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

If only that were true lol

I'd be pissed if the gamepad was dropped... It would mean less games would integrate it. But third party support isn't the be-all-end-all of consoles. Give me first/second party and indie games and i'm happy. (Screw Ubisoft!)

Losing the gamepad would mean the end of the WiiU. The Gamepad, underused as it is, is the only thing that makes the WiiU stand out. Without it the WiiU would really be an underpowered 8th gen console, trying to keep up with Xbone and Ps4. Just to add a little more insight.

I like both the 3ds and Wii U- I don't agree that the 3ds is a better choice for Nintendo titles- true, the 3ds has more but I enjoy the Wii U versions much better (DKTF vs. DKCR or Mario 3d World vs. Mario 3d land). And, while the graphics are maybe not as sharp as the XBone and Ps4, I don't think they are THAT far ahead, at least from what I've seen in side by side comparisons. People make it sound like those consoles make the Wii U look like an Atari 2600.

While you might be correct in that people might not like the games for the Wii U- I think the bigger problem is that Nintendo has not marketed/created awareness like it should have.

People still think pricing is the problem? Pricing was a problem at launch sure, because for $50 more you could get a PS4 (and now Xbox One). I still don't own a Wii U and it's not because of pricing, haha. I might take a Wii U if you paid me, but I think that would cause more problems than it would solve.

How old are you? I am 38 and lived through all this video game history. I agree with the second video that power was a huge thing and Nintendo always had the most powerful hardware until the Wii.

NES was revolutionary.
SNES was built to out muscle the genesis and which system was more powerful was what was argued about most on the playground.
N64 was the same strategy. They came out after Playstation and the number 1 thing I remember was Mario 64 blowing peoples minds...the playstation couldnt dream of running that game. They also tried to say how cartridges were superior because of loading times and disc scratching.
Gamecube was the same strategy. They were more powerful than PS2 and really bascially tied with the Xbox...people just want a tie breaker and say xbox was more powerful but it was really a dead heat.

I don't think it is really even a question, Nintendo always had powerful contemporary hardware to this point.

Iwata is the guy who brought us under powered home consoles.

N64 I believe was hurt by a weird looking controller and 3rd parties abandoning the system because of carts.
GC was supposed to fix that but the small discs hurt it a little bit but its weird controller and image and eventually it's lack of online gaming hurt it.

Also Wii U was the first time since the NES where Nintendo got the head start. A head start can be a big deal but Nintendo dropped the ball. I love my Wii U but it's going to be a niche system like the N64 and GC.

So congrates on being older than me I guess. I was not saying that they didn't have powerful hardware, but I was saying they never used the most powerful hardware available at the time. Sure they had powerful hardware compared to competitors but not the most powerful available hardware, Nintendo doesn't really build the components for their systems but buys the hardware and puts it together themselves.

I think Nintendo does not pump out the most powerful hardware available since they can't simply afford it. Especially since the GC era.

I hope the AMD partnership rumor becomes a real thing. That would be a big advantage for them.

I'm just going to go ahead and say it. The reason why Nintendo stopped making hyper powerful consoles is because they realized our technology have already hit the cap. They started it with the Wii first, but unfortunately they underestimate the importance of HD gaming which they fixed with the Wii U. They made sure they pump enough horse power into the new hardware so that it will be able to run games at 1080p/60fps and just stop. No extra horses was given to the Wii U (probably to save cost).

Honestly, I really don't see how the extra power of the PS4/X1 will bring anything new to the table. I do appreciate them bringing HD gaming during the 7th gen, but so far I fail to see what they will be able to bring in the 8th gen. Sure the game will have better textures/lighting and stuff, but the difference is not going to be colossal like from SD to HD.

Nintendo cared about keeping in the graphical race throughout the 1990's and into the mid 2000's, it was only with the Wii that they decided to reverse course. IMO, it was the wrong move.

Also, the Wii U would not be lost if they no longer made the gamepad the leading controller option, software clears the path for hardware, not a gimmicky tablet controller. On that note, the Wii may have sold millions with it's Wiimote, but in 2011 when the PS3 and 360 were still going strong, 75% of those Wii's were gathering dust or in storage. It was a pop culture fluke and arguably Nintendo's worst home console.

Nintendo's art style still does wonders on the Wii U, but it's lack of hardware oomph still bides poorly for third party support. Of course, outside of the other 8th gen consoles, it would be nice if every multi-plat on the 360 and PS3 hit the Wii U as well, but that seems to be a lost cause at this point.

However many years ago people couldn't imagine color TV. After that people couldn't imagine phones without cords. Now we have HD and Cellphones. What we can't imagine today are the realities of tomorrow.

