With XBox Series X And the PS5 coming out, Will Nintendo Yield to the call of more Power?

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

if the public cared so much about power, then why did the Nintendo Switch literally just outsell the Xbox One's lifetime sales? you know, that much more powerful gaming console?

That and the "It's only because it's a choice!" comment is what I've heard every time someone is told power is meaningless. Every. Single. Time, over DECADES. It never changes

 

[I can't enter my old name]

Nintendo should only focus on power when it opens new possibilities for gameplay. I'd prefer if they didn't go the cinematic route. It makes them stand out as a developer that makes you know, actual games.

 

[Casual Shinji]

You can obfuscate it until you turn into a pretzel, that's exactly what you're saying; that somehow power is an ends, not a means. That kind of thinking has been dismantled every time over the years, the decades since gaming first cropped up. Heck, 90% of games whose selling point was their power have aged into dust as an example. That narrative isn't just dead, it was never alive.

None of this proves the public doesn't care about power in games. Even if it were true that 90% of games whose focus was on power have aged badly, that doesn't prove that at the time people didn't think it was the newest, slickest thing around, and that it sold games and consoles.

You seem to equate 'it shouldn't be important at all' with 'the public doesn't think it's important at all'. You think if Nintendo had released Wind Waker HD with the gameplay updates, but without the HD, just a standard definition, 4:3 port, that fans wouldn't care at all? That they wouldn't think 'Wait, what, that's it?'

Even Nintendo thinks power is important. If they didn't, why would they have ever bothered going high definition? Would Breath of the Wild, Mario Odyssey, and Astral Chain play any less well if it was in standard definition? No. Would people care/be upset if it was in standard definition? YES!

if the public cared so much about power, then why did the Nintendo Switch literally just outsell the Xbox One's lifetime sales? you know, that much more powerful gaming console?

Then what's your excuse for the PS4; a console that prides itself on graphical power and whose system sellers are all about that high end, visual spectacle? Unless ofcourse you DON'T think a large selling point of games like Uncharted and God of War is how fancy the graphics look.

Whether or not it's actually important, or wheter it'll age badly, the public does care about power in games. And NO, that's not me claiming that's ALL they care about in games.

 

[Yoshi178]

Even Nintendo thinks power is important. If they didn't, why would they have ever bothered going high definition? Would Breath of the Wild, Mario Odyssey, and Astral Chain play any less well if it was in standard definition? No. Would people care/be upset if it was in standard definition? YES!

if the public cared so much about power, then why did the Nintendo Switch literally just outsell the Xbox One's lifetime sales? you know, that much more powerful gaming console?

Then what's your excuse for the PS4; a console that prides itself on graphical power and whose system sellers are all about that high end, visual spectacle?

Power is important but it's not everything. and history even proves this:

-PS1 sold more than N64 despite being less powerful than the N64
-PS2 sold more than Gamecube and Xbox despite being the least powerful console.
-Wii sold more than PS3 and 360 despite being less powerful
-DS sold more than PSP despite being less powerful
-3DS sold more than PS Vita despite being less powerful

if anything, the PS4 is an exception to that history with the PS4 outselling the Xbone and Wii U.
But if Nintendo Switch continues to keep selling the way it is, it may eventually overtake the PS4's total lifetime sales by the end of the Switch's life. it's already sold more than PS4 did than when it was at the same point its life.

it will be interesting to see how the Nintendo Switch sales will be effected by the release of the PS5 and the Xbox Series X. the PS5 and Xbox Series X will have the clear advantage of being alot more powerful than the Switch. but the Switch will still have the advantage it's had against the PS4 and Xbone of the Switch being a hybrid system that can be played on both the TV or as a portable handheld.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Power is important but it's not everything.

And I never claimed any different.

But if someone states that the public doesn't care about power in games because the Switch sells well, they are willfully ignoring other more powerful consoles and games that have sold equally well. People don't care much about the Switch being powerful, because should they wish, they can get that power from the PC, PS4, or the Xbox.

it will be interesting to see how the Nintendo Switch sales will be effected by the release of the PS5 and the Xbox Series X. the PS5 and Xbox Series X will have the clear advantage of being alot more powerful than the Switch. but the Switch will still have the advantage it's had against the PS4 and Xbone of the Switch being a hybrid system that can be played on both the TV or as a portable handheld.

It won't be effected much at all, since they're not in direct competion. Most Switch owners aren't dedicated soley to the Switch, and will either have a PS4 or Xbox as well. And that's not going to change come next generation, unless Nintendo decides to not continue on the same foot they are now.

