Nintendo Switch Revelation

Didn't MS maintain OG XBox production into early 2005? I think Wii U will pip it.

Dreamcast was terminated about 2.5 years after first release, about 18 months after US & EU release. Final tally was in the 10 ~ 15 million units range, though Sega announced they were existing hardware somewhere around the 8 million mark and stopped production a little after that, and had a lot of inventory to unexpectedly ditch.

Given Nintendo's vast cash reserves, the enormous success of their previous machine, their established IPs, and how much longer the WiiU was around than the DC, I can only see WiiU as a far greater failure than the Dreamcast.

DC was at least a bleeding edge system with a library of original and innovative games and it influenced the direction of every console to follow - despite Sega being on the verge of collapse. I don't think it's possible to look so kindly on the the WiiU's hardware, games, or the approach of Nintendo to supporting it.
 
Dreamcast has that no? Wii U been out 4 years just like the original Xbox.

Tommy McClain
Man what a shame the death of DC was. That console was infested with quality games. The graphics were good too. I always thought the DC was significantly inferior to the PS2, but now I think that it was more powerful than what was initially thought. In some respects it did show advantages over its competitor and it makes me wonder what it would have pulled off if it lived its full potential.
It is a shame because Sega nailed everything perfectly (price, games and performance), except the controller. I wish Sega would have remained in the console wars with the DC.
The console died so unfairly. Unlike the Wii U it wasnt lack of good games or shitty performance.

Wii U and the Wii cant even touch the DC in quality and performance in their respective generations.
Nintendo for me is nothing for the past 3 generations
 
IIRC what killed the Dreamcast was mainly Sega's succession of huge console failures that put the company on the verge of bankruptcy even before the console was out.

Sure, the 3dfx lawsuit, the piracy and PS2 release with a DVD drive were the nails in the coffin, but the company was very weakened when the Dreamcast was launched.

Nintendo is in a completely different position this time, but if the Wii U was a Sega CD and the Switch becomes a Sega Saturn, then I'm afraid whatever they come up with next may not ever be good enough.
 
There's also the PlayStation resentment factor.

Dream cast fans blame Sony for hype and FUD which killed D.C. sales and they say D.C. was better than PS.
 
Why is the Switch going to cost much more than the Shield Tablet, which retails for $200 with a larger, higher resolution screen? The base station adding a lot to the cost doesn't really jive with the rumors that make it seem like a glorified HDMI / power cable, and if it's more than that, I feel like their'd be room for a basic SKU without one. So that leaves what... expensive controllers? An expensive SoC? For the latter - even if the SoC is 14 or 16nm Pascal, I figure there is no way it has more than 512 cores, and almost certainly quite a lot less, so I'd expect it to be noticeably smaller than GP107, which is going into $100 cards. What am I missing?

Nvidia were also heavily subsidizing the tablet in order to attempt to showcase the Tegra chip in the hopes of getting someone/anyone to use their chip in a mobile device. But even at that price virtually no one wanted it, and it didn't really convince any mobile tablet makers that it was worth it compared to the competition.

Luckily for Nvidia, Tegra is well suited for automobiles where its drawbacks aren't relevant. And with the NX again, it's drawbacks aren't that relevant in the face of how much graphical prowess it can bring to the table. The NX doesn't have to be a thin and light and still be relatively cool to the touch while passively cooled in a thin and light package. It can afford to be thicker and heavier than your standard tablet to accommodate more batteries and an active cooling system to enable the GPU to run without either [1] burning your fingers off or [2] throttling so much that not only don't you get to see the performance potential of the GPU but also making for erratic frametimes which would affect gameplay in action games.

Regards,
SB
 
Back
Top