9 ms·

If someone can answer that question for me: Why has Nintendo shifted towards producing underpowered consoles? I used to play the Super Nes when I was a kid, an

If someone can answer that question for me: Why has Nintendo shifted towards producing underpowered consoles? I used to play the Super Nes when I was a kid, and it was the most powerful console of its generation. The N64, the GameCube, the Wii and subsequent offerings were all underpowered in terms of graphical abilities and raw power after that. I hear people say "But the gameplay is what matters", which I agree with, but my question in the end is "Why can't we have both?". Is it a costs thing?

nepeckman 10y ago
Yeah, its a cost thing from what I understand. Sony and Microsoft actually sell their consoles at a loss, they lose money on hardware sales.
- ben010783 10y ago
  Nintendo also sold consoles at a loss. The Wii U was sold at a loss, but they specifically didn't want to do that with the Switch (http://venturebeat.com/2016/10/26/nintendo-wont-sell-switch-at-a-loss-plans-to-ship-2-million-units-in-march/ http://venturebeat.com/2016/10/26/nintendo-wont-sell-switch-...). I believe the original Wii was originally sold at a loss, but it wasn't long before Nintendo got the costs down and got profit on hardware sales.
ashark 10y ago
> The N64, the GameCube, the Wii and subsequent offerings were all underpowered in terms of graphical abilities and raw power after that. The N64 was underpowered?
- emehrkay 10y ago
  At the time the Playstation pushed more polygons per frame. I remember this debate because Nintendo said that they allowed for larger seamless polygons and said that it produced a better image on the screen.
  - 83457 10y ago
    Weren't N64 games over all higher resolution than PS1? I remember PS1 being just a jagged mess compared to N64
    - FrobozzElectric 10y ago
      I'm not sure about resolution, but the N64 had built in AA and AF.
    - PopsiclePete 10y ago
      Maybe I'm super confused here, but I thought there was no such thing as "higher resolution" when it came to analog TV signals. This was before HDMI/HDTV. Your resolution was whatever NTSC/PAL dictated. Or am I wrong?
      - 83457 10y ago
        The screen resolution is the same but the resolution of the image can change. If a system's output renders to the entire screen then just imagine a 1 pixel output would make the entire screen the same color. 4 pixels could have 4 quadrants of colors. 16x8 pixels would have 128.... etc. The max resolution would be the max resolution of the display. Though a topic of interest may be sub-pixel rendering where a system/font/game can take into account the RGB color pixel layouts in an LCD screen into account in order to improve the visual quality of the max resolution. So a system can have double the resolution of another and games can even choose to render at different resolutions depending on how intensive it is. Some games will choose lower resolution but more polygons and some might choose higher resolution with fewer polygons, among other choices. There are even modern cases where console games will change the resolution they run at to keep framerates solid https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/6e35355aecdf4fd0acdaee3cc4156fd4/topics/final-game-not-1080p-dynamic-resolution/4d65eb90-255b-4847-a97a-be0f815c9d0b/posts https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/6e35355aecdf4fd0ac...
    - __david__ 10y ago
      I think the main difference was textures: on the 64 they ended up being blurrier/flatter and therefore less pixelated. That said, there were definitely PS1 games that looked great and weren't cursed with jaggies (Wipeout, for instance).
- coldpie 10y ago
  Definitely not. The N64 outperformed the PSX, but it was far harder to program for and cartridges were far more expensive than discs. That's where Nintendo's lack of 3rd party support began. The Gamecube and Xbox were about on par with each other, and both outperformed the PS2. But the PS2 had a huge lead time and strong 3rd party momentum from the PSX. The Wii was the shift where Nintendo began to fall behind on horsepower, instead focusing on broad market appeal, lower price points, and less intimidating input methods. The Wii U and Switch are continuing that trend, trying to chase the Wii dragon, but so far not succeeding.
  - scott_s 10y ago
    I think there's more to it than that. Matt Leone wrote an amazing Oral History of Final Fantasy 7, published over at Polygon: http://www.polygon.com/a/final-fantasy-7 http://www.polygon.com/a/final-fantasy-7 The switch from N64 to PS is talked about a lot - Square definitely started development for FF7 on the N64 prototype systems before switching over. Hiroshi Kawai, a character programmer for Square, has what I think are the most telling comments: "I kind of had a suspicion that things weren’t going too well for the 64 at that point, because … one of my responsibilities … was to write performance applications that compared how well the 64 fared against the prototype [PlayStation]. And we’d be running parallel comparisons between the [PlayStation] where you’d have a bunch of 2D sprites bouncing off the screen and see how many polygons you could get within a 60th of a second. And even without any kind of texturing or any kind of lighting, it was less than 50% of what you would be able to get out of the [PlayStation]. Of course, the drawback of the [PlayStation] is it didn’t really have a z-buffer, so you’d have these overlapping polygons that you’d have to work around so that you wouldn’t get the shimmering [look]. But on the other hand, there was no way you’d be able to get anything close to what FF7 was doing [on PlayStation] on the 64 at that time." Kawai has more on the topic, which is fascinating. And the entire piece is just amazing, and I imagine most people on this thread would enjoy reading it.
