Why doesn't Nintendo just make a normal console again?

Why doesn't Nintendo just make a normal console again?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=vzsgkoNzcVU
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because the last two normal consoles they made got outsold by Sony like 3 to 1. So they made a zany console, and that gen beat Sony. So now we're going to be stuck with zany consoles forever, even though the last one bombed miserably.

Because normal players see Nintendo as the casual kiddy console maker and they already have their CoD/FIFA/GTA fix supplied by Sony and Microsoft.

Because Genyo Takeda, after making the Game Cube realised that by simply increasing a console's power with never satisfy the people who will just keep asking for more power so he decided to shift focus to things that aren't just increasing numbers.

>Because the last two normal consoles they made got outsold by Sony like 3 to 1.
Right, but the only thing that stopped them doing better was their own stupid gimmicks wasn't it? Cartridges on the N64 and mini-DVDs on the Gamecube

So if they did an ACTUAL normal console (capable of attracting AAA games like GTA, FPS games, sports games etc.), then they could compete couldn't they?

>they already have their CoD/FIFA/GTA fix supplied by Sony and Microsoft.
But if Nintendo made a console that could do those things AS WELL AS the kiddy games of Mario and Zelda, they'd have a good product wouldn't they?

Hm, fair

But I'm thinking if they made something that was powerful *enough* to play today's AAA games - COD, GTA, whatever - AS WELL AS beloved Nintendo classics like Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Yoshi, Kirby, Pokemon, whatever - then they'd have a good product wouldn't they?

Because at the moment people think "yeah I like Zelda but I don't want to buy a whole new console to do it"

If they had a console that did that AND played AAA games then they'd have a good product.

Pretty much every non-Squeenix gaame from gen 6 fits in a mini dvd without problems.

>Normal console
>N64
You can only pick one.

Ease of porting and having a good install base are more important than power when it comes to getting third party games, PS2 kept getting multiplat until somewhat recently thanks to its huge installbase.

How isn't it normal? Because it uses cartridges?

The controller is fucking wonky as hell, and the cartridges did limit it in a lot of ways.

It was still relatively straight forward though.

>320x240 in the YOOL 1996

How would the mini-discs have held them back in any way?

Most games still fit in one, and if they didn’t, it got released as a 2-disc game. PS2 still had multi-disc games. GC boxes were the same size as standard DVD style cases (maybe like a couple of mm taller). They functioned exactly the same, and GC typically had pretty quick load times.

The only drawback is you couldn't play CDs (who the fuck even uses a game console as their main CD player anyay, holy shit) or DVDs (which only hurt GC sales in shithole countries where DVD players were still more expensive than PS2s).

nintendo just needs to fucking stop with the stupid gimmicks and underpowering

the Wii is literally an OC'ed gamecube
the Wii U is literally an OC'ed Wii + new GPU

if the Wii U was on par with the PS4 and Xbox One and Nintendo wasn't so retarded it wouldn't have flopped. nintendo doesnt understand we gamers want FIFA and CoD and Battlefield not just gimmick games and Zelda

The switch is literally just a Wii U undocked

>functioned exactly the same

No. Texture quality suffered because of the limited space on the discs, and this made certain ports suffer. If it had been given a DVD drive, it would have been competing and sometimes surpassing the OG Xbox for graffix.

It still had some gorgeous games ( REmake, RE4, Metroid Prime 1 and 2 ) but it was, like the N64, gimped by inferior storage space.

I'm pretty sure it was one of main reasons that GTA never came to the Gamecube

It is often cited as a main reason why the Gamecube didn't do better

So basically you're wrong, especially in a world where games often come on multiple discs even for normal consoles

>Most games still fit in one, and if they didn’t, it got released as a 2-disc game. PS2 still had multi-disc games.
Yes but by limiting the size of the disc, you're requiring two discs more often that with the other consoles, which increases the cost of manufacturing games.

It was pretty damn straightforward

Think about it - the N64 and Gamecube both had strong shooter games that increased their appeal immensely - Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, TimeSplitters 2, 007 Agent Under Fire, etc. This complemented the younger-audience games of Mario, Zelda, etc.

>Ease of porting and having a good install base are more important than power when it comes to getting third party games
If that was true then the Wii would have got LOADS of AAA games, but it didn't.

I get your point - those are both important factors as well.

