reputation in the AV Receiver, standing speaker, and TV businesses), I don't think there's a compelling case to be made for Nintendo to follow what I believe is an increasingly niche market, even if they were already in a position to do so.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
#42
What would stop Nintendo from using business partners to integrate any and all features that Nintendo cant/won't handle internally? I think you would be surprised just how much work is outsourced even for Sony. Regardless, if Nvidia can release the Shield Tablet that rocks a Tegra Processor and runs any and all Android apps, why couldn't Nintendo?

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
#44
None of the things Odo mentioned are beyond nintendo's reach, they are a multi-billionare dollar company.... many of them, however, are beyond nintendo's DESIRES... they are things Nintendo just doesn't give a shit about... and some of those things NOBODY should give a shit about, while others... maybe nintendo SHOULD give a shit about.

Client side

01. Blu-ray player
02. DVD player
03. CD player
04. Media player
05. Photo manager
06. Netflix, Amazon, Hulu and other streaming services
07. Spotify and other music services
08. Internet browser
09. Backup features
10. Virtual Reality
11. Livestream sharing for services like Twitter, Facebook, Twitch, Ustream, NicoNico, Youtube etc
12. Video recording
13. Video editor
14. Games subscription
15. Apps for lots of things
16. Remote play on PC
17. Voice comands
18. Second screen mobile app
19. Hard drive upgrade
20. Parental controls for each account
21. HDR and 4K
01. Stop-gap format that was never mainstream, hd and 4k/HDR streaming is already a thing, nobody cares, nor should they
02. Obsolete tech, nobody cares, nor should they
03. WAY obsolete tech, nobody cares, nor should they
04. extremely limited use case, nobody cares, nor should they
05. Nintendo only needs better management of their screenshots, otherwise, nobody cares, nor should they
06. I can stream on anything, the wii u had those 3 and more, my chromecast does everything imaginable with a better user experience than any console (save amazon, who is stubborn for some reason), just not much of an issue... that being said, it'll eventually come anyways, Nintendo just wants the focus on gaming for now, it is intentional.
07. largely the same as above, but with a smaller use-case, probably wont come, and isn't necessary... for ANY console
08. not really necessary, could be useful in portable mode, NEVER a selling point on consoles, worst imaginable UI (a controller) for the net
09.This is nintendo's current failing, will hopefully be fixed, and it is EASY to implement, if nintendo plays it smart and just creates a hook for existing APIs like google drive and drop-box... in which case Nintendo would have the superior version of this compared to sony and ms
10. The VR trend failed, and nobody should care about it right now... that being said, it would be easy for nintendo to implement shitty VR, and easily possible for them to implement good VR, if the market suddenly wants it.
11. Easily possible, considering the bellow
12. Nintendo already announced this was coming
13. I doubt they would include it, fringe feature for consoles, possible though
14. easily possible, and some variation of this was announced for their online plan, still doesn't necessarily make strong business sense.
15. almost all unnecessary and unwanted clutter
16. what? why would Nintendo want to support that? they could, but why would they?
17. worked awesome for MS
18. Nintendo is distancing themselves from the second screen concept entirely, which is why the dock covers the screen. That beign said Nitnendo is bringing an external device app for things like voice chat, and likely other features.
19. Nintendo COULD let us hook up an HDD to the switch, both when docked and undocked (USB-c), they probably wont... in the meantime the system supports sdxc (up to 2TB)
20. Never touched the parental controls app, so wouldn't know the difference, but knowing Nintendo this likely WILL come, and be better at its function than anything the competition has
21. and there it is, the one thing switch cannot do, though Nintendo could on a new iteration.


Server side:

01. TV and films streaming rental/buying.
02. Music streaming
03. Unified user account
04. Achievements and trophies
05. Voice chat with party and community system
06. Cloud computing services
07. Game streaming
08. Backup/restoration and saving on the cloud
09. Share play
10. Cloud computing processing
01. This isn't about a console, this is about an entirely separate business, Wii U had amazon instant video, which allowed for buying and renting movies and TV... in fact it has a MUCH MUCH MUCH larger library than SONY and MS do. Meaning the console can have the feature in the future, just not through Nintendo's own service, making that distinction as a console feature is silly, it isn't.
02. unless you mean buying, or their own service (like above) than this is just a repeat from the other list
03. We still have to see what nintendo does going forward, this is where Nintendo SHOULD embrace it, and CAN, but they don't
04. few care, and they shouldn't
05. coming on the external app, which both works better for nintendo's stance, and also as a future looking option since external voice chat options (like discord) are gaining popularity
06. nintendo could do it, hell they could do it on the wii, hell, they could release a disc for the GC and do it, but it isn't a business model Nintendo is itnerested in right now. It also doesn't lend itself to portability
07. if you mean live streaming, you mentioned it in the last list, if you mean like on-live, you mentioned it above
08. alreayd mentioend this on last list, and still entirely possible for nitnendo, hopefully they make a hook for existing APIs like google drive and drop box.
09. Nintendo could... but why would they? that sounds like a nightmare for them... I could see it being announced, coming true, and then kimishima waking up in a cole sweat screaming NOOOOO
10. already mentioned twice in this list
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
#45
What would stop Nintendo from using business partners to integrate any and all features that Nintendo cant/won't handle internally? I think you would be surprised just how much work is outsourced even for Sony. Regardless, if Nvidia can release the Shield Tablet that rocks a Tegra Processor and runs any and all Android apps, why couldn't Nintendo?