    - Volt 10y ago
      At the time, this is true. One of the N64's primary limitations was its suboptimal microcode. It wasn't until too late in the console's lifecycle that studios like Factor 5 and Rare really showed its potential with their own custom microcode. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64_programming_characteristics#Microcode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64_programming_charac...
- lanna 10y ago
  a common criticism of the n64 was that it used cartridges while other consoles of the same era had adopted cd-roms offering much higher capacity. that lead to some games being shorter and/or simplified on the n64 compared to their equivalents on other platforms.
monocasa 10y ago
They've always been underpowered, that's part of their shtick. Just some generations all of the competitors are underpowered too.
GuiA 10y ago
It is mostly credited to Gunpei Yokoi's philosophy: "Yokoi articulated his philosophy of "Lateral Thinking of Withered Technology". [...] "Withered technology" in this context refers to a mature technology which is cheap and well understood. "Lateral thinking" refers to finding radical new ways of using such technology. Yokoi held that toys and games do not necessarily require cutting edge technology; novel and fun gameplay are more important. In the interview he suggested that expensive cutting edge technology can get in the way of developing a new product" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi#Lateral_Thinking_with_Withered_Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi#Lateral_Thinking_... Nintendo consoles have always been a bit behind technologically; but I think this became really accentuated with the Wii, which was by design not that far ahead of the Game Cube- when the rest of the industry went full steam ahead fighting on specs.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  I think there's a bit of a darker side as well. The Wii was so unbelievably successful, and profitable that it seems to have created a kind of corporate-level of addiction, and subsequent profit-seeking behavior. The Wii was underpowered, quirky, but just happened to hit all of the notes that a ton of people who hadn't played games before (and would later move on to playing on phones and tablets) were looking for. Most of all, they made a profit per unit sale of the Wii, when the standard at the time was (is?) to sell consoles at a loss and make it up on fees and sales of games. They made profit on the base Wii, then they profited from all of the other shit they made up to sell for it. When the time came to move on from that gold mine to something new, they predictably tried to strike gold a second time. They didn't. Now they're trying a third time, and I suspect it will end badly for them. They've increasingly lost sight of what made them great, blinded by the allure of unbelievably quick and vast quantities of hard cash.
  - lotyrin 10y ago
    From what I understand, they can readily afford to make these bets though. If Switch turns out not to be another Wii, but rather a WiiU, that's no sweat to them and they can easily figure something else out.
bedhead 10y ago
They know they can't win a spec arms race.
- chadgeidel 10y ago
  Anyone can win a spec arms race. Whoever wants to spend the most money will win. Nintendo doesn't want to participate in a spec arms race.
  - Volt 10y ago
    And I'll note that Nintendo definitely has the money to spend.
jfernandez 10y ago
From what I've gathered through the years, I think there's this undertone to Nintendo's strategy around not directly competing with the likes of Sony and Microsoft: companies that tout and create powerful beefy specs that become a one if not the main driver to market their devices effectively. Nintendo seems to continue, whether they're always successful or not (Wii vs Wii U), to push the company strategy towards make new-ish gaming paradigms and focusing more on the 1st party game quality. We're also at a period where I feel we can all see the effect of diminishing returns on visual output (i.e. PS4 for a layperson doesn't look orders of magnitude better than PS3 releases later in that device's life), so again Nintendo is looking to differentiate where graphics quality is becoming more of a commodity amongst the major consoles.
- TheOneTrueKyle 10y ago
  I believe they refer to themselves as a toy company instead of a video game company
- ehsankia 10y ago
  Exactly, they have their niche and their own unique games. The scene for the most powerful gaming device is already pretty saturated with the Xbox and Playstation, and let's not forget, the PC.
sametmax 10y ago
It's cost thing, but not just at the hardware level. Developing cutting graphics is always more expensive than settling the the level of what your could do 2 years ago. Since they are not in a race, they prefer investing in other things.
anonymousab 10y ago