So if Nintendo just made a normal console again, they could cover all three of those criteria.

the real reason nintendo never gets GTA is because they pissed them off with an N64 game they were making as DMA design

>If that was true then the Wii would have got LOADS of AAA games, but it didn't.
It actually did, pretty much every CoD got a Wii release.

This is exactly my point.

>nintendo doesnt understand we gamers want FIFA and CoD and Battlefield not just gimmick games and Zelda
Again, exactly my point.

The Switch is basically only going to appeal to committed Nintendo fans. Nobody else. If they made a normal console, then they could expand their audience massively, by providing Zelda games AND triple A titles like COD and GTA and sports games etc.

>Wii CoDs were AAA games

user, no.

>LARPing this hard

I saw that youtube video too. Rockstar doesn't produce for Nintendo because Nintendo doesn't make consoles optimized for their product. End of story. Ancient butthurt is not part of the problem. See GTA on GBA.

Or bully special edition on Wii

>yfw nintendo makes a N64 classic
what games should be on it?

Why not? They were the same game but with pointer controls and lower graphics.

Exactly this

The Wii versions were MASSIVELY gimped compared to the 360/PS3 versions.

Exactly correct as well.

If Nintendo had a console that was capable of playing AAA games, they would get AAA games, it's as simple as that.

Instead they seem to obstinately stick to this idea that they want to make a small profit on each console sold, instead of realising that the money is actually in selling loads and loads of games, with their high margin, like the other two have realised.

I think a lot of you guys are misunderstanding what the Switch actually is. It is Nintendo's transitioning out of the home console market and into the handheld market. They want 3DS developers to literally SWITCH production onto the switch. Switch was a handheld designed for the Japanese Market. Japanese people still love handhelds to a degree not readily understood in the west. And Japanese developers still develop for handhelds with similar enthusiasm.

>Rare decides not to cooperate as retaliation for Nintendo not letting them use legit ports on XBLA/Rare Replay
>oops, there goes half the worthwhile games in the N64 library

Rare's only good games are the DKCs tho

>Not perfect dark and Goldeneye and CBFD

What?

Goldeneye was an incredibly good game that moved consoles.

rareware was basically 2nd party at that point. They were to Nintendo in the late nineties what Bungie was to Microsoft for those first few halos.

You just raised the bar on Sup Forums contrarianism. Congrats.

youtube.com/watch?v=vzsgkoNzcVU

Yes.

Does that change the fact that they made good games that weren't DKC?

Nintendo is never going to make a normal console again, ever. It's gimmick shit all the way from here on out.

And this is the reason why they have no 3rd party support. Nintendo doesnt make it easy for them to just port games, like they do from PS4 to Xbone or viceversa. It's not worth it if the install base isnt big, which it never is because nobody buys Nintendo's shit except hardcore fans.

Is this your first console gen?

>so he decided to shift focus to things that aren't just increasing numbers.
I think that's admirable in philosophy but hard to maintain in an industry with an emphasis on technical dazzle and (most importantly) multiplatform games.

The obsession with technical progression is a deleterious one, but it's hard for Nintendo to stand their ground against effectively -- especially when their emphasis is on misguided gimmicks. They need third party support, but no matter how theoretically interesting certain gimmicks are (or could be) it's hard to attract third-party support consistently that way.

I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo pulls an Apple business model and starts rolling out bi-yearly updates to the system if Switch is successful a la iPad. Mobility is what's being stressed here, which is the direction of the marketplace. Microsoft all but admitted they're sticking to the PC market with scorpio.

At some point down the line the technology is going to be so good you're not going to need a console to get a console's power. We aren't there yet, but at least Nintendo's headed in the right direction. Maybe w/ Super Switch?

their third parties will be everyone currently developing for 3DS.

because blue ocean strategy

I think their storage media space is always their failure.

>what is Jet Force Gemini

Sony and Microsoft are tech companies with games divisions, and approach the problem that way. They throw a bunch of tech at a console and while they're impressive, they're not interesting. They're just closed computers.
Nintendo are a games company who want to make interesting and fun things, and that is obvious in their last consoles. While they don't always hit the mark, the Wii, the Wii U, and most likely the Switch are all fun consoles to use and play games on.
And at the end of the day the difference between 30 and 60 fps, or 720p and 1080p only matters if your console is identical otherwise, which Nintendo's are definitely not. They can't output as high a res as the competition, but you sure won't be able to play their games on any other console

We'll see.

Very good point.

Not when you can buy a micro SD card with half a terabyte on it for 60 bucks. That argument has always struck me as scurrilous.

