Nintendo GOing Forward.

[Grall]

It's pretty bulky (and almost hellishly ugly if you ask me), but future addons could be more slimmed and better designed than this particular one.

Portable consoles are going to have an increasingly rough time competing with smart devices, we're seeing that already with 3DS and Vita selling way less than their immediate predecessors. The next generation - if Sony at all tries to launch one, which I rather doubt - will fare even worse.

I'm thinking Sony will just cost-reduce Vita and keep selling it as-is until it's either obvious that it's dead, or until the end of the PS4 generation, and then for next console they'll go all-out smartphone instead.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

They look bulky because the iphone's screen is tiny.


Regardless, there are better alternatives even from Moga:

 

[Fourth Storm]

Hmmm, alot of talk in this thread about how Nintendo should make cell phone controllers and whatnot, but I'd be much more interested in what you lot think about Nintendo's stated direction for next gen: specifically their plans for a unified architecture and OS. What type of technology might Nintendo opt for? What did Iwata mean by "absorbing the Wii U architecture?" Do they need to stick with PPC for this to happen? What about eDRAM?

What I think we will see from the specs is fairly basic:

Handheld 2016 is 20nm for AMD...
CPU: 2 or 4 "cheetah" ARM cores 800mhz to 1.2GHz
GPU: 2 CUs @ 500 Mhz 128 GFLOPs (GCN2)
RAM: 2GB
Screen: 480P to 540P resolution
Price: $169-199

Console 2017 (still likely 20nm though 16nm and 14nm is possible from AMD at this point)
CPU: 8 Cheetah cores @ 2+ GHz
GPU: 16 CUs @ 1+ GHz (GCN2) (2TFLOPs or more)
RAM: 8GB DDR4
Storage: 64GB /w external storage available
Price: $199 to 299

Miyamoto's recent quote about pondering games which run on both handheld and home console have got me into a speculating mood, so I'll see your proposed specs and counter with my own, good sir.

Console 2016/2017
20nm SoC designed with the aid of Renesas and manufactured at TSMC
CPU: 8 enhanced Espresso cores @ ~1.6 Ghz
GPU: 16-20 CUs @ 800+ Ghz or 12-18 VLIW5 SIMD engines (1500+ GFLOPS)
RAM: 8 GB DDR4 on a 128-bit bus (~50 GB/s) + 32 MB eSRAM on main SoC
Secondary SoC ala PS4 for BG downloads and also 2 ARM11 cores for Gamepad streaming
Storage: Who knows? Flash as usual but with USB 3.0 ports at least this time
Optical Drive: Same as Wii U but possibly dual layer
BC with Wii U - all eShop and VC games carry over

Handheld: 2016
20nm SoC similar to console but paired down
CPU: 2 Espresso Cores @ ~ 1 Ghz
GPU: 2 CUs or 2 VLIW5 SIMD engines
RAM: 4 GB DDR4
Screen: Could go as large as 7" or so. 720p should be cheap enough in 2 years even for Nintendo
3DS Gamecard and SD card slots
3DS SoC on separate chip for BC.

With specs like these, I am expecting more than a few groans for tech enthusiasts (although I may hand high-balled a few things on the handheld). My logic is that Nintendo still have no intention of jumping back into the tech race. They don't see Wii U's lack of horsepower as a problem as much as a "misunderstanding." Rather, their likely goal is maximizing the productivity of their internal teams and allowing for a smooth transition between this generation and next. With the lack of AAA 3rd party titles being attributed more and more on demographic, I see Nintendo targeting more indie developers, who are less interested in "coding to the metal." As long as they are getting decent performance out of the dated Espresso cores, I don't see them being an issue.

More interesting is the RAM situation. With only IBM and Intel offering eDRAM at smaller process nodes, I see Nintendo being forced into making the switch to SRAM for their 32 MB pool, as they already did with the 1 MB former texture cache pool now found on Latte.

