LordRaptor
Member
Int. scene: Man shows up at a 5-year-old's birthday party.
MAN: Yo kid, you're fucking old as balls now!
Are you going to pretend that the Motorola Droid - one of the most popular smartphones of 2011 - isn't "old as balls"?
Int. scene: Man shows up at a 5-year-old's birthday party.
MAN: Yo kid, you're fucking old as balls now!
All Nintendo hardware since the wii has been terrible.
People want Nintendo games and happen to be willing to put up with Nintendo Hardware.
Nintendo would be seeing Pokemon GO levels of success with all of their IP if they were just willing to make them available to people, but Nintendo hates making games that are guaranteed to sell well so they do everything in their power to avoid it.
Nintendo doesn't change because Nintendo doesn't HAVE to change.
As long as it has a diehard fan base that will support it's hardware and business decisions it will continue along the same path it always has.
Now this may not exactly be a good strategy to draw in new customer growth for the future given what it's competing against for the average gaming dollar, unless it sees a significant loss in revenue and customer base, Nintendo will have no real reason to stop being Nintendo.
It's why it sucks so much that the Vita didn't take off as a platform. The Vita could have allowed for much better games if it had the same developer support as the 3DS.
I have a feeling that may sound appealing but will ultimately be a trap. We generally only want our one phone and won't want to go to another for Nintendo games alone, especially when specs will probably be crap compared to the high end Android and iOS phones.I'd like if they were to start making gaming centered android smartphones. Like the Xperia play. Because the dedicated handheld is all but dead at this point.
Nintendo has never used cutting edge tech, except maybe the Gamecube (and whether being slightly better than PS2 a year later qualifies as cutting edge is an argument for somebody else). And the Gamecube wasn't even a success for them.
I think the industry benefits from having options, having a third system do the same thing won't really help anybody.
I want something really portable, I miss The GBA SP and GB micro
The SP was so amazing...
Why? Because they make good money with their current portable hardware paradigm. They're not looking to give us the highest quality, most technically superior experience, they want to put out something relatively cheap, accessible, and laden with some kind of typically superfluous gimmick.
Look at how they intended to follow up the Wii.
The original DS had the worst face buttons known to man. My thumbs still weep to this day.
The first DS had a good ergometry. But people don't buy it. So Nintendo made it worse to hold, but beaut and looking more like a smartphone. After that it sells like a hot cake.
About the power, it helps. For example, with the money need to make one PSP game, a company can made several DS games.
What happens next is 3DS trying to imitate the DS, but don't truly understand why that machine make success.
Resolution wouldn't have directly affected battery life, higher resolution screens only make a noticeable difference in electricity needs if they have to do something special to reach the high resolution. For example, iPad 3 was the "Retina display" iPad, its screen resolution quadrupled over iPad 2, battery life stayed the same. Yes, they used a battery that was almost twice as powerful, but that's because the CPU/GPU were twice as powerful.
For rendering ability, sure it would have used a bit more power (not double, pixel fill rate isn't the only thing GPUs do), but 400x480 isn't that much even with stereoscopic rendering. If Nintendo had designed 3DS with that in mind, they could easily have clocked the GPU a little faster, doubled its video ram, and made the device slightly larger so it could hold a bigger battery (they probably should have done that anyway). Sure it would have been more pricey to manufacture, but Nintendo showed us they had plenty of room to play with, when they dropped the price by $80 in the first year.
Vita had almost 3 times the pixels as a theoretical 400x480 3DS screen, and its GPU was also doing quite a lot more things than 3DS' GPU, so it had reasons for its performance issues. But also, many great Vita games run at native resolution, it's the developers that really want to push console-quality graphics that end up having to make sacrifices. Rayman, for example, runs at native resolution on Vita, and looks gorgeous. 3DS isn't designed for console-quality graphics, it wasn't marketed as a portable console, so wouldn't have that problem.
Smartphones live on a different timeline. Nobody wants dedicated consoles to have a 1-2 year lifespan.Are you going to pretend that the Motorola Droid - one of the most popular smartphones of 2011 - isn't "old as balls"?
Sort of agree, although there have been like 14 different Nintendo handheld devices over the last 20 years, even though the bulk of those are just iterations on the same basic hardware.Smartphones live on a different timeline. Nobody wants dedicated consoles to have a 1-2 year lifespan.
Yeah, Vita had great developer support upfront. Can't really say 3rd parties didn't try on it.Developer support didn't kill the Vita. The market didn't want it.