 

[Yoshi178]

it will be interesting to see how the Nintendo Switch sales will be effected by the release of the PS5 and the Xbox Series X. the PS5 and Xbox Series X will have the clear advantage of being alot more powerful than the Switch. but the Switch will still have the advantage it's had against the PS4 and Xbone of the Switch being a hybrid system that can be played on both the TV or as a portable handheld.

It won't be effected much at all, since they're not in direct competion.

it's actually amazing that people are still insistent on having this viewpoint.

sure Nintendo's not competing on a power level like MS and Sony. they're using they're own unique strategies to sell their consoles with things like motion controls, touch screen controls, and now the strategy of making their console both a portable handheld console and a home tv console at the same time.

at the end of the day though, the primary purpose of any Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft video game console is to be just that, a video gaming device and they are all directly competing with both their own exclusive game and also 3rd Party supporting games to win the customers sales. they all have their own different strategies, but at the end of the day, all 3 of them are directly competing to sell you a video gaming system.

 

[Casual Shinji]

it's actually amazing that people are still insistent on having this viewpoint.

sure Nintendo's not competing on a power level like MS and Sony. they're using they're own unique strategies to sell their consoles with things like motion controls, touch screen controls, and now the strategy of making their console both a portable handheld console and a home tv console at the same time.

at the end of the day though, the primary purpose of any Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft video game console is to be just that, a video gaming device and they are all directly competing with both their own exclusive game and also 3rd Party supporting games to win the customers sales. they all have their own different strategies, but at the end of the day, all 3 of them are directly competing to sell you a video gaming system.

There's competition, but not direct competition, like I said. This generation proves that with both the PS4 and Switch selling extremely well. Of the two there's no clear winner, the PS4's current dominance only having to do with a head start. The PS4 selling well didn't eat much if any into the Switch's market, but it certainly ate into Microsoft's. The PS4 and the Switch are the compainion consoles of this generation, similar to how the 360 and Wii were the previous one, initially anyway.

 

[Squilookle]

Bloody well hope not. Better power used to open the lid on game innovation. Now it's the substitute.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Nintendo should only focus on power when it opens new possibilities for gameplay. I'd prefer if they didn't go the cinematic route. It makes them stand out as a developer that makes you know, actual games.

This is to the heart of what I'm thinking.

If there's no refresh on the Pro Specs, PS5 and the XSex will be two generations above. Which allows for more avenues of gaming. Nintendo has the more innovative mind of the Big Three, but innovative can mean nothing if you don't have the resources to see your vision come to fruition.

To the point, I know a lot of people say power doesn't matter and it's all about the games... There was a reason why feew people were clamoring to buy an original Gameboys when PSP came out. Great games are great games, but platforms can become limited with the experiences they can bring.

As I said in my OP, I don't think Nintendo has to yield to the call of more power. There are other avenues, as new ways of play whatever they can be. But there is swiftly going to be a time in our life times where Video Games can replicate a city one to one. I think there will be a chasm that is too big between customer expectation and meeting it with a severely limited hardware.

Hell, we've seen it happen. Although the Wii sold gangbusters, a lot of companies refused to work on it because they couldn't get their games on it. The Wii U was a mess that people didn't care to buy. Many people stated outright if the Switch wasn't a hit, it could mean dire things for the company [https://www.geekwire.com/2016/nintendo-sales-chart/].

As much as we say power doesn't matter, how many of us had a Wii? A Wii U? And how much did we play it over our other consoles? What games did you prefer on the Wii and Wii U over the gaming experiences on the Sony and Microsoft consoles?

 

[bluegate]

Unless the gaming landscape changes drastically over the next couple of years, I think that it might be fair to say that what Nintendo has done with the Switch will be their safe plan for the foreseeable future.

It is best for them to stick to their new "mid-generation" release schedule. Nintendo is unable to compete with PlayStation and Xbox during their launch windows because they are unwilling to match specs and costs, so they sit low for the first three to four years of a new technical generation and release 3-4 years into a generation with a cheap device that is capable of running concurrent software.

They'll see some success with their console in the final three to four years of a generation, enjoying third party port support before PlayStation and Xbox raise the technical bar for third party games again.

Considering Nintendo's comfortable spot at the moment, you can expect them to release a Switch 2 with specs comparable to either the PS5 or SexBox a couple of years after their launch.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

None of this proves the public doesn't care about power in games.