Also, would BC with Wii U necessarily be trivial if they switched to GCN cores? There seem to be quite a few major differences between the architectures and history shows Nintendo have often opted for simpler non-emulation solutions to BC. I have also read that AMD are not licensing out GCN cores as of now. Of course, Nintendo may simply not care to switch over anyway, and even welcome the familiarity.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

With specs like these, I am expecting more than a few groans for tech enthusiasts (although I may hand high-balled a few things on the handheld). My logic is that Nintendo still have no intention of jumping back into the tech race.

There's a problem with that. Nintendo not entering the tech race means releasing a similarly spec'd current-gen machine late. Why will anyone except Nintendo make games for it? Chances are they won't, which means once again it becomes a second console, diminishing interest massively and capping numbers at a few million over n years.

Wii U released in late 2012. It has since sold 6.17 million units. If you filter out the 3 million early adopters who'd have bought a cardboard box if it had Nintendo painted on (there are these few million for every console), the ongoing interest is pitiful. Wii U only sells to Nintendo fans wanting one of their key titles and happy to spend £250+ to play one or two games. It's an irrelevant market that no other dev will court. If Nintendo can't attract 3rd parties, they remain niche, and their niche has been diminishing generation after generation. In short, I can't see that being a viable market. Nintendo can't hope to live off just Nintendo fans. They need to appeal to more people, which means providing a box that'll play the major franchises like COD and FIFA well, and actually gets those games, so Joe Gamer can weigh up getting an XB1, PS4, or Wii3PO and see that COD+FIFA+Mario Kart+Zelda is a better choice than the others. The others having way bigger libraries, better services probably, certainly better communities, and established 3rd party support.

Nintendo trying to pretend like the rest of the market doesn't exist would be Nintendo shooting itself in the foot for probably the final time.

If they want dev support, they need an x86 or ARM based box and the popular middlewares running out of the box. Launching a new console based on PPC that doesn't have UE4 and such would be a ridiculous admission that they don't care for anyone else releasing on their machine.

 

[McHuj]

With the recent sales numbers of PS4 and WiiU in Japan, I'm not sure Nintendo will really spend a lot of resources on a home console. I think they will focus on the home market first and try to develop a tablet like device that can "airplay" to a TV for those who want that functionality.

Price being important, I think Nintendo will stick with a 28nm process. At 28nm, Espresso could be really tiny in area and power consumption. They could probably bump it to a quadcore config for mobile device.

The GPU is the tricky part, especially because of the EDRAM. For going that would kill backwards compatibility. At 28nm, like the X1 has shown 32MB of ESRAM is a lot of die space so I don't think that's an alternative. They either need 28nm EDRAM or some sort of interposer solution for a single package solution imo (but that would be more expensive).

 

[Grall]

If Nintendo would just roll with the progress of technology they wouldn't need eDRAM and such complications. GDDR5 is plenty fast to absorb all of Wuu's internal bandwidth with plenty headroom to spare. Instead Nintendo settles for cheap-ass pedestrian 64-bit DDR3 and makes a GPU which requires a specific silicon process from a manufacturer which isn't in that business anymore.

Better choices HAVE been made in the tech industry!

As for their decision to unify hardware for next gen - good, and bad. It's good, because this is the only way they could reasonably have gone from here on out - and their portable unit could concievably be the next generation of wuupad controller for the stationary system. Perhaps the standard "wuu2" gamepad would be a cut-down version that could not function independently of the base system for cost reasons, but this would fragment nintendo's market. The big profit in the console industry is selling games, not hardware, and to sell games you need as many units out there as possible able to run said software.

By including the portable with the stationary console, you'd virtually double your installed user base (this is not correct maths, I know), or at the very least get a boost for the portable system every time a stationary console is sold.

If they insist on another generation of proprietary hardware (perhaps not their wisest choice), I hope this is the way they will go. Bundling portable + stationary would be win, but nintendo is so conservatively short-sighted and greedy it's unbelievable, and I doubt they'd have the wits to actually do this. I'd be happily surprised if I'm wrong on this count, though!

