Topic: Why Isn't Nintendo Hardware Powerful? Here's Why (Video)

One thing I agree with is that Sony and Microsoft might be done after this generation or comeout with something that is kind of not really a console to replace PS4 and Xbone.

Nintendo is the company that is most likely to continue making home consoles.

I may be lynched for this comment but a handheld only Nintendo would see no complaining from me. They focus 100% of their resources on it and wouldn't need to worry about competing with Sony or Microsoft. Of course an even better option would be some sort of hybrid. Whatever the next console is, they need to at the very least get advice from third parties. Or make it easy to port to.

1) The Wii was Nintendo's first underpowered console. The N64 had limitations due to having cartridge games, but the machine itself was very competitive. Handhelds have been underpowered all along, but not consoles.

2) Multiple price cuts have shown that price isn't the issue. If you want a Wii U for $200, you can get a Wii U for $200 WITH the Gamepad.

The Gamepad is really the Wii U's defining character trait this generation. Nintendo doesn't need to drop it. Nintendo needs to convince people that it's a good investment. This means developing products that use it in interesting ways and marketing it correctly. In any game advert for the Wii U so far, all we see of the Gamepad is about a 3-second shot of a pad juxtaposed by a TV showing a mirrored image. That does a horrible job of convincing consumers that they need it.

I think that hardware bundles and collaborations and partnerships with 3rd parties is the way to go right now to increase its installed based and relationship with 3rd parties. This year alone, we've seen this with SEGA (Sonic exclusives), Namco (Smash development), and Koei Tecmo (Hyrule Warriors).

I think the Wii U's only problem that will stick with it for the entire generation is lack of interest from Western AAA developers (Ubisoft, EA, Activision), and that's not entirely due to poor console sales. Largely, yes, but it's also an image thing and lack of understanding of the Nintendo audience. Nobody plays the multiplats on Nintendo consoles even when they are there. What the Big 3 don't realize is that this isn't because Nintendo fans don't care about 3rd party games, it's because Nintendo fans don't care about the same type of game that other games do. Rayman Legends outsold both Assassin's Creed games on Wii U, and that should have told Ubisoft everything they needed to know about Nintendo fans.

As for 9th Gen, I'm not sure I can take Adam's word for it there. As he said, the Playstation brand is one of Sony's most successful branches. It would make sense to keep investing in it. They've sold off their PC division and are considering doing the same with their consumer electronics. Those are the real cash drains. Huge losses get posted on their TVs every quarter. The Playstation Now subscription service will probably continue too. Wouldn't be surprised at all though to see Sony drop their handheld line though. They already don't care about the Vita and rely on 3rd parties to keep it popular in Japan.

Microsoft seems to want to break into entertainment as a whole, but I don't really see them dropping the Xbox either. They make money on their software and services. Their next console may push the idea of being the all-in-one living room box even further, maybe even make it into a home box office, but I'm sure we'll see another gaming platform from them.

I know why it is there but it can and has been worked around in various ways.

See Capcom's fixed version of Super Ghouls n Ghosts. The way M2 overclocked the emulator for the PS3 version of Metal Slug 2 or the 3D Classics version of Kirby's Adventure which is immaculate.

The rest of the Capcom stuff we should have the Arcade versions (Like the PSP had). Or the stuff like HD Remix.

You got me on Wii (oversight), but the GCN 3rd party was mostly multiplats and ports. Seriously, even then it missed out on a crap load of games I have to get a PS2 to backlog on. Still love the little lunchbox though <3.

Guy moaning about how "herder drapahing gampaduh will mak gut", great video. If they would do that, they would be boned and not only alienate their current install base, but also lose trust. Sega learned it the hard way.

The only reason why the hardware is not "powerful" (although in my opinion it's good - it get's the job done) is because Nintendo played it smart and made the console that makes money from the get-go and not go full stupid with hardware and made it so ridiculously priced barely anyone would buy it and not only that, it would still make loss at that price. That's why there is any "Nintendoom", with every console sold they already have money, and with time they can make price drops all they want, because technology behind it will get cheaper.

Most of what I actually still play on the Gamecube is either exclusives (Sega/Capcom/Factor 5/Other odd ones) or a perfect version of a Dreamcast game. There is easily enough. That sort of 3rd party support would be just fine by me and full of variety.

Don't think there is a single multiplatform Gamecube game I have ever bothered with - Alien Hominid maybe but its perfect that doesn't seem to apply to any modern 3rd party release at all.

Um, are you talking about the the Capcom Classic Collection (or Capcom Generation) that involved Super Ghouls n Ghosts? You do know that is not running under emulation, but is a port, right? Same goes for Kirby's Adventure in the 3D Classic series. Again, not emulation, so both of those are not under the limitations of the original hardware they were made for.

Making the gamepad optional wouldn't bone anyone, alienate anyone, or cause any loss of trust anymore than releasing the action set that didn't have ROB.

Nintendo actually did not play it smart because the Wii U was selling at a loss right out of the gate, the first time Nintendo has ever done that with a console (3DS was sold at a loss after the price cut). 1/3 of the manufacturing cost of the console has been repeatedly been estimated to be the gamepad....they could have made a more powerful console for the same price if they didn't do the gamepad.