Except there's no proof the public DOES care; if this were true then the best-selling system of last gen wouldn't have been the Wii, the DS wouldn't have slaughtered the PSP, and the Vita wouldn't be dead. Heck, this is insane to apply it to games. People don't do this in film or literature; if someone told me they refused to watch stuff like Metropolis or Ran because they were old, I would SLAP them so hard their eyeballs would switch places. Get opinions from people other than those than Youtubers and people who yap endlessly about processing power, aspect ratio, frame rates and other technical jargon they don't actually understand. It does wonders when you actually listen and read stuff talking about theme, design, narrative, characters, world-building, the stuff that power is merely a TOOL for.

If there's no refresh on the Pro Specs, PS5 and the XSex will be two generations above. Which allows for more avenues of gaming. Nintendo has the more innovative mind of the Big Three, but innovative can mean nothing if you don't have the resources to see your vision come to fruition.

Except this is reality: those resources mean nothing if you don't know how to use them. Most of those companies don't know how to use their resources, most of them have NEVER known how to use them because they weren't designers, they were tech people who kept using the short-sighted, brute force method. Furthermore, no vision has been "brought to fruition" 100%; everything has always been compromised due to time, man power, deadlines. Nothing has ever been exactly what its creator thought it was going to be at the beginning.

And guess what, there are still gonna be limitations. Every generation chuckleheads have always said "Oh, THIS will be the generation with true freedom!" only to be proven painfully wrong. And the thing is, limitations are a good thing at the end of the day because they set a boundary to work in. Restriction is the father of innovation, always has been, because if someone can't make anything creative and compelling with clear boundaries then they aren't a creator, they're a hack. An artist does not blame their tools for their work.

Bloody well hope not. Better power used to open the lid on game innovation. Now it's the substitute.

Bing, and that's why it's pointless to focus on power. Instead of being ACTUAL DESIGNERS, game companies let the hardware do all the work. We all saw this last generation anyway; the obsession with power became a gigantic problem that ended up damaging the industry more than helping. So many companies went bankrupt or suffered layoffs that it was really worrying. MS never made a cent off the 360 (heck, I still don't think they've turned a profit on their gaming division) and Sony burnt every last cent they ever made from the PS1 and 2 because of the PS3 (not helped by its clunky design that ensured things were a chore to make and port). The only company that made it out of that hellscape relatively unscathed was Nintendo. Mostly because they didn't waste money on foolish pursuits like assuaging tech junkies

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

None of this proves the public doesn't care about power in games.

Except there's no proof the public DOES care;

What do you think SALES stand for if not "what the public cares about"? Take your time.

 

[Squilookle]

None of this proves the public doesn't care about power in games.

Except there's no proof the public DOES care;

What do you think SALES stand for if not "what the public cares about"? Take your time.

Did you stop reading there? Aiddon's very next words addresses your point before you even made it.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

None of this proves the public doesn't care about power in games.

Except there's no proof the public DOES care; if this were true then the best-selling system of last gen wouldn't have been the Wii, the DS wouldn't have slaughtered the PSP, and the Vita wouldn't be dead. Heck, this is insane to apply it to games. People don't do this in film or literature; if someone told me they refused to watch stuff like Metropolis or Ran because they were old, I would SLAP them so hard their eyeballs would switch places. Get opinions from people other than those than Youtubers and people who yap endlessly about processing power, aspect ratio, frame rates and other technical jargon they don't actually understand. It does wonders when you actually listen and read stuff talking about theme, design, narrative, characters, world-building, the stuff that power is merely a TOOL for.

I address this very thought in my previous post. I know this was to Shinji, but there are other factors that play into getting these systems. I'll be honest, I still never got a Wii even though I was looking for it when it first came out. I played it once at a friend who himself said he rarely ever played it and that's all that I needed.

Also, DS to PSP? We have to count children in this. Video Games might have always been around for this generation, but there are a good amount of people who had to get their parents to buy them their games. There is an established base for Nintendo that runs the entire life time of Video Games. There are people who played Pokemon on their gameboys. And when you tie that together with the fact that the Nintendo DS [https://www.ign.com/articles/2004/09/21/official-nintendo-ds-launch-details] was 100 dollars cheaper than the PSP [https://www.ign.com/articles/2005/02/03/psp-us-launch-date-and-price-revealed], it's not that far of a stretch to see why they sold like a wildfire.

That doesn't mean people didn't WANT a PSP. Hell, I wanted a PSP. But I couldn't afford it. The strict truth is I got a DS because my mom got one for my dad after his stroke because she thought it would help his recovery. When he said he wasn't interested in it, he gave it to me.