Now, the bad: nintendo should go software only. I know why they refuse to, but the arguments they have always used up until now don't fucking work anymore. They say they need their own console for the "unique play experience" (mainly by moulding the controller according to their latest gimmick they've decided to focus on; SNES had multiple face buttons, shoulder buttons, N64 the analog stick, wii had waggle and so on.) Problem with this is: people don't give a crap about nintendo's unique experience anymore. That's part of why wuu isn't selling. Second is because nintendo thinks they will make more money by selling their own games for their own console. Well, for that to work you need a console that actually sells, and three consoles out of the last four they've launched have either been a poor performer or outright failure.

But, we'll see what they'll do. It can't be worse than what we got now can it...right?!

 

[Cjail]

There's a problem with that. Nintendo not entering the tech race means releasing a similarly spec'd current-gen machine late. Why will anyone except Nintendo make games for it? Chances are they won't, which means once again it becomes a second console, diminishing interest massively and capping numbers at a few million over n years.

Wii U released in late 2012. It has since sold 6.17 million units. If you filter out the 3 million early adopters who'd have bought a cardboard box if it had Nintendo painted on (there are these few million for every console), the ongoing interest is pitiful. Wii U only sells to Nintendo fans wanting one of their key titles and happy to spend £250+ to play one or two games. It's an irrelevant market that no other dev will court. If Nintendo can't attract 3rd parties, they remain niche, and their niche has been diminishing generation after generation. In short, I can't see that being a viable market. Nintendo can't hope to live off just Nintendo fans. They need to appeal to more people, which means providing a box that'll play the major franchises like COD and FIFA well, and actually gets those games, so Joe Gamer can weigh up getting an XB1, PS4, or Wii3PO and see that COD+FIFA+Mario Kart+Zelda is a better choice than the others. The others having way bigger libraries, better services probably, certainly better communities, and established 3rd party support.

Nintendo trying to pretend like the rest of the market doesn't exist would be Nintendo shooting itself in the foot for probably the final time.

If they want dev support, they need an x86 or ARM based box and the popular middlewares running out of the box. Launching a new console based on PPC that doesn't have UE4 and such would be a ridiculous admission that they don't care for anyone else releasing on their machine.

IF Ninty launch a next gen console mid-gen then it would have to have better hardware, better library and better online service to win over PS4 or XBO BUT it would still only be a mid-gen console that would be inevitably surpassed by PS5 and Xbox 2[strike]D[/strike] when they come out.
Ninty could wait and launch WiiU successor (with all the characteristic mentioned above + better price) simultaneously with PS5 and Xbox 2[strike]D[/strike] but IMO by then they would have lost so much ground to MS and Sony and I doubt any 3rd party devs would want to invest/support it.

Overall I suspect a no win scenario for Ninty's next console.

Edit:
Actuality Nity might have a chance if Sony and MS go full retarded or kill each other

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The big profit in the console industry is selling games, not hardware...

I'm not sure how true that is for Nintendo. It probably is, but they've approached consoles as toys and tended to have profit margins. I think Wii made a lot of money from the hardware - it can't have cost anything to make! And I think that mentality pervades their reasoning. They want a product that makes money every step of the way, hence the cheap hardware. If they relied purely on their software, they could either sell the hardware cheap and break-even/slight loss, or go to town and provide a lot of hardware.

It's somewhat curious that Nintendo used to be in the tech race, and it used to serve them well. There's a contingent of core gamers that likes good tech driving a better game experience, and they are important to establish your early install base that wants 3rd party games and attracts the developers that makes the system that appeals to everyone else who's less fussy. The major reason PS4 is topping the next-gen charts and surprising everyone including Sony with is popularity is because it's the most powerful system at the best price. For people buying cross-platform games, a large part of the market, it offers the best value.

Nintendo still have an option. Wait for new tech like HBM, and then release a powerful machine based on it. Provide easy dev support (x86) so their PS4/XB1 games port over with a few settings dialled up so it's the best machine for the current titles, providing a machine offering an entry-level experience when next-gen comes around (if there are consoles then), and offering best ever visuals on Nintendo's first-party and exclusives to appeal to the AAA core gamer.

Alternatively, scrap hardware and look into streamed gaming. It's going to happen eventually. Create dumb terminals as a console and portable for dirt cheap and a subscription based gaming service. More money, more stability, better future-proofing. And dare I say it, completely beyond Nintendo's capabilities. When the world moves to games as a service, Nintendo will still be wanting to release fixed plastic, I bet.

