Well they have also proved that they can't always win with this strategy they seem to fail success fail success fail success. It's never garranteed for them even though this is more innovative.
It doesn't need to be great hardware, but the Switch rn is to a point where it's pretty unreasonable. I've tried to play Age of Calamity a couple of times now but every time I try I'm greeted with 10 fps whenever I try to do anything which to me makes an action game unplayable
The CFO of Nintendo of America once did a Q&A for our college class. Nintendo *has* to make a profit on their hardware sales. Sony and Microsoft both have other business lines that can subsidize a *multi-billion dollar* subsidy on hardware for years if it can justify hardware lock-in. Nintendo has no other business lines. Besides that, Nintendo designs their products to circumvent the lock-in of the other brands by focusing on unique features and games. They assume if you want monster graphics you probably already own another console. They don't want to play an arms race again.
True, to an extent. They do have another avenue of revenue now in entertainment. The super Mario bros movie made a shit ton of money. And they now have theme parks. But yeah, they don't care about super juiced consoles, they know their games are fun and that sells
How is it possible to be a hardware enthusiast and be so ignorant about hardware specs? Go look at the GameCube and PS2 versions of Resident Evil 4. The GameCube was cutting edge at the time.
Gamecube also was more capable than OG xbox. The only thing that really held it back was the mini disc format. Higher disc cost for publishers and held less data.
i'm 16 yo and don't consider myself a hardware enthusiast but i thought everybody knew the gamecube was a beast specs wise. just look at RE4, Metroid Prime, F-Zero they hold up pretty well even today. When i heard him saying the gamecube wasnt on par with the ps2 my heart stopped for a moment lol
@@Anradak It's a common misconception because the PS2 was hyped with hypothetical specs and looked space age. 't Was part of Sony's marketing and it worked really well. You'd expect better from hardware enthusiasts though.
@@baddabaddabaddaswing Hey the faster data access doesn't really check out, sorta. Apparently the Xbox had faster read speeds, but on the other hand if your disc holds less data you can locate data faster. Miyamoto said in an interview the mini discs offered better data access, though probably the most important reason was to maintain a proprietary form factor over which Nintendo maintained control. It also allowed the compact form factor of the console and they intentionally avoided a disc loading tray because they break down easier. Gamecube was built well.
Nintendo was competitive in performance in the home console space up to the gamecube. Then they changed strategies. But, in the portable space, they’ve always prioritized battery life over performance and it has been good strateg for these types of consoles. The switch is the same, the only reason people even complain about it is because it being a hybrid makes people think it should compete with purely home consoles. Doesn’t make sense. Switch is a portable first. NSW follows the same line as all the previous portables from nintendo. The same is gonna be true of the switch 2.
Man, this stuff hurts to watch as a gaming historian, The GameCube was the last console that was a "hardware pusher" it wasn't the most powerful, but that doesn't mean that this wasn't what they were going for. At the time it was up against PS2 OGXbox and the Sega DreamCast, with a 2 year head start, their ultimate Rival. SNES, N64 and GC were all hardware pushers, Satoru Iwata is famously quoted: "If we continue down the same path as we have in the past, people may become tired of gaming" Recognizing that pushing hardware wasn't effective for them as a brand, and to lean into a new family friendly console where everyone could play together. He went into RND1 and found them working on a motion control peripheral for the GC, and had them building a Motion control GC very quickly. Gamers no longer being the core audience of the Wii, were upset and flocking to competitors, Nintendo's response to this was an HD Console, but the name was just too bad, and it was already far too late, with no killer app to really draw people to the console, the WiiU was Doomed to fail from day 1, but its existence can be boiled down to "for the sake of better hardware (pushing)"
I agree with their strategy having 2 boxes be similar to me is boring. Gameboy Color motion/GBA motiotans rumble carts to Wii motion. Then again NES SNES, New 3DS. Wii U are fine names. Not great but to gamers mostly understandable. Then again Xavix Port was ex Nintendo employees. Very Wii Sports like but peripherals as controllers for games. Gizmondo and Wii U had their talking aka Wii U chat. GameCube had GBA with it like Dreamcast VMU, Xbox was fine. PS2 had pressure sensitive buttons. Games were refining from PS1/N64/Saturn etc. but they had their gimmicks. The analogue stick was still not 100% camera. Even games like Knack as old God of War format. Yet for dodging. While you had attacks, camera, for tools /to collect things, acceleration and braking or more. So to me while Sony did peripherals or the odd controller ideas. Xbox did impulse triggers as well before HD Rumble/Dualsense features. Or SmartGlass, Vita remote play and Wii U dual screen elements or off tv play. They sometimes have similar ideas. To me gaming is boring because of the dumbed down for casuals movesets, modes, quest design. That's why