Also, you do have to realize a lot of people can buy into something and drop it super quickly once the novelty wears off. If you don't want to take the Wii as an example of this, we can look at the spate of Fortnite Clones or the like that tried to ape success. Just because someone downloaded it for free, they can always count that number. "Downloaded over a 100 million times!"

How many people are still playing those clones to this day?

Look at games like Disney Infinity [https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-05-13-disney-infinitys-demise-due-to-mismanagement-and-inflated-sales-expectations-report]. Who in two years made Half a Billion dollars. But still got scrapped because they mismanaged and guessed wrong when it came to what the customers wanted. Overproducing in ways after underproducing before.

They had great sales, but we haven't heard from them in 3 years because they ruined their own business.

Numbers show things, but they don't always mean what we want them to me. Financially, the Wii was a mindblowing success. Game wise? Again, how many people heard someone they know saying they were choosing to play the Wii over PS3 or Xbox 360?

Except this is reality: those resources mean nothing if you don't know how to use them. Most of those companies don't know how to use their resources, most of them have NEVER known how to use them because they weren't designers, they were tech people who kept using the short-sighted, brute force method. Furthermore, no vision has been "brought to fruition" 100%; everything has always been compromised due to time, man power, deadlines. Nothing has ever been exactly what its creator thought it was going to be at the beginning.

And guess what, there are still gonna be limitations. Every generation chuckleheads have always said "Oh, THIS will be the generation with true freedom!" only to be proven painfully wrong. And the thing is, limitations are a good thing at the end of the day because they set a boundary to work in. Restriction is the father of innovation, always has been, because if someone can't make anything creative and compelling with clear boundaries then they aren't a creator, they're a hack. An artist does not blame their tools for their work.

Metal Gear was created due to limitations [https://www.mcvuk.com/kojima-metal-gear-was-born-from-hardware-limitations/]. The Scrolling Screen, the limited number of enemies, what have you. Kojima did the best he could do with what he had. And when he had more power, he didn't just keep the limitations. He Did More. No one will ever discount what he managed, but likewise will only a few ask for Kojima to go back to what he did before. Most people like the direction and the expanse more processing and graphical power allows.

I love Legend of Zelda for the NES. I do not want another one, I want more Breath of the Wild. And I mean More. I would love to see how they can expand on such a marvelous game.

To put another spin on it. If Nintendo and Sega had the technology we all have access today in the 1980's, how many of us with our 80's hd cell phones would have been that thrilled to see Super Mario in his 8 bit glory? Easily some would. But that style of game is called Retro for a reason.

No one here is calling for a lack of innovation. In fact, in my OP I mused if they didn't go the power route, what other innovation could they tap into. But I don't see the need to askew one for the other. You can have Innovation. You can have Power. You don't have the preclude one for the other.

Seriously, why are you so teed off about this? I already stated the Nintendo Switch is my favorite console of all time. I'm an obvious fan. But I realize that the lowest common denominator needs to be address because a lot of people are still can't bring themselves to lower their 'palates' as it were to

Go after those people who actually believe in this kind of stuff, not those who realize that they are a small segment of the gamer population and see with frightening regularity that there are a lot of people who will not give things a chance because their graphic quality is lowered on the Switch.

 

[Casual Shinji]

None of this proves the public doesn't care about power in games.

Except there's no proof the public DOES care; if this were true then the best-selling system of last gen wouldn't have been the Wii, the DS wouldn't have slaughtered the PSP, and the Vita wouldn't be dead. Heck, this is insane to apply it to games. People don't do this in film or literature; if someone told me they refused to watch stuff like Metropolis or Ran because they were old, I would SLAP them so hard their eyeballs would switch places. Get opinions from people other than those than Youtubers and people who yap endlessly about processing power, aspect ratio, frame rates and other technical jargon they don't actually understand. It does wonders when you actually listen and read stuff talking about theme, design, narrative, characters, world-building, the stuff that power is merely a TOOL for.

Are you arguing in absolutes, because saying there's no proof the public cares about (graphical) power in games is nonsense. People do care. People cared when Resident Evil got a graphical make-over, and they cared when Shadow of the Colossus got one, and many more remakes and remasters on top of those. This is not an absolute. When I say the public cares, I don't mean 100% of the public cares, I mean a significant enough amount of the public that deems it profitable to invest in power. If nobody, absolutely zero percent of the public gave a damn about power we would've still been in the PS1 era of graphics. But obviously we're not, because there's always room for improvement, and people will always be attracted to the next shiny upgrade.