 

[Fourth Storm]

There's a problem with that. Nintendo not entering the tech race means releasing a similarly spec'd current-gen machine late. Why will anyone except Nintendo make games for it? Chances are they won't, which means once again it becomes a second console, diminishing interest massively and capping numbers at a few million over n years.

They do run the risk of pulling a Wii U all over again. The alternative, of releasing an expensive box at a loss is also risky, however. Trying to think like Iwata, I'd say the takeaway from Wii U is not to avoid releasing underpowered hardware, but rather to avoid releasing hardware at a loss. I do think hardware power is important to a certain extent, but there are other issues to overcome if they are going to play that game - like how they win users away from the other two companies (who are now using their subscription services and free games to lock in players) and how they change their family-friendly image.

I do see a chance at success (read: survival and profitability) with a lower specced console. If they can beef up their library with cross-compatible games and provide a more robust online ecosystem bolstered by their classic library and indie games, they should be able to attract enough families and old-school Nintendo fans as long as they ask the right price.

There is also the question of what gimmick Nintendo opt to employ for their next console. This is a crapshoot, which could lead to more widespread adoption, but whatever it is, I highly doubt that it will add anywhere near as much to the BOM as the Gamepad. They can't be that stupid twice...can they?

Wii U released in late 2012. It has since sold 6.17 million units. If you filter out the 3 million early adopters who'd have bought a cardboard box if it had Nintendo painted on (there are these few million for every console), the ongoing interest is pitiful. Wii U only sells to Nintendo fans wanting one of their key titles and happy to spend £250+ to play one or two games. It's an irrelevant market that no other dev will court. If Nintendo can't attract 3rd parties, they remain niche, and their niche has been diminishing generation after generation. In short, I can't see that being a viable market. Nintendo can't hope to live off just Nintendo fans. They need to appeal to more people, which means providing a box that'll play the major franchises like COD and FIFA well, and actually gets those games, so Joe Gamer can weigh up getting an XB1, PS4, or Wii3PO and see that COD+FIFA+Mario Kart+Zelda is a better choice than the others. The others having way bigger libraries, better services probably, certainly better communities, and established 3rd party support.

Nintendo trying to pretend like the rest of the market doesn't exist would be Nintendo shooting itself in the foot for probably the final time.

If they want dev support, they need an x86 or ARM based box and the popular middlewares running out of the box. Launching a new console based on PPC that doesn't have UE4 and such would be a ridiculous admission that they don't care for anyone else releasing on their machine.

I don't think it is a matter of architecture in Nintendo regaining third party support - maybe overall horsepower. Even then, Wii got FIFA, Madden, CoD, etc. and Wii U has gotten Assassin's Creed, Batman, CoD, and other heavy hitters up until this year while utilizing a CPU with a low clock and subpar SIMD. If Nintendo can prove there is a market, devs will port their games and engines. There is also the matter of less AAA games being brought to market, as we saw at this year's E3. The AAA industry is being reduced to a few heavy hitters a year, and if Nintendo can provide a viable platform for additional profits, I don't see a PPC-based architecture standing in the way.

 

[Fourth Storm]

If Nintendo would just roll with the progress of technology they wouldn't need eDRAM and such complications. GDDR5 is plenty fast to absorb all of Wuu's internal bandwidth with plenty headroom to spare. Instead Nintendo settles for cheap-ass pedestrian 64-bit DDR3 and makes a GPU which requires a specific silicon process from a manufacturer which isn't in that business anymore.

I do think they missed the boat this gen by sticking with eDRAM and PPC. Now, it will be much more difficult to pull off BC (3 cores instead of 1, on-die eDRAM). While bandwidth doesn't seem to be an issue, with the eDRAM only pulling something like 32 GB/s, I am unsure of what other complications might arise from nixing that design in favor of a UMA when it comes to running Wii U games. I'd imagine the timings and whatnot would have to be figured out, latency cycles accounted for, and all sorts of other things if they want emulation to be perfect.