I get bored. PS3/360/Wii. Was fine. But refining them for PS4/Xbox One/Wii U to just even more games. Many Indies are nostalgia focused in platformers or racing. Yet I can go back and find better ideas in 5-6th gen. Why because Indies focus on popular games. Or make the most generic core then what they offered of cooler mechanics. Or we get play as a cat/goose wow how magical I had that and better animal abilities in 5-6tth gen games not so dumbed down AAA or Indies I get so disappointed. So to me if games are generic I need gimmicks to care or I just avoid more and more games. Games with good design don't need gimmicks. Splatoon 2 was the best puzzle/platformer shooter why because most are shooting with platforming but purely combat. The ink guns used in platforming. Barely happens and that's why I loved playing that 2017 solo mode in 2024 for the first time is it's HOW they do it. But I hated how Pikmin 4 and Bayonetta 3 did things. They just ruined the gyro and the core design of Pikmin 4 for me to hate it. I get gamers hating the Wii but I came around to it and love it. Motion when done well is worth it. Red Steel 2 balances motion and buttons better than PSVR2 games. Because they overcomepate on REALISM. Or awkward set pieces. The set pieces being awkward is fine I don't mind that but bad gyro to reload a gun when I know the tracking isn't capable yet. Don't try and fool me developers I know the tech isn't there yet and it barely functions to have fingers do it. So why bother. Do more particular things. The Wii U I mean we use phones to set up TVs. That's how it's repeated. Not DS 2 angle videos or lid closing. The Wii U people went nope TV and I went what. Seriously the Gamepads can do so much. The Surface Duo and Samsung phones are what I wish the Wii U was. Less restrictions on apps/games on screens. The Xbox Series Quick Resume comes close but not close enough. The fact PCs and phones have app switching even yet consoles don't. Sure Vita and Xbox One or others kind of do but phones offer it more. Minecraft Vita or Borderlands 2 Vita 1.0 work fine and I can use trophy app. With updates it's them only you can't open a second app to check trophies or do anything else from the OS menu. Battery life over graphics. I'd rather a Switch or 3DS for 3-7 hours then a PC handheld for 1-2 hours for the sake of power. But most gamers don't care about hardware gimmicks. I have over the years and researched and experimented (not physically I'm not engineer but have mentally questioned what's possible). While IR could be better I mean Switch it Pocket PC docking aka Steam Deck docking, PSP cables to the TV. Sega Nomad continued. But that's not a bad thing. It's just not as amazing to me it's been done before. The Joycons were a good idea. The handheld smallness isn't ideal but hey a split screen handheld is amazing. Joycons to hand people with fewer controls is interesting. HD Rumble is something compared to impulse triggers and Dualsense haptics or tension of triggers.
@@TheAlex3712what really helped the Switch was that it did what the Wii U promised, but even better. Plus it had such a strong lineup in its first year on the market that only got better over time.
Just to correct you, it was Takeda that said (during Iwata Asks): "This may sound paradoxical, but if we had followed the existing Roadmaps we would have aimed to make it "faster and flashier." In other words, we would have tried to improve the speed at which it displays stunning graphics. But we could not help but ask ourselves, "How big an impact would that direction really have on our customers?" During development, we came to realize the sheer inefficiency of this path when we compared the hardships and costs of development against any new experiences that might be had by our customers. It must have been about a year after we started developing Wii. After speaking with Nintendo's development partners, I became keenly aware of the fact that there is no end to the desire of those who just want more. Give them one, they ask for two. Give them two, and next time they will ask for five instead of three. Then they want ten, thirty, a hundred, their desire growing exponentially. Giving in to this will lead us nowhere in the end. I started to feel unsure about following that path about a year into development." And they were right when looking at the current state of gaming now.
Ps2 was sold before and after the life of the gamecube. Ps2 could take a dvd 4.7gb of files and textures. Play movies. The ps2 did more. You could even run linux on it.
@@pothitoskourtisidk if I’d say the extremely small minority of people modding a console is gonna make all that much of a difference in overall sales 😂
Love how after more than a decade of them doing this and having more success than their competitors people still question their clealy succesful business model.
@@skellez That failed more because of its marketing and name though. Lots of people thought it was yet another peripheral for the wii. The switch is almost two generations behind and look at how its doing
@@gwimbly519 Well that and the absolute lack of games. Sure there was the wonderful 101, Smash Bros and Mario Kart. There that's it, that's literally all the Nintendo games. I joke but really nobody cared about any of the other games, even the Mario games were bleh (with maybe the exception of Mario Maker). Nintendo hopefully this time has a lineup of games coming out the year (and the next) of the new console, which I suspect is one of the many reasons they kept delaying the announcement (and we'll also see if their anti-scalp measures measure up).