Both the N64 and GameCube were not substantially underpowered. The choice of cartridges over discs, and later mini discs over full sized ones, were not directly ones of choosing the 'weaker option'. The PS2 and Wii were the weakest systems of their generations and the most successful in terms of hardware unit sales.
nilkn 10y ago
I actually thought the Switch was more or less breaking that trend. It doesn't seem underpowered when considered for what it is (a tablet).
- rocky1138 10y ago
  The portable screen is just 720p, which is not the end of the world. What I found surprising is that even when it's running Zelda on a full display, it only runs at 900p. I think if it can't do 1080p in 2017, it's fair to call it underpowered.
  - WillPostForFood 10y ago
    By that standard, the ps4 and xbox one are also underpowered because some games on those platforms also run sub-1080p. Every game makes performance tradeoffs. Some games on Switch will support 1080p, others will opt for other visual bells and whistles.
    - jackvalentine 10y ago
      The PS4 and Xbox One came out in 2013.
      - WillPostForFood 10y ago
        1080p came out in 1998.
        fphhotchips 10y ago
        Doesn't that prove the point?
VLM 10y ago
The SNES was extremely underpowered compared to my desktop at that time. A 3 MHz 16 bit CPU in the early mid 90s like I had in my 80s home computer, except it was 1994 not 1984 and I had a 40 mhz 32 bit 386 and was playing with this new "linux" thing I downloaded as a series of floppy disks from a local BBS. Nintendo hasn't changed, but the console market has, such that their competitors gave up on the console ideal and now ship what amounts to strange desktops with mid grade video cards. It seems to just be a cost thing.
- CoolGuySteve 10y ago
  That's not really accurate. First, PCs were extremely expensive at the time compared to the SNES. Your desktop likely cost $2000 or more I'm guessing. Second, the graphics co-processors for rendering sprites and tiles in the SNES where much more interesting than what you'd get on a computer of the time. Commander Keen was the most advanced PC scrolling game back then and it used a severely restricted colour palette compared to the SNES.
- PopsiclePete 10y ago
  That's great. Except it wasn't until the year 1990 that someone like John Carmack could make a smooth-scrolling 2d platformer that would rival Super Mario Bros in terms of performance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_tile_refresh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_tile_refresh SMB was released in 1985. So yes, please tell me more how an early 1990's PC, without the specialized hardware that consoles had, in the hands of a programmer not-quite-up-to-par in the skills department as John Carmack, would kick the SNES's butt when it came to smooth-scrolling games.
  - rocky1138 10y ago
    You're right on the money, there. PC hardware sucked for games until 3d graphics accelerators came along.
    - 1wd 10y ago
      This is usually the point where the Amiga fans come out of the woods to point out that the Amiga was actually the best hardware for gaming at that time.
ungzd 10y ago
It's hard to make photorealistic Mario or Zelda. Their consoles are primary for their own games which have very cartoony look.
PopsiclePete 10y ago
Nintendo can't really afford to sell hardware at a loss, for years, just to build-up market share, like Sony/MS can. Sony/MS can just do some Excel accounting magic to hide those losses under the giant umbrella of all their other businesses, but Nintendo - they have to make a profit, period. Also, yes, gameplay is what matters. I have a PS4 Pro/VR combo and I can't say the games are that much more exciting than what I played on the PS3. Is Open World Game XYZ so much more incredible than what Rockstar pulled off with GTAV on the PS3? Eh.... We're plateauing quickly in terms of graphical fidelity. The PS3 was an easy sell, a huge upgrade over the PS2, but the PS4 - not so much. "It's kinda like the PS3, but crisper!" is how I'd describe it to a non-hard-core gamer. Give me 60 fps and 1080p and I could give a rat's ass about how complicated the shader that renders photo-realistic ear wax in my RPG protagonist's ears is - that's not going to make me shell out another $400.
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  > Nintendo can't really afford to sell hardware at a loss, for years, just to build-up market share Not really. It's old but back in 2014 we saw Nintendo could run at a lose for many decades if necessary and still be fine because they were sitting on almost $11 billion in cash [1]. Today I thought I read that it's higher but not sure how to look it up. > like Sony/MS can. Sony/MS can just do some Excel accounting magic to hide those losses under the giant umbrella of all their other businesses, but Nintendo - they have to make a profit, perio The PS4 sold for a profit from day one. I'm not sure if the XBox One was similar or not but they're likely making a profit as well. Selling at a loss isn't as common in the latest generation. > We're plateauing quickly in terms of graphical fidelity. The PS3 was an easy sell, a huge upgrade over the PS2, but the PS4 - not so much. "It's kinda like the PS3, but crisper!" is how I'd describe it to a non-hard-core gamer. Problem is you're only thinking in terms of graphical power. The PS4 has easily a better network for online gaming along with a ton of great games. Don't forget about PSVR being a really nice, mid-level entry into the market and is currently the leader as far as all currently released numbers indicate. Being an easy sell or not is going to depend on the person you're selling to but I wouldn't dismiss the PS4 as just "crisper" than the PS3. [1] http://nintendotoday.com/nintendo-not-doomed/ http://nintendotoday.com/nintendo-not-doomed/