Better choices HAVE been made in the tech industry!

Well, that's for sure.

As for their decision to unify hardware for next gen - good, and bad. It's good, because this is the only way they could reasonably have gone from here on out - and their portable unit could concievably be the next generation of wuupad controller for the stationary system. Perhaps the standard "wuu2" gamepad would be a cut-down version that could not function independently of the base system for cost reasons, but this would fragment nintendo's market. The big profit in the console industry is selling games, not hardware, and to sell games you need as many units out there as possible able to run said software.

By including the portable with the stationary console, you'd virtually double your installed user base (this is not correct maths, I know), or at the very least get a boost for the portable system every time a stationary console is sold.

If they insist on another generation of proprietary hardware (perhaps not their wisest choice), I hope this is the way they will go. Bundling portable + stationary would be win, but nintendo is so conservatively short-sighted and greedy it's unbelievable, and I doubt they'd have the wits to actually do this. I'd be happily surprised if I'm wrong on this count, though!

I don't see the idea of bundling both systems as a good idea. We then run into the same problem as with Wii U in that budget would be axed from the console's innards in order to get the package into a reasonable price range. The concepts behind dual screen play, despite Nintendo's recent push, do not justify the added expense.

I'd rather they do more to differentiate the two systems on a hardware level in order to entice consumers to buy both. Have the portable be BC with 3DS and the console BC with Wii U (provided you have an old Gamepad or the next-gen portable). Have both systems be reasonably priced and offer dual screen experiences for consumers who own both. The portable would offer touch controls and traditional controls while the home console would offer a variety of control methods, including touch (if you own the portable). And of course, offer upscaled experiences on the home console, and a few choice exclusives like Zelda and Metroid which aren't playable on the portable.

Now, the bad: nintendo should go software only. I know why they refuse to, but the arguments they have always used up until now don't fucking work anymore. They say they need their own console for the "unique play experience" (mainly by moulding the controller according to their latest gimmick they've decided to focus on; SNES had multiple face buttons, shoulder buttons, N64 the analog stick, wii had waggle and so on.) Problem with this is: people don't give a crap about nintendo's unique experience anymore. That's part of why wuu isn't selling. Second is because nintendo thinks they will make more money by selling their own games for their own console. Well, for that to work you need a console that actually sells, and three consoles out of the last four they've launched have either been a poor performer or outright failure.

But, we'll see what they'll do. It can't be worse than what we got now can it...right?!

Do you really want a response to that last question? I respect the opinion that Nintendo should go software only. The one counter I'll name at the moment is that they risk losing their identity and consumer mindshare. As a console manufacturer, at least in the U.S., they still maintain a large presence at retail. If Amiibo takes off and Nintendo continue to expand in licensing, the impact from not providing a dedicated platform could potentially be somewhat mitigated. It's still a huge risk, however. Iwata's talk to investors about redefining a "platform" tells me that they are already considering a future without traditional consoles. That being said, I expect the transition will not be an easy one for any of the current hardware manufacturers, and I fear Nintendo might be moving at too slow a pace to properly maneuver it.

 

[Globalisateur]

Please Ninty, for you next console drop hardware Backward Compatibility completely! You need third parties badly!

BC is the main reason Wii U is not a success globally. IMO.

One simple example, Watch_dogs, the still most successful new IP of 2014 is not on Wii U directly because the Wii U architects designed the Wii U at 100% around hardware BC. This hardware constrained design had so many repercussions (that were already posted in this thread) that it prevented Ubisoft to easily port the game on Wii U for the worldwide successful launch.

 

[Nesh]

Please Ninty, for you next console drop hardware Backward Compatibility completely! You need third parties badly!

BC is the main reason Wii U is not a success globally. IMO.

One simple example, Watch_dogs, the still most successful new IP of 2014 is not on Wii U directly because the Wii U architects designed the Wii U at 100% around hardware BC. This hardware constrained design had so many repercussions (that were already posted in this thread) that it prevented Ubisoft to easily port the game on Wii U for the worldwide successful launch.

So if I understood that correctly they didnt just put some Wii components in the console or used software emulation, they build the WiiU hardware so that Wii games are compatible with it?