@@fluidthought42 mario kart 8, smash, mario 3d world, pikmin 3, bayonetta 2, wonderful 101, mario maker, kirby, new super mario u, star fox zero, xenoblade chronicles x, etc
By not caring about performance, Nintendo is able to make consoles far cheaper than the competition, and when you're targeting kids and families, that's always going to be the winning factor. You can literally get a Switch Lite for under $300 AUD rn, while the PS5 is $800 AUD. Like it's not even a competition for parents at that point
That's why I bought my Switch for $300 used with a dock but no grip or lanyards in a retro game store when in an EB it was $400-500 OG or OLED but Lite was reasonablely cheaper just wasn't what I wanted. Aussie prices yes. Pro controller was I remember and kept the box $59 but the old sticker was $69. So about a game price as they usually are. The Xbox Controller has impulse triggers of Xbox One, a share button z a grip I find is like sand and hate so I use the Xbox one with Bluetooth controller (the 2nd model). A lot of tech, a fair shell. The Wii U roo was ok. Wasn't into the triggers but the sticks were good and the plastic was very Wii/Wii U design matching but not great. I use the Gamepad for everything because I love it. XD I didn't even grow up with a Wii U but Wii/DS pickups to a Wii U later. I loved the Wii U faults, possibilities I dreamt up for it to expand on it. Software app/games and hardware use cases of gimmicks. For families and kids I think it's fair. For people in their 20s too it's fair to a degree and not for everyone of price or game appeal. The first party prices sure but third parties for $20 yeah it's possible. Seeing $5 PS3/360/PS2 in error game store. To $28 PS4/Xbox One games or higher in bargain bins. The odd Switch games in bargain bins. I usually get the first party for Christmas or birthdays. But may the third parties for cheap. I am the only one that cared for a Switch others tried it and moved on. I knew what I was getting and got a Wii U 2018, 3DS 2020 for around $140 or so. Vita around $100 or $200. 2000 for $100 in 2017, 1000 for $200 in 2022 I think among other retro consoles under $100. PS3 Super Slim 500GB for $59. For the average person it makes sense and it being family first. For me being a collector yeah my perception and expectations are totally different. :) Like people could get old stuff or a Switch to take it places, have a split Joycons or Pro controller. Play solo or with family. Why not. Whatever family friendly, mature or solo that enjoy both. Like animated movies some of us too like family friendly games and mature games. :) So to me having a PS3/360 type handheld after the Vita and phones were for so long. I find the Switch fine. People just go oh no it's not PC handheld or phone now or console/PC competitive and like yeah sure. But it's a PS2/360 handheld on the go. Vita and phones people seem to forget that was the gap before. The 3DS didn't end up with a Tegra but it could have.
Wii u hardware was expensive as hell to design lol. Would have been waaaaaaaaay cheaper to just have a normal more powerful cpu and more powerful gpu instead of the transforming PPC Frankenstein monster that was wii u.
How is Nintendo making bad names for their consoles? With exception of Wii U, Nintendo usually has good names for the consoles, what do you guys want they to called it? Nintendo 1, Nintendo 2, Nintendo 3? Just put a number there like PlayStation? Game Cube under powered? Are those guys serious?
@@kellymoses8566 It can def rough to run sometimes, but im not sure what you're expecting? The fact that tears of the kingdom runs at a solid 30fps on switch hardware is a technical marvel
I hate when people talk about the GameCube's technical specs when they have no idea what they're talking about. The weakest console of that generation was the PS2 (or the Dreamcast except for texture memory). This isn't to say any of these consoles were bad, but the engineering of the GameCube was amazing... From a technical perspective. From a marketing perspective, it was a bad design, unfortunately, for reasons like this. It was designed to be like a like a lunchbox and it didn't communicate anything the average person cared about. But looking back, the graphics of the system were beautiful for the time.
I think the design of the GC was amazing, the only problem is that purple being the main color, it made the console looks like a toy, in an era where everybody want to make videogames looks more serious.
@@felipeemanuel5790I had both a black and an orange one (I believe it was called "spice") during the system's lifetime. The system felt very clucky, being partially designed to be portable, and stood out a bit too much. A black version certainly fit in a bit better, but it was still a bit out of place compared to the DVD Player design of the PS2. The original Xbox wasn't any better in this regard, though, feeling like alien technology under your TV
I was following the development of Dolphin and was hyped seeing how it was gonna be an incredibly well designed and powerful console, thinking Nintendo may be making a comeback. Then it came out and it was mocked for being purple and having a handle and I understood it was all about image. Just look at that PS2 font or the look of the console. Nintendo didn't stand a chance. A shame because hardware-wise it was a fantastic console; powerful, efficient, compact, cheap, and it had some great games.
Gamecube being more powerful than the PS2 is a myth from what I can tell. