[zeusk]

> Except Nintendo could do that and be fine.

I believe otherwise. Most of Nintendo's marketing and appeal is based around gameplay and nostalgia; not graphical prowess.

A Nintendo more powerful than one X would cost more since Microsoft amortizes some of the cost over Live services and in-store purchases whereas Nintendo focuses on 1st party games with no recurring revenue. Price elasticity is perhaps most visible in the console arena where consumers are extremely sensitive to upfront costs.

[MBCook]

Right. If they did that they wouldn’t be Nintendo.

Sure they could get all the multi-platform AAA games, but then they would just be another MS. There wouldn’t be anything to distinguish them.

Except their terrible online services.

Their games would have to get better (graphically) to fit on the console as best-of-breed, which would dramatically increase their development cost. So we wouldn’t see the wonderful variety and depth of first party releases from them anymore.

And as history has shown both Microsoft and Sony have HUGE budgets and can afford to lose a few generations to stay in the game. Nintendo can’t.

David go from special player on this side who’s doing great to a nobody. Does anyone really think a lot of parents are going to spend $600 to buy their kids the next Mario game?

[comex]

Eh, Nintendo hasn’t always made lower-spec hardware than the competition. That started with the Wii in 2006, followed by the Wii U in 2012 and now the Switch (but the Switch has an excuse, its portability). Before that, though, the GameCube outspecced the PS2 and the N64 outspecced the PS1.

It’s true that today’s Nintendo can get away with lower specs, largely due to their high reliance on first-party exclusives – both because their titles tend to use cartoony graphics which don’t benefit as much from increased processing power, and because their status as exclusives creates differentiation, a reason to buy Nintendo’s console over the others even if it doesn’t win on specs. And in exchange, Nintendo is typically able to sell their consoles at a lower price point.

But this strategy has its costs, as Nintendo learned with the Wii U. In the original Wii era, it was completely unfeasible to port titles designed for PS3 or Xbox 360 (or PC) to the Wii, because it was far too underpowered (single-core 729MHz CPU, 88MB of RAM!). But it had a large selection of third-party titles anyway, including the big brand names, because the Wii sold so many consoles that third parties were incentivized to develop games (or versions of their games) specifically for it. On the other hand, the Wii U was if anything slightly less far behind than its contemporaries in specs, but still not close enough for successful ports of AAA titles. And since it sold much less, third parties didn’t target it nearly as much as a primary platform, either. The result was a serious dearth of third party titles – which further reduced console sales, a vicious cycle.

The Switch seems to be at least somewhat of a different story. For one thing, as a portable console it’s a successor to not just the Wii U but also the 3DS – which has always been highly popular. And its sales to date have looked more like the Wii’s than the Wii U’s. It also benefits from a relative stagnation in processing capabilities of its competitors, which has given it a bit more room to catch up (even though, as a mobile Tegra based design, it’s still far behind). But it’s still going to suffer a lot from not having the usual complement of AAA games that are on every other system. For most hardcore gamers (which is not Nintendo’s core demographic but nevertheless a big one), it’s a second console, not a first.

If it were just a matter of price, I don’t think it would be all that surprising or unreasonable for Nintendo to come out with an equal-spec console next time around. Maybe not the most likely possibility, but not super unlikely either. And there would be a clear sales pitch. Your $600 figure is an exaggeration – Xbox One X launched at $500, PS4 Pro at $400; and the Switch at $300, only $100 cheaper than the latter. So it would be more like, $400 to buy a console that has the new Mario game (and Zelda and Smash Bros. and all of Nintendo’s other games)... plus CoD, whatever comes after Skyrim, and all the other cross-platform stuff that appeals to kids. Or you can pay the same price for a competitor’s console with the same cross-platform games, no Mario, and far fewer exclusives overall.

In reality, though, it’s not just about price but also portability. While it’s just a guess, I think Nintendo’s next console will be a “Switch 2”, with the same hybrid form factor, and probably a similar NVIDIA architecture to allow backwards compatibility. If so, while they might be able to narrow the gap some more, they won’t come close to getting rid of it, regardless of price point.