elsonrodriguez 10y ago
The Gamecube was actually more powerful than the PS2. An easy comparison here is to look at Resident Evil 4 on both consoles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkKX-nU9fX4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkKX-nU9fX4 If anything, the fact that the Gamecube's graphical superiority didn't help it much in the market is what made Nintendo make their shift towards innovations instead of clock cycles. You can't have both because the market has told Nintendo specifically (via the DS, 3DS, and Wii) that it wants unique experiences, not more pixels.
- cwyers 10y ago
  Well, then Nintendo really learned the wrong lesson from the Gamecube versus the PS2, because the lesson should have been "people want to be able to play DVDs on something that costs that much and hooks up to your TV, and they don't like switching discs to play a game."
  - Volt 10y ago
    Nintendo was considering changing its strategy before the GameCube even came out. See my other post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13769605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13769605.
TulliusCicero 10y ago
This isn't true. The N64 had more graphical power than the PSX, and the Gamecube had more power than the PS2.
rorosaurus 10y ago
I believe this allows them to be more profitable than Xbox/Playstation where they try to squeeze in the best hardware. I also think it aligns well with the younger target audience. The graphics restrictions has also given us some of the more interesting graphics styles in modern Nintendo games.
kibwen 10y ago
It's not just a costs thing. I have never, ever, ever, ever noticed a loading screen in any Nintendo game in my entire life, which is astounding. Lower-fidelity assets must be partly attributable to this, along with clever design to effectively hide whatever loading screens they do need. I have plenty of time to ponder this curiosity while waiting for Bloodborne and FFXV to load...
- trump2016 10y ago
  You have clearly never played super smash bros brawl. Idk about the Wii U version cause after braw I went back to Melese for good but I assume it's the same.
- Narishma 10y ago
  There are loading screens in the new Zelda.
  - kibwen 10y ago
    I guess I can live with that... but only if they're not at random places in the overworld, like Morrowind or Oblivion on consoles had.
- flukus 10y ago
  You must have stopped playing nintendo games before the gamecube came out.
Volt 10y ago
I'd highly suggest reading this discussion from 2000 between Miyamoto, Itoi, and Iwata. It pertains to the cancellation of MOTHER 3 on the N64, which was probably their most ambitious project at the time. It's an enlightening read. (https://yomuka.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/earthbound-64-cancellation-interview-itoi-miyamoto-iwata/ https://yomuka.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/earthbound-64-cancel...) It's long, so I'll throw in a few quotes. >Miyamoto: Game quality was at a point when it caught up with top-tier entertainment, with visuals that had come so far that all we had left was coming up with new ideas for us to express. It was like we gained incredible calvarymen to make an unstoppable army. […] We came in right during that time period. I think we got distracted by the prospect of building up that powerful army and lost sight of how we were going to form our battle strategies. The following snippet is the highlight. Note that Iwata became the president of Nintendo shortly after, in 2002. >Iwata: There’s this really strange common sense now that says it takes a huge team of people working with a large scale and a lot of time to create a good game. A good game is supposed to be based on a good idea that’s very fun, even if it’s small. That notion disappeared somewhere along the way, and it’s turned into a battle of who can spend the most time and utilize the most manpower. You could even say that Nintendo needs to take a stand against this. The result: the adoption of the Blue Ocean strategy. http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-10-10-nintendos-iwata-doesnt-fear-failure http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-10-10-nintendos-i... I'm reminded of a Twitter thread in 2013 by CliffyB, where he talks about the game industry's obsession with inflated budgets (http://www.igameresponsibly.com/2013/06/13/cliff-bleszinski-knows-what-gamers-want-inflated-budgets/ http://www.igameresponsibly.com/2013/06/13/cliff-bleszinski-...). This is what Nintendo sought to avoid with a slower adoption of raw power and instead making more focused games.
flukus 10y ago
Nintendo can't sell consoles at a loss the same way sony and MS can. You're also forgetting their portable lineup, their portables have always been under powered compared to their competitors.
bane 10y ago
Nintendo is competing against two competitors with impossibly deep pockets: Sony and Microsoft. They can't do a loss leading razer-and-blades sales model where they lose on the system but make it up on games. Thus every system they sell since the entry of both competitors has to be both profitable and price competitive.