Sent from my SM-G360V using genital warts
also, I need to note again.. NONE of it is beyond nintendo's reach to do on their own... it is all a matter of money and expertise, they have the money, they are a multi billion dollar company, where they don't have expertise they can HIRE, if they do not it is because outsourcing makes more sense, not that they cannot
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
#46
Nintendo can't pull off a simple user account system.

How can they deliver this?


Client side

Blu-ray player
DVD player
CD player
Media player
Photo manager
Netflix, Amazon, Hulu and other streaming services
Spotify and other music services
Internet browser
Backup features
Virtual Reality
Livestream sharing for services like Twitter, Facebook, Twitch, Ustream, NicoNico, Youtube etc
Video recording
Video editor
Games subscription
Apps for lots of things
Remote play on PC
Voice comands
Second screen mobile app
Hard drive upgrade
Parental controls for each account
HDR and 4K

Server side:

TV and films streaming rental/buying.
Music streaming
Unified user account
Achievements and trophies
Voice chat with party and community system
Cloud computing services
Game streaming
Backup/restoration and saving on the cloud
Share play
Cloud computing processing
...I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove here. I can pull a $100 cell phone from my pocket that runs Netflix, Spotify, Twitter, messaging/chat applications, four separate browsers, a photo manager, and voice commands...all on a measly ARM-based 4-core CPU (hell, less than that, actually). Those things aren't really a matter of having a terribly powerful device, which is, y'know, what this thread is about. The shit phone I just pulled out my pocket is not very powerful. And I can stream games on my PS Vita (...well, at least until August 15), which ain't a powerful device. You keep pulling out this list as if it's evidence, when it doesn't really have any bearing on the discussion of this thread. If, on the other hand, your argument is "Nintendo ought to make a greater effort outside of their hardware to provide better multimedia-gaming services," then cool. I agree. That's not this topic, though, and providing this list as a riposte isn't even an answer for this thread; it's a non-sequitur.
It's not a silly conflation,

I didn't said "Wii U hardware couldn't do"

I said

"Wii U barely deliver features that PS3 had in 2007".

PS3 and PS4 has many resources that aren't only made by a motherboard and CPU, but requires data centres, services, network and 3rd party services.

User accounting on Wii U is ridiculous and it's not only about hardware.
Again, this is a statement in search of a point. If you're not saying it was a hardware issue, then you're saying it's a focus of Nintendo separate from their hardware choices. If you're saying it's a hardware issue, you're wrong.
Who said those features is inextricably tied to X86?
Ummm, then why bring up X86 at all like you did? Probably for the same reason you were banging on about it here being somehow an indicative evolutionary trait of "true" modern consoles (yes, I have the receipts, man; I don't forget inane debates). But onto more solid ground:
What would stop Nintendo from using business partners to integrate any and all features that Nintendo cant/won't handle internally? I think you would be surprised just how much work is outsourced even for Sony. Regardless, if Nvidia can release the Shield Tablet that rocks a Tegra Processor and runs any and all Android apps, why couldn't Nintendo?
This isn't even a hypothetical, really. Nintendo has a partnership with DeNA; DeNA goes on to procure a partnership for AI technology. If Nintendo launches a smartphone app as a housing place for its chat and account system, DeNA will probably be involved there, too. And so on and so forth.