And regarding not watching Metropolis and Ran because they're old.. guess what? A lot of people wouldn't watch them for that very reason. And why is that? Because they CARE about things looking new and modern. Whether I agree with that particular sentiment or not, whether or not it's shallow, people care. That's why a new Fast and the Furious would draw in a larger crowd than if they re-released Jaws.

And those youtubers and people that yap on about processing power.. That's actually a large part of the PUBLIC. Large enough as a matter of fact that there's an industry that supplies graphics cards.

This is not about opinions, this is about the fact that shiny new graphics draw in an audience. If it didn't publishers/developers would've stopped showing them off, but they don't because it gets results. And admitting that a large part of the public cares about games looking shiny and expensive is not equel to thinking that's all they care about, or that it's all games have to give.

 

[Marik2]

They just need to streamline online play and friend chatting. I don't have a switch so I don't know if nintendo has updated their online gaming.

 

[Mad World]

Except there's no proof the public DOES care; if this were true then the best-selling system of last gen wouldn't have been the Wii, the DS wouldn't have slaughtered the PSP, and the Vita wouldn't be dead.

The public absolutely does care about power. However, they care more about first-party titles. This is likely why the PlayStation 4 sells so well. It has great first-party titles, and is also quite powerful.

 

[BrawlMan]

Vergil's voice: Nintendo needs more power! More power!

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

None of this proves the public doesn't care about power in games.

Except there's no proof the public DOES care;

What do you think SALES stand for if not "what the public cares about"? Take your time.

Did you stop reading there? Aiddon's very next words addresses your point before you even made it.

He's talking about consoles, I'm talking about games. Power, in the form of state-of-the-art whatever, sells, has always sold, will continue to sell. And he's being coy with his examples as per usual. He could've itemized how the N64 and the GameCube DIDN'T outsell consoles (PS and PS2) that weren't technically as powerful, but god forbid something tarnish Nintendo's best-selling track record, which right now boils down to two generations (the SNES and the Wii, barely).

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I've been on record saying that the Nintendo Switch is my favorite console of all time. Namely because it's been with me every step of the way since I got it. The second I was playing Skyrim in the airport waiting for my delayed flight to Altanta and getting PISSED that they were finally boarding, I knew how much of a Game Changer (Puns, I got them!) Nintendo created with the Switch.

But with the Xbox Series X (they want us to call it Xbox Sex, we all know this) and the PS5, we are one step closer to complete uncanny valley. If not the generation after this, the generation after that will probably be able just to model a full photo realistic town with people that look as real as actors.

These leaps of gaming will lead people to expect more. There are still people decrying how bad the Switch is because the Witcher 3 doesn't look as amazing as it does on their PS4.

I think we're reaching the culmination of what Nintendo Wants. The integration of Motion Control to separate themselves from the pack. If they release a Joy Con pro with actual one to one motion, The Nintendo Switch will be the only way to play a FPS outside of a PC. The low price point and the accessibility almost demands that all your children in the household have their OWN switch. You used to be able to say that you have only one TV screen so you have to share the game console. Now you literally can just give them their own screens and have them play the same game with separate experiences. They have game experiences that still rocks people socks off. Legend of Zelda was game of the year. Odyssey is supposedly good. I love Splatoon 2. I freaking love ARMS (which brings up another call for Joy Con pros). They have a steady stable.

But I think this generation will be the 'Wow' generation.

I think we're in for the spectacle of being in a real, living town. Or world building, as Phil Spencer puts it. Can Nintendo really keep up by releasing a Nintendo Switch Pro that gives us maybe early ps4 graphics on the go?

Can Nintendo find another route to go down instead of trying to get back into the power race? We already have our games on the go. Will making the games on the go in early Ps4 tech be enough to keep up with the PSVR and the sheer computing power of the Xbox? Is there a new way of controlling your games that can immerse you more than motion controls? Or have we found the limit of the deviation that Nintendo can attempt until they have to come back and start actively competing with the worlds that the PS5 and the XSex are going to be able to create?

Last series of questions posed to you. Say Nintendo sticks with the Switch Format. It can be hand held or docked. Knowing the limitations of mobile chipsets, what do you think is acceptable to ask for Nintendo to put in this new iteration? Is it fair to say that you'd want a game like Tekken 7 on the new iteration but you'd understand if they couldn't make a Spiderman? Would you be ok if the dock acted as more of a booster that you COULD play a game like Spiderman docked, but not on the go? Or hey, are you ok with what is going on and you think Nintendo never has to re-enter the console arm race again?

Idk, but I think the X will be capitalized in Xbox Series X, as in X-SeX. Like, they put the X in SeX.

I supposed they?re really getting desperately literal in the hopes that SeX sells here.