That reminds me of how when Wii came out with motion sensors, the PS3 followed suit right on their heels.

More like blue puddle for the Wii U, Switch will probably be the same.

Wii U's problem was that it was at an awkward stage in tech development. It wasn't fully portable. It couldn't be an actual handheld, but was instead teathered to the short distance away from the television it could be played. I actually predict great success for the Switch in Japan on account of it being fully portable.

>it took Nintendo 3 systems to finally be able to play games you could play on the PS3/360.

I can't wait to play PS4/Xbone games on a Nintendo system by 2027!

because nintendos too blinded by the wii to see that they're next gimmick wont strike commercial lightning a second time

Maybe you're right

Do you reckon they'll never make another proper home console again then?

Would be a proper shame if they didn't

Sonyfags going through all these threads saying the same shit.
You should be happy there's somebody coming to the handheld market. Switch is a handheld. PSP is dead.
I travel a lot and I want some relatively decent games on the go. Good luck doing that with ps5/scorpio/gimped PCs with its 20 cores weighing in at 30 pounds each.

yeah, pretty much.

>normal console

define normal

I think they need to decide EITHER to go after the Wii audience OR go after hardcore gamers

The Switch does neither, so it's dead in the water

It's going after the portable gaming audience, idiot, which is vast. See 3DS.

But the switch is normal?

It doesn't really have any gimmicks besides being portable and besides that its a regular console
Its not like the wii U where you had to have something on the gamepad, and on the wii where you had to use motion controls most of the time

The switch is easily the most normal console nintendo has made in 15 years

As someone who bought it because it's a portable and will have the portable games I want, as it is, it's a shitty portable for people who don't actually want any portability.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? It's being advertised directly to people who want to use it on the go. It's literally the largest selling point hahah.

1. It's not a true portable
2. The battery life is much worse
3. It costs about twice as much as a 3DS
4. If you already have a 3DS, and a home console, are you really going to want to shell out $300 on this?

4. you will if you want to play new games. 3DS started at 250...counting for inflation that's like a 25 dollar difference.
3. You're forgetting what 3DS launched for
2. If you're playing more mobile style games which are going to be offered on virtual console, you're likely to get around 5 hours...who the fuck plays 5 hours straight?
1. I don't even know what that means.

Less-dedicated normies who want a Netflix-machine to play shooters, sports, GTA's and movies instinctively want the "most graphically-powerful" non-manchild/weeb device, so it's between Sony and M$ for them (this gen being Sony due to the terrible Xbone-introduction).

Between that and the Wii selling gangbusters its gen, Nintendo dug as far into being non-standard/shootergame-y as possible in hopes it'll recapture that lightning.

It's not a normal home console because it doesn't have the power.

We're not going to see AAA games on it. So who's the target market here?

Hardcore Nintendo fans. They're the only ones that are going to buy this. Some parents will buy it for their kids, but it's quite expensive, so they might just buy them a 3DS.

For adults, with disposable cash, unless they're particularly fond of Zelda / Mario, why should they buy this? When they can buy an Xbox or PS4 (for LESS money) and get the latest AAA games?

This is why I think Nintendo needs a console that can play the latest AAA games, as well as Zelda and Mario. I think that would sell. I think there are a lot of people who like Zelda and Mario, but think "eh, it can't play the other games I want, so I'll just get an Xbox / PS4 instead"

I get Netflix on my Wii U, pretty much the same thing.

>It's not a normal home console because it doesn't have the power.
Its powerful enough current generation games
>We're not going to see AAA games on it. So who's the target market here?
But we will see AAA games on it? Thats Nintendo's intention?

If EA is actual developing fifa for it then clearly something has changed

You guys seem to be underestimating the degree to which mothers control discretionary spending. Mothers generally dislike hardcore violence simulator consoles and generally are okay with 'adventure zelda mario wii fit' consoles.

Nintendo is marketing to mothers. Did you see bowser setting time limits for baby bowser. It's smart.

Zelda gives you 3 hours battery which is pretty fucking gimped.

>I don't even know what that means.
It means that it doesn't give you the full portability that a 3DS does, mainly because of battery life like I said, and also because it's a bit larger, so you can't really put this in a pocket. You have to put it in a a bag.

I'm not saying there's NO market... I just reckon that if Nintendo made a pretty normal console that did the same thing as the Xbox and PS, I think it would do well, because their unique games IP (Mario, Zelda, etc) would attract people to it. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe people would stick to MS / Sony.