There's also nothing stopping a Tegra-based device like Switch from having a unified account system or chat or game streaming. It's not a "this hardware simply can't handle it"-issue.
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
#47
To think an entire generation is being won by framerate and resolution analysis on DF is...well, projection. Which doesn't hold up to much logical scrutiny - people would be buying PS4 Pro by the bucket loads if they were incredulous at getting anything less than the best possible visual experience (you cannot say "consumers don't want a mid-cycle refresh" while simultaneously saying flashy hardware that tech nerds influence us to love is what is pushing sales in a particular direction - that's contradiction town, population you). The XBox One isn't doing as well as the PS4 because Sony blew Microsoft out of the water at E3 2013. They undercut them on price, got a healthy chunk of good press for being more consumer friendly with used games, then spent an unholy hell of a lotta money on marketing the ever loving shit out of the PS4. MS was playing PR/marketing defense, and launched a more expensive device with a technological hook no one cared about. Nintendo never once communicated anything clearly about the Wii U. Sony was the only one who did their job when they launched this generation of consoles, and the sales show it.
The Pro isn't selling as well because attach rates for 4k TVs aren't as high as 1080p TVs, and the Pro has trouble even doing checkerboard 4k save for a select few insanely well optimized games.

Let's say I had a 4k TV, which I don't, and I wanted a 4k console. Why would I get the Pro when a majority of its games aren't even checkerboarded to 4k? Now let's say I have a 1080p TV, which I do. Why would I get a Pro when a good portion of its games don't support proper locked 60 FPS modes at 1080p (not that lazy, unoptimized unlocked "up to 60 FPS" bullshit, real 60 FPS) or downsampling from higher resolutions? That ultimately leads me to ask: who exactly is the Pro for?

Digital Foundry does curb sales. I saw a poll that listed why people are buying the PS4 over the Xbox One, and one of the biggest answers was "resolution." And it makes total sense. 1080p TVs are the norm, people want 1080p games. With a couple of exceptions, the PS4 generally delivers on that.

Eh, 3 out of 4. Nintendo could have just as easily sold a $400 console that is spec-ed the same as the PS4. There is no magic, secret sauce to what Sony did with the PS4 to reach its price point.

But for the rest? More or less. Some of those critiques are more meaty than others, of course. They haven't put together a Network system to tie everything together and give us system-wide chat, but it's not like people are saying now "no I don't want a Switch because I can't use a gamer ID that I made on the Wii U console that I...didn't buy." Nintendo can't get their online shop shit together, and that's a problem to me (how many times can they launch a new device without a virtual console?). They don't have the bank to pay for third-party games while simultaneously funding their own robust game development; that's the nature of the beast and has been for awhile.
They could have done that, and had the install base for T and M rated games been there, I'm sure 3rd parties would've gravitated towards it. You don't "pay" for 3rd party support unless you want timed exclusives. Microsoft had a $500m ad campaign for the original Xbox, yet the PS2, with a few exceptions, had a monopoly on 3rd party exclusives.Third parties gravitate based on install base. If almost all the PS4 game sales came from titles like LBP3 and Yooka-Laylee, you would logically see more games like that instead of Battlefield, GTA, and The Witcher. The real solution is to create an install base.

Let me put it this way, before I impulsively sold my 3DS, all of my titles, save for Star Fox, were made with an older audience in mind.


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
#48
Nintendo, as is, is a game company that can be successful with Switch and mobile, but we have no evidence that they could deliver a service like PlayStation considering what they've been doing and the struggles they had.
The GameCube's hardware design is objectively better than the PS2's. Nintendo lost to Sony and Microsoft in the console market because of their refusal to evolve with the gaming industry. They skimped out on development kits, putting them behind and causing them to end up with inferior ports (Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance anyone?), they refused to give 3rd parties incentive to make games ("they'll come to us"), they outright criticized multiplatform development and 3rd party games as a whole out of sheer arrogance (Satoru Iwata, Hiroshi Yamauchi, and Shigeru Miyamoto are all at fault), and they further criticized developers as a justification for the decision to use small disks. They also criticized developers for making games for older audiences despite that being the norm at the time in console gaming.

This hurt their image considerably, due to the types of exclusives they were getting. For example, Sega released Panzer Dragoon and House of the Dead III on Xbox; Yakuza and Shinobi on PS2; Billy Hatcher and ports of the mediocre Sonic Adventure games on GameCube.

In Electronic Gaming Monthly (issue 147), Metal Gear Solid creator Hideo Kojima was asked about the possibility of MGS2 coming to the Nintendo GameCube. Kojima responded to EGM, “When I pick hardware to do a game, I don’t look at the specs of the machine. I don’t really care about that stuff. I don’t care about how good the system is, because all consoles right now are at about the same level of power. I look at the audience that it has. Releasing a Metal Gear game on a Nintendo console would be ridiculous. I don’t know about GameCube, but [their] machines [until now] have been for younger kids.”

Silent Hill 2’s producer Akihiro Imamura was asked by IGN if a version of the franchise would come to Nintendo’s GameCube. Imamura told IGN that a Silent Hill game would be too adult-like for the console. “Not likely,” he said. “The machine will probably be good, but the demographic will be largely younger gamers initially. That doesn’t really fit in with our market for the Silent Hill series.”

