Topic: How I in hindsight would have changed Nintendos consoles

Now this is purely speculative and only in my own imagination but here are some things I think would have benefited Nintendo when launching their three latest systems:

Wii console:

• Use of a x86/x64 CPU - to make it simpler to maintain backwards compatibility and get a secure upgrade path with future consoles. Most people didn't buy the Wii to get Gamecube compatibility, and that system didn't sell much anyway even though it had some nice games. At least it doesn't seem important in hindsight - securing that all future consoles will be backwards compatible with x86 and AMD GPUs would make it so that bc compatibility should never again be a problem. Power PC could offer to low performance for the dollar so to speak.
• A launch of a Nintendo operating system for future home/handheld consoles starting with the Wii - think Windows 8/Windows 8 RT to make x86 and ARM consoles compatible in the operating system, and just for comparison think about the time Macs moved from Power PC to Intel CPUs and Mac OS X was run with two very different CPUs - at a time software had to strive to be compatible with both. Lets contemplate that there would have continued to be Power PC Macs, then the OS and software would have to be made much more compatible with both CPU systems.
• Launch of a larger more powerful console from the start at the same cost/price point. Instead of choosing "the laptop path" of really cheap low power hardware to make it as small as possible while still maintaining backwards compatibility, more performance would have been possible. This doesn't mean the system would have to cost more - think of it in terms of a really cheap netbook with an Atom CPU, 10 inch screen, small battery and being really, really small and low power. Then minus the screen and the battery and increase the hardware specs for the cost that was removed - still a cheap system with low performance - versus the power of a mini-itx system (cheap motherboard with everything soldered to the mobo) with a cheap but faster CPU (with specialized AMD hardware for Nintendo) and then a cheap but powerful enough GPU and whatever else fits a regular size console. It would be easy to double the CPU and GPU power at least for the same amount of money when skipping "the laptop path". Checking the following site for AMD CPU prices at the Wiis launch (http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/WCPG/article.php/3647686/Weekly-CPU-Prices--Week-of-December-4-2006.htm) an AMD Sempron 3000+ 1.8GHz CPU would cost $44 on Newegg (and naturally cheaper for Nintendo). This CPU probably wouldn't be the right choice since it had 59 Watts of thermal design power but it would be possible. And only shows the direction one could take.
• Increase the maximum resolution from component out (or with USB HDMI converter) from 850x480p to 960x540p (a forth of full hd, which is the max resolution output today with component out from bluray players, due to piracy issues). This resolution would be more then acceptable over the one they chose and would enable the system to keep up with X360/PS3 with 720p resolutions. Going from 540p to 720p would be an increase in pixels by 77,8% (so almost double) but it would still look good enough with that resolution and even with inferior hardware, Nintendo might get the same frame rate on the same third party game/engine whether run on Wii/X360/PS3. 540p would only have 0,56.. times the pixels of 720p so it would only need about half the performance of 720p hardware if simplified. Also with x86 hardware it would have been much easier to port games from PC, and at the launch of those systems in/after the 2005/2006 time frame it was hard to program games for consoles with several cores.

3DS:

• Launch with 20% more battery capacity on all systems.
• With a similar OS for both Wii and 3DS and the "Wii 2" (a name that sells more systems) makes it easy to port games even if they're still exactly the same coming from 3DS to Wii 2 (so there's no superior version unless released simultaneously like the upcoming Super Smash Bros. games). The OS plan is already planned by Nintendo and they could sell a lot of games with this plan - VC titles shows that even simple games without high graphics fidelity can get really popular. This of course would require a touch screen on the Wii 2/U console.
• I would personally have preferred they'd skip the 3D function in the system - without the 3D screen it would also be cheaper to produce and games would look better or run faster - instead of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds running 60 FPS in 3D - I wonder what that game would look like without the hardware pushing two 3D top screens for each eye.

Wii 2:

• As many Wii games as possible should out of the box be run in 1080p on this system - the hardware should essentially be a PC with faster CPU/GPU and with a similar operating system and at least all 3D Wii games should have been made to support full HD and be activated in that res when run on the new hardware. Granted textures etc might not be perfect but it should be good enough and many 3D games could be made to look better then 720p games on the PS3 and Xbox 360. I know this might not have been possible though.
• They should have considered only launching the system with a regular controller and no Wii U Gamepad. And naturally tried their best to keep up with hardware performance - this would have attracted more third parties and sold more games and systems. The Xbox One having lower spec and higher price then PS4 cripples the system with the included "unnecessary" Kinect (in my opinion) and would sell better with a lower console price had it been sold separately. The Wii U Gamepad doesn't seem to interest the consumer and going down this path would make it impossible to port DS/3DS games. I'm not saying they definitely should have skipped the touch screen but with games like DK Country TF not even using the touch screen and several just showing the same as the TV it does seem unnecessary.
• Once again - a larger console with better hardware would have been possible, especially without the Wii U Gamepad which is nice for some but unnecessary for most people.

Again this is only what I think and some observations I've made - I certainly thought about Nintendo taking "the laptop path" when the Wii launched and would personally make the point of more performance at the same price as the most important point for both home consoles had I worked at Nintendo. There's probably lots more I didn't cover and I would love to hear more views on this.

i wouldn't change a thing.

wrong it would change the name and add a lot of unnecessary stuff while removing useful things

Is it supposed to be immediately apparent how making the consoles more expensive to manufacture and removing their defining features would benefit them? Or is this one of those things where you have to squint to see it?

it works like that tale about a king that had clothes only the smart ones could see

A 20% bigger battery would have made a big price difference. Batteries aren't cheap

I don't think so the Motorola Xoom managed to have a 6500 mAh battery. Was released a year earlier and with a much more expensive screen.

Oh wait, I meant the size...not the price

Yeah, batteries are usually bigger if they hold more power

ok

Captain Hindsight to the rescue.

Thanks Captain Hindsight!

this post