 

[kalelovil]

So if I understood that correctly they didnt just put some Wii components in the console or used software emulation, they build the WiiU hardware so that Wii games are compatible with it?

Yes.

 

[Entropy]

I do think they missed the boat this gen by sticking with eDRAM and PPC. Now, it will be much more difficult to pull off BC (3 cores instead of 1, on-die eDRAM).

Insisting on hardware backwards compatibility is what made them design (and name) the WiiU they way they did. So far, it hasn't helped them in the marketplace - their Wii customers haven't been carried over to a significant extent. Yet, at least.
Given the cost and, even in the best case scenario, partial failure of backwards compatibility as a sales driver, I would assume that Nintendo feels free to make whatever choice suits them going forward. Their wording is vague enough to allow a wide span of interpretation.

 

[Entropy]

Please Ninty, for you next console drop hardware Backward Compatibility completely! You need third parties badly!

The presence or absence of third parties on the WiiU has little to do with backwards compatibility, and more to do with perceived market opportunity. Publishers go where they think the money is, simple as that.

For Nintendo this constitutes a bit of a chicken and egg problem, but one way of dealing with it is to not chase the exact same consumers that the PS4 and XB1 do. Which also allows them to side step being completely beholden to the big publishers and needing to walk in lock-step with their competitors in terms of hardware.

It's difficult to say how much of a console market there is outside the Maddens, FIFAs and Battlefields. But I can see how it could make sense for Nintendo to accept that those customers go to other platforms for their fix, if it allows them flexibility that serves their purposes. And I'll submit that this served them beautifully with the Wii, so they have also raked in cash by the truckloads by walking to the beat of a different drummer in the past.

These forums are filled with people that enjoy the qualities that traditional AAA titles bring to the table. This is the console forum of Beyond3D, after all. So hardware design or company policies that tells those people that they are not the primary target demographic aren't likely to go over well here. The Wii was hated, the 3DS was hated, the WiiU is hated. It goes with the territory. But that doesn't mean that the principles and priorities behind their design is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Rodéric]

Well Rys and I both have a Wii U and love it...

But yes, tech hungry kids want latest/greatest hardware to run the same game as on a PC...


I'm still looking forward to an hybrid home server console with mobile consoles as pads.
Doesn't need to be extra powerful, but something akin to the Vita + PS4/XBone could be nice in a few years.

Shortening the Wii U lifespan would be a very bad commercial move, customers aren't likely to be happy about it, and it's best to keep your customers happy rather than try to appeal to people who you hope will become your customers...

Honestly, who here would buy a Nintendo console if they announced something akin to the XBone/PS4 for christmas ?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But yes, tech hungry kids want latest/greatest hardware to run the same game as on a PC...

That's not true. Nintendo's games would be better on better hardware. They'd look nicer, run better, could do more. Wii U is able to accomplish more than Wii could because it has better hardware. Then the PC doesn't offer the same experience. Your typical FIFA player isn't likely to have a PC hooked up to their living room TV to play FIFA on an XB360 controller. Also, people don't necessarily have PCs capable of running the games to console quality (and some families now don't even have a computer besides a tablet), and the price of such a PC isn't generally comparable.

If Nintendo's strategy is for people to play cross-platform games on their PC and buy a Nintendo for console games, they are completely misunderstanding the market. Console gamers tend to have one machine in the living room connected to the TV to play their favourite cross-platform franchises and a few exclusives. An effective, mainstream console will cater to that need, and any console that can't serve that need is going to be marginalised.

This is actually where Nintendo going software only would be better for families. The console that mum/dad plays COD and FIFA on can also play Mario Kart with the kids. PS4 would be much better as a family box with Splatoon and Mario alongside Singstar and LBP.

 

[Entropy]

That's not true. Nintendo's games would be better on better hardware. They'd look nicer, run better, could do more. Wii U is able to accomplish more than Wii could because it has better hardware. Then the PC doesn't offer the same experience. Your typical FIFA player isn't likely to have a PC hooked up to their living room TV to play FIFA on an XB360 controller. Also, people don't necessarily have PCs capable of running the games to console quality (and some families now don't even have a computer besides a tablet), and the price of such a PC isn't generally comparable.