Shigeru Miyamoto tried to convince 3rd parties to make original content for the system, but it was too late by then. To them, original meant for kids, and there wasn't money in that. Shigeru Miyamoto knew this and basically said "that's not what we meant, we want bigger and better games too," but there wasn't an audience for that on the system. Eternal Darkness was a flop and games like Resident Evil 4, Medal of Honor: Frontline, and MGS: The Twin Snakes didn't even crack the top 10 best sellers for the system despite critical acclaim.

David Gosen crapped on GTA.

Shiggy was a pretty progressive developer though. Remember, he helped with Eternal Darkness development and he thought of the idea of a first person Metroid shooter.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
#49
By the way, this isn't a thread saying the Switch sucks or that it isn't good enough. It's arguably the best handheld ever made. This thread was made with a proof of concept that Nintendo comes back to the dedicated home console market again, which I doubt they'll do at this point. Nintendo's handhelds is always where they have shined.

Their handhelds bailed them out when they screwed up with their consoles two times now. The GBA is the only reason they made a profit over Microsoft, and the 3DS obliterated the Wii U sales wise.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#50
Fair points, guys. But I still think that Nintendo is too far from the modus operandi of the PS/X market. Even multi-billion dollar companies sometimes struggle to get into a market.

The GameCube's hardware design is objectively better than the PS2's. Nintendo lost to Sony and Microsoft in the console market because of their refusal to evolve with the gaming industry. They skimped out on development kits, putting them behind and causing them to end up with inferior ports (Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance anyone?), they refused to give 3rd parties incentive to make games ("they'll come to us"), they outright criticized multiplatform development and 3rd party games as a whole out of sheer arrogance (Satoru Iwata, Hiroshi Yamauchi, and Shigeru Miyamoto are all at fault), and they further criticized developers as a justification for the decision to use small disks. They also criticized developers for making games for older audiences despite that being the norm at the time in console gaming.

This hurt their image considerably, due to the types of exclusives they were getting. For example, Sega released Panzer Dragoon and House of the Dead III on Xbox; Yakuza and Shinobi on PS2; Billy Hatcher and ports of the mediocre Sonic Adventure games on GameCube.

In Electronic Gaming Monthly (issue 147), Metal Gear Solid creator Hideo Kojima was asked about the possibility of MGS2 coming to the Nintendo GameCube. Kojima responded to EGM, “When I pick hardware to do a game, I don’t look at the specs of the machine. I don’t really care about that stuff. I don’t care about how good the system is, because all consoles right now are at about the same level of power. I look at the audience that it has. Releasing a Metal Gear game on a Nintendo console would be ridiculous. I don’t know about GameCube, but [their] machines [until now] have been for younger kids.”

Silent Hill 2’s producer Akihiro Imamura was asked by IGN if a version of the franchise would come to Nintendo’s GameCube. Imamura told IGN that a Silent Hill game would be too adult-like for the console. “Not likely,” he said. “The machine will probably be good, but the demographic will be largely younger gamers initially. That doesn’t really fit in with our market for the Silent Hill series.”

Shigeru Miyamoto tried to convince 3rd parties to make original content for the system, but it was too late by then. To them, original meant for kids, and there wasn't money in that. Shigeru Miyamoto knew this and basically said "that's not what we meant, we want bigger and better games too," but there wasn't an audience for that on the system. Eternal Darkness was a flop and games like Resident Evil 4, Medal of Honor: Frontline, and MGS: The Twin Snakes didn't even crack the top 10 best sellers for the system despite critical acclaim.

David Gosen crapped on GTA.

Shiggy was a pretty progressive developer though. Remember, he helped with Eternal Darkness development and he thought of the idea of a first person Metroid shooter.

Sent from my SM-G900V using genital warts
Yes, I believe GC was the last time Nintendo tried to compete in the market. Since then, Nintendo has no experience with this market that has evolved a lot from that times.

Having a lot of money doesn't make competing in a market that easy. Google has a lot of money but they've been struggling to compete in the smartphone business. Microsoft as well. They used their money to hire experts, they have outsourced processes, they've acquired companies (Nokia and Motorola) and they still struggled to deliver a product that many say that is very easy to make: a simple smartphone to the masses.

Is it super easy to do what Playstation do? You just need money and outsource stuff? I doubt it. Let alone for a company that has been out of this business for a decade and has a totally different culture.

I'd say that the effort for Nintendo to go back to the PS/X market would be the same effort of opening a new company. They can pull this off, but it'd take them an entire generation of work.
 
Top