nepeckman 10y ago

Yeah, its a cost thing from what I understand. Sony and Microsoft actually sell their consoles at a loss, they lose money on hardware sales.

ben010783 10y ago
Nintendo also sold consoles at a loss. The Wii U was sold at a loss, but they specifically didn't want to do that with the Switch (http://venturebeat.com/2016/10/26/nintendo-wont-sell-switch-at-a-loss-plans-to-ship-2-million-units-in-march/ http://venturebeat.com/2016/10/26/nintendo-wont-sell-switch-...). I believe the original Wii was originally sold at a loss, but it wasn't long before Nintendo got the costs down and got profit on hardware sales.

ashark 10y ago

> The N64, the GameCube, the Wii and subsequent offerings were all underpowered in terms of graphical abilities and raw power after that. The N64 was underpowered?

emehrkay 10y ago
At the time the Playstation pushed more polygons per frame. I remember this debate because Nintendo said that they allowed for larger seamless polygons and said that it produced a better image on the screen.
- 83457 10y ago
  Weren't N64 games over all higher resolution than PS1? I remember PS1 being just a jagged mess compared to N64
  - FrobozzElectric 10y ago
    I'm not sure about resolution, but the N64 had built in AA and AF.
  - PopsiclePete 10y ago
    Maybe I'm super confused here, but I thought there was no such thing as "higher resolution" when it came to analog TV signals. This was before HDMI/HDTV. Your resolution was whatever NTSC/PAL dictated. Or am I wrong?
    - 83457 10y ago
      The screen resolution is the same but the resolution of the image can change. If a system's output renders to the entire screen then just imagine a 1 pixel output would make the entire screen the same color. 4 pixels could have 4 quadrants of colors. 16x8 pixels would have 128.... etc. The max resolution would be the max resolution of the display. Though a topic of interest may be sub-pixel rendering where a system/font/game can take into account the RGB color pixel layouts in an LCD screen into account in order to improve the visual quality of the max resolution. So a system can have double the resolution of another and games can even choose to render at different resolutions depending on how intensive it is. Some games will choose lower resolution but more polygons and some might choose higher resolution with fewer polygons, among other choices. There are even modern cases where console games will change the resolution they run at to keep framerates solid https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/6e35355aecdf4fd0acdaee3cc4156fd4/topics/final-game-not-1080p-dynamic-resolution/4d65eb90-255b-4847-a97a-be0f815c9d0b/posts https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/6e35355aecdf4fd0ac...
  - __david__ 10y ago
    I think the main difference was textures: on the 64 they ended up being blurrier/flatter and therefore less pixelated. That said, there were definitely PS1 games that looked great and weren't cursed with jaggies (Wipeout, for instance).
coldpie 10y ago
Definitely not. The N64 outperformed the PSX, but it was far harder to program for and cartridges were far more expensive than discs. That's where Nintendo's lack of 3rd party support began. The Gamecube and Xbox were about on par with each other, and both outperformed the PS2. But the PS2 had a huge lead time and strong 3rd party momentum from the PSX. The Wii was the shift where Nintendo began to fall behind on horsepower, instead focusing on broad market appeal, lower price points, and less intimidating input methods. The Wii U and Switch are continuing that trend, trying to chase the Wii dragon, but so far not succeeding.
- scott_s 10y ago
  I think there's more to it than that. Matt Leone wrote an amazing Oral History of Final Fantasy 7, published over at Polygon: http://www.polygon.com/a/final-fantasy-7 http://www.polygon.com/a/final-fantasy-7 The switch from N64 to PS is talked about a lot - Square definitely started development for FF7 on the N64 prototype systems before switching over. Hiroshi Kawai, a character programmer for Square, has what I think are the most telling comments: "I kind of had a suspicion that things weren’t going too well for the 64 at that point, because … one of my responsibilities … was to write performance applications that compared how well the 64 fared against the prototype [PlayStation]. And we’d be running parallel comparisons between the [PlayStation] where you’d have a bunch of 2D sprites bouncing off the screen and see how many polygons you could get within a 60th of a second. And even without any kind of texturing or any kind of lighting, it was less than 50% of what you would be able to get out of the [PlayStation]. Of course, the drawback of the [PlayStation] is it didn’t really have a z-buffer, so you’d have these overlapping polygons that you’d have to work around so that you wouldn’t get the shimmering [look]. But on the other hand, there was no way you’d be able to get anything close to what FF7 was doing [on PlayStation] on the 64 at that time." Kawai has more on the topic, which is fascinating. And the entire piece is just amazing, and I imagine most people on this thread would enjoy reading it.
  - Volt 10y ago
    At the time, this is true. One of the N64's primary limitations was its suboptimal microcode. It wasn't until too late in the console's lifecycle that studios like Factor 5 and Rare really showed its potential with their own custom microcode. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64_programming_characteristics#Microcode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64_programming_charac...
lanna 10y ago
a common criticism of the n64 was that it used cartridges while other consoles of the same era had adopted cd-roms offering much higher capacity. that lead to some games being shorter and/or simplified on the n64 compared to their equivalents on other platforms.