And the people who say a price cut won't matter because there are $200 refurbished systems available from Nintendo simply don't understand how the world works. An actual price cut to $200 has an entirely different effect than an obscure way to order it for that price. (and reality is the Wii U has never had an actual price cut, it has always been $300)A price cut doesn't make them a market leader but it does lead to selling more consoles which leads to selling more software which leads to making more money. A price cut is always a good thing as long as it isn't making you lose a ton of money. The money in this industry has always been in selling software not hardware.

@blaisedinsd
Don't. Please. Scar is everywhere.
You know what happened last time you did this.

There are two parts to the Gamepad. First is the gamepad itself, and second is the hardware to stream to it, which involves compression hardware to compress the stream in such little time, and a 2nd WiFi module for transmitting to the Gamepad, all which are done within 1/60 of a frame. It doesn't run off of Bluetooth like the Wii remotes do. If they made the Gamepad optional, they'd still have to have the hardware inside the Wii U for enabling its use, which would still add to the cost of the console even if a person never uses the Gamepad. Then there is support for the Gamepad. History of gaming has shown that if something is optional, then it is far unlikely to be utilized because the number of people with this optional peripheral would be extremely low.

So really, there are only two options. Either fully with, or fully without.

Why haven't they made more powerful hardware? Really easy answer(s).

More affordable hardware, means older hardware. Older, proven hardware, is also more reliable. What is Nintendo known for...reliable hardware. Low wattage, low heat, low power means less chance of failure, and overall a cheaper product for the consumer and the producer.

Nintendo has also known for a very long time (I think it came to them during the SNES days), that their machine was the Nintendo machine, and third party developers do not matter. If they come, great. If they don't, who cares. People buy their machines for Nintendo games. And, to attract third party developers you need to enter the hardware arms race. Nintendo doesn't care, and doesn't need to do this. They full utilize whatever system they have, and do what matters, create a fun game 99% of the time with whatever hardware they have.

End of story.

I think the third party problem is rooted in the fact that the pervious Nintendo president basically said, screw Third Party. Now they all have a vendetta against Nintendo

for a second there I read it as Vegeta instead of vendetta, guess it's my lazyness to watch Dragon Ball(or anything with more than 100 episodes) speaking again....

Think you might be misinformed on this one. Many 3rd party companies enjoyed tremendous success on the SNES. They all jumped ship to the Playstation because CDs were cheaper to produce and had much higher storage capacity than the N64's cartridges.

@blaisedinsd A price cut won't matter if people don't want it in the first place. When I ask my friends why they don't have a Wii U, they respond with "I don't want one, because A, B, C". Typically stuff regarding 3rd party support or online or multimedia capabilities. They either don't like Nintendo games, or are content with the ones on Wii and 3DS because they "offer the same kind of experience".

(Not directed at you) Nintendo needs to make games on Wii U that really justify the console existing. I don't care about gamepad support or anything like that; I want games that don't feel like direct sequels or that feel like derivative experiences. It's not a franchise thing, either. Nintendo has shown that they are capable of using a single property and making games between that property feel very different from one another (look at Mario 64 and Galaxy. They're both 3D platformers, but they feel so drastically different that they don't feel similar at all). Pikmin 3, Mario 3D Land, New Super Mario Bros U, Mario Kart 8, Donkey Kong: TF... they're all good/great games, but they are all derivative of their direct predecessors. Someone would only buy them if they were immense fans of previous games, or hadn't played their predecessors before. Does this work for selling software? Sure. But it doesn't get people to buy hardware unless if someone really liked those previous games.

Heck, even using a similar game design approach can feel unique and fresh when done right. Just look at Metroid Prime 3 and Rayman Legends. They aren't doing much different compared to their predecessors in terms of the way they are constructed, but the way they feel is so different and complimentary to that previous design that it makes the experience even more organic than before. Despite being sequels, they don't feel or look like more of the same in any way, shape, or form.

Basically, Nintendo isn't going to be able to sell more consoles unless if they are willing to take bigger risks in the handling of their IPs. It looks like that could happen with Zelda. I hope it turns out. But as it stands, they are only going to be able to sell to people who are the biggest of Nintendo fans. More of the same does not grab people's attention unless if you are the biggest fan of it already.

@moomoo Yes a price cut won't matter if people don't want it in the first place but it is ridiculous to claim that everyone who wants a Wii U right now already has a Wii U. Games that make people want a Wii U( more games the better) are the other side of the coin but people are more likely to buy the console to play those games if the console is cheaper. Any time you cut the price you will have people who change their mind from "wait" to "buy" because there are people who are interested in buying that are waiting for the right time or situation

I feel like it's worth pointing out that Iwata took over just after the GameCube came out. The WIi was most likely intended to get a decent profit at low risk, since the GameCube back fired the way it did. With the Wii U and 3DS looking weaker by the month, I don't think anyone should be so worried. Next generation will have a new spin, and we'll just have to see what Iwata rolls out with.

Price and value are two different things. Dropping the price of the Wii U does nothing to increase its value, and consumers don't buy products they don't feel are valuable.

You are absolutely correct.

How many of the customers would just go from "wait" to "buy" with the release of Smash Bros, though? Especially for the time it's releasing at. I don't think a price drop would really be necessary at this current point in time, considering that Nintendo seems to really believe in the gamepad (despite the utter lack of games that use it in unique ways). I feel that the amount of potential new Wii U owners wouldn't be worth losing money or splitting SKUs. Heck, if it was, Nintendo probably would have done it by now, and they have people much more experienced than random people on an internet board probably have.