If Nintendo's strategy is for people to play cross-platform games on their PC and buy a Nintendo for console games, they are completely misunderstanding the market. Console gamers tend to have one machine in the living room connected to the TV to play their favourite cross-platform franchises and a few exclusives. An effective, mainstream console will cater to that need, and any console that can't serve that need is going to be marginalised.

This is actually where Nintendo going software only would be better for families. The console that mum/dad plays COD and FIFA on can also play Mario Kart with the kids. PS4 would be much better as a family box with Splatoon and Mario alongside Singstar and LBP.

You are saying that a home console has to provide the big multi platform titles to be successful. But you are making some assumptions that are not necessarily true. For one, Nintendo showed last generation that it isn't necessary provided you can sell some other feature to consumers. Second, as Rangers somewhat depressingly pointed out in the sales thread, that multiplat fan core may not be all that big. Third, you are assuming that Nintendo providing a third "me-to" console would actually take away significant chunk of Sony/MS customers. Which, if the groups are too distinct just isn't possible, as they may prefer the Sony/MS exclusives anyway.

Instead they preferred to launch a small power miser of a console, backwards compatible with the Wii to try to bring part of those 100 million customers over, with its own particular gimmick, and launched a year before the other two. At lower cost. All of which would have been impossible if they done a PS4/XB1 look alike. It's easy to see why they did it, IMO, and it is easy to see why they will do their own thing going forward as well. The grass just isn't greener on the other side of the fence.

 

[Rodéric]

I was just highligthing the fact that PS4/XBone are just like PC but without the benefits (word processing, programming, choice of input device), their games are more expensive than on PC which costs more upfront...
The point was to have two systems, not limiting oneself to a single one, and in that case a PC + Wii U is more appealing than a PC + PS4 IMO, but other people might prefer a PS4 + Wii U combo.
The idea is that we might not want 3 nearly identical consoles, and Nintendo going different could be better for customers.

I still doubt anyone here would buy a Nintendo console because of brand perception/loyalty, even if it was on par with PS4/XBone...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You are saying that a home console has to provide the big multi platform titles to be successful. But you are making some assumptions that are not necessarily true. For one, Nintendo showed last generation that it isn't necessary provided you can sell some other feature to consumers.

Wii was a chance outlier. You can't rely on that strategy as Wii U proves.

Second, as Rangers somewhat depressingly pointed out in the sales thread, that multiplat fan core may not be all that big.

Instead of looking at one NPd result, look at the whole core console market for the past five generations. It's been steadily increasing, culminating in the fastest launch of a new generation ever, while Nintendo's share of that core market has been steadily decreasing.

Third, you are assuming that Nintendo providing a third "me-to" console would actually take away significant chunk of Sony/MS customers. Which, if the groups are too distinct just isn't possible, as they may prefer the Sony/MS exclusives anyway.

Yep. But had they launched with a decent product in 2012 capable of offering a next-gen experience (a high end 2012 console would probably be comparable to XB1 is my guess), they'd be the one with the install base, the library, and still be relevant for all cross-platform titles.

Instead they preferred to launch a small power miser of a console, backwards compatible with the Wii to try to bring part of those 100 million customers over...

Didn't work and likely wasn't going to because the Wii audience were mostly fad buyers. They bought Wii, played some waggle games, then shelved it and took to tapping games on their smartphones.

If we ignore Wii as an outlier, the console market has shown what it takes to be successful. The right product at the right price with all the games. Relying on just exclusives is a path doomed to failure. Nintendo got a lucky stay of execution. Maybe if their execution on the tablet idea wasn't quite so lame, they'd have managed a success, but Wii U's chances never looked that good. Prior to release we heard noises of Nintendo aiming to be more 3rd party friendly. Turns out that was bunk and they produced a platform pretty much irrelevant for third parties. I guess Nintendo's whole 3rd party strategy was to release the Wii U and hope it sold gangbusters, creating an audience of such size that devs wouldn't be able to ignore it.