monocasa 10y ago

They've always been underpowered, that's part of their shtick. Just some generations all of the competitors are underpowered too.

GuiA 10y ago

It is mostly credited to Gunpei Yokoi's philosophy: "Yokoi articulated his philosophy of "Lateral Thinking of Withered Technology". [...] "Withered technology" in this context refers to a mature technology which is cheap and well understood. "Lateral thinking" refers to finding radical new ways of using such technology. Yokoi held that toys and games do not necessarily require cutting edge technology; novel and fun gameplay are more important. In the interview he suggested that expensive cutting edge technology can get in the way of developing a new product" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi#Lateral_Thinking_with_Withered_Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi#Lateral_Thinking_... Nintendo consoles have always been a bit behind technologically; but I think this became really accentuated with the Wii, which was by design not that far ahead of the Game Cube- when the rest of the industry went full steam ahead fighting on specs.

M_Grey 10y ago
I think there's a bit of a darker side as well. The Wii was so unbelievably successful, and profitable that it seems to have created a kind of corporate-level of addiction, and subsequent profit-seeking behavior. The Wii was underpowered, quirky, but just happened to hit all of the notes that a ton of people who hadn't played games before (and would later move on to playing on phones and tablets) were looking for. Most of all, they made a profit per unit sale of the Wii, when the standard at the time was (is?) to sell consoles at a loss and make it up on fees and sales of games. They made profit on the base Wii, then they profited from all of the other shit they made up to sell for it. When the time came to move on from that gold mine to something new, they predictably tried to strike gold a second time. They didn't. Now they're trying a third time, and I suspect it will end badly for them. They've increasingly lost sight of what made them great, blinded by the allure of unbelievably quick and vast quantities of hard cash.
- lotyrin 10y ago
  From what I understand, they can readily afford to make these bets though. If Switch turns out not to be another Wii, but rather a WiiU, that's no sweat to them and they can easily figure something else out.

bedhead 10y ago

They know they can't win a spec arms race.

chadgeidel 10y ago
Anyone can win a spec arms race. Whoever wants to spend the most money will win. Nintendo doesn't want to participate in a spec arms race.
- Volt 10y ago
  And I'll note that Nintendo definitely has the money to spend.

jfernandez 10y ago

From what I've gathered through the years, I think there's this undertone to Nintendo's strategy around not directly competing with the likes of Sony and Microsoft: companies that tout and create powerful beefy specs that become a one if not the main driver to market their devices effectively. Nintendo seems to continue, whether they're always successful or not (Wii vs Wii U), to push the company strategy towards make new-ish gaming paradigms and focusing more on the 1st party game quality. We're also at a period where I feel we can all see the effect of diminishing returns on visual output (i.e. PS4 for a layperson doesn't look orders of magnitude better than PS3 releases later in that device's life), so again Nintendo is looking to differentiate where graphics quality is becoming more of a commodity amongst the major consoles.

TheOneTrueKyle 10y ago
I believe they refer to themselves as a toy company instead of a video game company
ehsankia 10y ago
Exactly, they have their niche and their own unique games. The scene for the most powerful gaming device is already pretty saturated with the Xbox and Playstation, and let's not forget, the PC.

sametmax 10y ago

It's cost thing, but not just at the hardware level. Developing cutting graphics is always more expensive than settling the the level of what your could do 2 years ago. Since they are not in a race, they prefer investing in other things.

anonymousab 10y ago

Both the N64 and GameCube were not substantially underpowered. The choice of cartridges over discs, and later mini discs over full sized ones, were not directly ones of choosing the 'weaker option'. The PS2 and Wii were the weakest systems of their generations and the most successful in terms of hardware unit sales.