Do you own a decent gaming PC because what you've said is just wrong.

so, 4k actually makes any difference? or the TV was bigger than the average 1080p one? because there's that principle "bigger the screen easier to notice the difference in resolution"

The Wii U doesn't even have poor hardware, though. That's the problem about talking about power, because if you don't understand saud power, it doesn't really matter. A PowerPC console is going to have lower specs than x86, regardless, because that's how it is designed.

If you were to compare an Xbox 360 to a PC of similar performance, the PC would have much higher specs, but the performance of running software is primarily the same, as long as said software is optimized for each architecture.

Seriously, go compare the GCN specs and Xbox specs. If you compare the Wii U specs to Xbox 360, Wii U has a TON more resources to run software than Xbox 360. That's fact.

I think 4k is pointless. I actually noticed little difference in the upgrade to HD...so 4K will never appeal to me

The problem is that developing in 4K isn't even commercially viable yet and it may not be until the end of this generation. We won't be seeing games in true 4K for like 5 years. People who bought a PS4 or XB1 for 4K gaming are going to be sorely disappointed. We're still seeing PS3 and XB360 games being upscaled from 720p to 1080p.

Going from SD to HD was very expensive for developers, so expensive that analysts all hoped onto a train and started writing articles about how the industry was doomed last gen. Even with console sales at an all time high, nobody could resist crunching numbers and saying "look at all this money we're losing." Going from HD to 4K is going to be even worse. Graphical output is still improving all the time, but at an expense that is becoming unmanageable.

1080p 60fps is a goal that developers should be shooting for every time right now, and that can be achieved on all 3 major consoles.

Really 4K? I can't even see the difference between 720p and 1080p, why all this bigger and better.

For the record, not watching stuff I don't care about. I'm not sure why I should care either way? Even if we ignore that most companies refuse to focus on artistically pleasing games in order to take full advantage of next gen technology that will date it horribly, I find less and less reason to care. The only reason to care at this point is because other people decided it mattered. A cool thing that shows advances in technology is just not a significant reason for me to pay money unless it enhances gameplay. Considering the excuses to not have 60 FPS in next gen games, that's clearly not happening. And at this point it's no longer exciting as much as it is an obligation, which isn't exciting.

tbh, if Nintendo could've gotten away with having no significant graphical upgrades from Wii for Wii U in exchange for power focused elsewhere and probably a lower price, I probably wouldn't have minded. It might've been better since it might've been easier to justify for developers to put exclusive stuff on Wii U (aka the only stuff any Wii U owner cares about) without that HD budget. It would never happen for a number of reasons, but cheaper gameplay experiences sounds like the best option.

And again, why should I care on its own? I just want to play the next cool new games, I don't care if they look better or not. If Beyond Good and Evil 2 was literally on the same engine as the first game, I'd buy it as a 60 dollar game if it was worth a 60 dollar game. And a game of Beyond Good and Evil's quality, even if just twice its length, would be enough to justify that price point. This is, at least at this point and admittedly with a heavy dose of generalization, a discussion of companies wanting to make their games with more graphical power because its tradition and a minority of semi-wealthy gamers who have an interest in the best graphical power or the next product their favorite company put out. While some people like Hideo Kojima and the main SE team have a genuine interest in graphical fidelity, it's mostly just "because we have to". I'm not against improving technology or graphical fidelity, but AAA gaming has made it feel meaningless at this point. And until someone focused on next gen actually has an eye for art or creativity or primary colors, it's not worth my time even for looks.

I can't help but compare it to music. This isn't some 80s synth new wave revolution, it's the garbage EDM has been turning into. Paint-by-numbers, follow the formula, waste the talent of singers, same chorus, rinse-and-repeat, money. And EDM is not topping the charts despite everyone telling me it's the next big thing. The best selling games are not the best looking, otherwise Crytek wouldn't be in trouble. But Minecraft rules the world. So if you're ignoring both the biggest successes yet blatantly making products to make money, it's just a waste-of-time contradiction. Even Sony and Microsoft seem uninterested in a lot of this stuff. Grim Fandango was more exciting to these people than half of their own next gen titles.

I'll admit this is entirely ranting. I might be completely off about everything but no one cares about next gen gaming right now. It might still succeed, but it's neither relevant nor interesting.

To be fair, the difference between 1080p and 4K is much more than 720p and 1080p.

SD (480i): 307,200 pixel display
HD (720p): 921,600 pixel display
Full HD (1080p): 2,073,000 pixel display
UHD (4K): 8,294,400 pixel display

It's by far the hugest jump in display resolution ever.