nilkn 10y ago

I actually thought the Switch was more or less breaking that trend. It doesn't seem underpowered when considered for what it is (a tablet).

rocky1138 10y ago
The portable screen is just 720p, which is not the end of the world. What I found surprising is that even when it's running Zelda on a full display, it only runs at 900p. I think if it can't do 1080p in 2017, it's fair to call it underpowered.
- WillPostForFood 10y ago
  By that standard, the ps4 and xbox one are also underpowered because some games on those platforms also run sub-1080p. Every game makes performance tradeoffs. Some games on Switch will support 1080p, others will opt for other visual bells and whistles.
  - jackvalentine 10y ago
    The PS4 and Xbox One came out in 2013.
    - WillPostForFood 10y ago
      1080p came out in 1998.
      - fphhotchips 10y ago
        Doesn't that prove the point?

VLM 10y ago

The SNES was extremely underpowered compared to my desktop at that time. A 3 MHz 16 bit CPU in the early mid 90s like I had in my 80s home computer, except it was 1994 not 1984 and I had a 40 mhz 32 bit 386 and was playing with this new "linux" thing I downloaded as a series of floppy disks from a local BBS. Nintendo hasn't changed, but the console market has, such that their competitors gave up on the console ideal and now ship what amounts to strange desktops with mid grade video cards. It seems to just be a cost thing.

CoolGuySteve 10y ago
That's not really accurate. First, PCs were extremely expensive at the time compared to the SNES. Your desktop likely cost $2000 or more I'm guessing. Second, the graphics co-processors for rendering sprites and tiles in the SNES where much more interesting than what you'd get on a computer of the time. Commander Keen was the most advanced PC scrolling game back then and it used a severely restricted colour palette compared to the SNES.
PopsiclePete 10y ago
That's great. Except it wasn't until the year 1990 that someone like John Carmack could make a smooth-scrolling 2d platformer that would rival Super Mario Bros in terms of performance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_tile_refresh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_tile_refresh SMB was released in 1985. So yes, please tell me more how an early 1990's PC, without the specialized hardware that consoles had, in the hands of a programmer not-quite-up-to-par in the skills department as John Carmack, would kick the SNES's butt when it came to smooth-scrolling games.
- rocky1138 10y ago
  You're right on the money, there. PC hardware sucked for games until 3d graphics accelerators came along.
  - 1wd 10y ago
    This is usually the point where the Amiga fans come out of the woods to point out that the Amiga was actually the best hardware for gaming at that time.

ungzd 10y ago

It's hard to make photorealistic Mario or Zelda. Their consoles are primary for their own games which have very cartoony look.

PopsiclePete 10y ago

Nintendo can't really afford to sell hardware at a loss, for years, just to build-up market share, like Sony/MS can. Sony/MS can just do some Excel accounting magic to hide those losses under the giant umbrella of all their other businesses, but Nintendo - they have to make a profit, period. Also, yes, gameplay is what matters. I have a PS4 Pro/VR combo and I can't say the games are that much more exciting than what I played on the PS3. Is Open World Game XYZ so much more incredible than what Rockstar pulled off with GTAV on the PS3? Eh.... We're plateauing quickly in terms of graphical fidelity. The PS3 was an easy sell, a huge upgrade over the PS2, but the PS4 - not so much. "It's kinda like the PS3, but crisper!" is how I'd describe it to a non-hard-core gamer. Give me 60 fps and 1080p and I could give a rat's ass about how complicated the shader that renders photo-realistic ear wax in my RPG protagonist's ears is - that's not going to make me shell out another $400.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago
> Nintendo can't really afford to sell hardware at a loss, for years, just to build-up market share Not really. It's old but back in 2014 we saw Nintendo could run at a lose for many decades if necessary and still be fine because they were sitting on almost $11 billion in cash [1]. Today I thought I read that it's higher but not sure how to look it up. > like Sony/MS can. Sony/MS can just do some Excel accounting magic to hide those losses under the giant umbrella of all their other businesses, but Nintendo - they have to make a profit, perio The PS4 sold for a profit from day one. I'm not sure if the XBox One was similar or not but they're likely making a profit as well. Selling at a loss isn't as common in the latest generation. > We're plateauing quickly in terms of graphical fidelity. The PS3 was an easy sell, a huge upgrade over the PS2, but the PS4 - not so much. "It's kinda like the PS3, but crisper!" is how I'd describe it to a non-hard-core gamer. Problem is you're only thinking in terms of graphical power. The PS4 has easily a better network for online gaming along with a ton of great games. Don't forget about PSVR being a really nice, mid-level entry into the market and is currently the leader as far as all currently released numbers indicate. Being an easy sell or not is going to depend on the person you're selling to but I wouldn't dismiss the PS4 as just "crisper" than the PS3. [1] http://nintendotoday.com/nintendo-not-doomed/ http://nintendotoday.com/nintendo-not-doomed/

elsonrodriguez 10y ago

The Gamecube was actually more powerful than the PS2. An easy comparison here is to look at Resident Evil 4 on both consoles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkKX-nU9fX4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkKX-nU9fX4 If anything, the fact that the Gamecube's graphical superiority didn't help it much in the market is what made Nintendo make their shift towards innovations instead of clock cycles. You can't have both because the market has told Nintendo specifically (via the DS, 3DS, and Wii) that it wants unique experiences, not more pixels.

cwyers 10y ago
Well, then Nintendo really learned the wrong lesson from the Gamecube versus the PS2, because the lesson should have been "people want to be able to play DVDs on something that costs that much and hooks up to your TV, and they don't like switching discs to play a game."
- Volt 10y ago
  Nintendo was considering changing its strategy before the GameCube even came out. See my other post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13769605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13769605.

TulliusCicero 10y ago

This isn't true. The N64 had more graphical power than the PSX, and the Gamecube had more power than the PS2.

rorosaurus 10y ago

I believe this allows them to be more profitable than Xbox/Playstation where they try to squeeze in the best hardware. I also think it aligns well with the younger target audience. The graphics restrictions has also given us some of the more interesting graphics styles in modern Nintendo games.

kibwen 10y ago

It's not just a costs thing. I have never, ever, ever, ever noticed a loading screen in any Nintendo game in my entire life, which is astounding. Lower-fidelity assets must be partly attributable to this, along with clever design to effectively hide whatever loading screens they do need. I have plenty of time to ponder this curiosity while waiting for Bloodborne and FFXV to load...

trump2016 10y ago
You have clearly never played super smash bros brawl. Idk about the Wii U version cause after braw I went back to Melese for good but I assume it's the same.
Narishma 10y ago
There are loading screens in the new Zelda.
- kibwen 10y ago
  I guess I can live with that... but only if they're not at random places in the overworld, like Morrowind or Oblivion on consoles had.
flukus 10y ago
You must have stopped playing nintendo games before the gamecube came out.

Volt 10y ago

I'd highly suggest reading this discussion from 2000 between Miyamoto, Itoi, and Iwata. It pertains to the cancellation of MOTHER 3 on the N64, which was probably their most ambitious project at the time. It's an enlightening read. (https://yomuka.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/earthbound-64-cancellation-interview-itoi-miyamoto-iwata/ https://yomuka.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/earthbound-64-cancel...) It's long, so I'll throw in a few quotes. >Miyamoto: Game quality was at a point when it caught up with top-tier entertainment, with visuals that had come so far that all we had left was coming up with new ideas for us to express. It was like we gained incredible calvarymen to make an unstoppable army. […] We came in right during that time period. I think we got distracted by the prospect of building up that powerful army and lost sight of how we were going to form our battle strategies. The following snippet is the highlight. Note that Iwata became the president of Nintendo shortly after, in 2002. >Iwata: There’s this really strange common sense now that says it takes a huge team of people working with a large scale and a lot of time to create a good game. A good game is supposed to be based on a good idea that’s very fun, even if it’s small. That notion disappeared somewhere along the way, and it’s turned into a battle of who can spend the most time and utilize the most manpower. You could even say that Nintendo needs to take a stand against this. The result: the adoption of the Blue Ocean strategy. http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-10-10-nintendos-iwata-doesnt-fear-failure http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-10-10-nintendos-i... I'm reminded of a Twitter thread in 2013 by CliffyB, where he talks about the game industry's obsession with inflated budgets (http://www.igameresponsibly.com/2013/06/13/cliff-bleszinski-knows-what-gamers-want-inflated-budgets/ http://www.igameresponsibly.com/2013/06/13/cliff-bleszinski-...). This is what Nintendo sought to avoid with a slower adoption of raw power and instead making more focused games.

flukus 10y ago

Nintendo can't sell consoles at a loss the same way sony and MS can. You're also forgetting their portable lineup, their portables have always been under powered compared to their competitors.

bane 10y ago

Nintendo is competing against two competitors with impossibly deep pockets: Sony and Microsoft. They can't do a loss leading razer-and-blades sales model where they lose on the system but make it up on games. Thus every system they sell since the entry of both competitors has to be both profitable and price competitive.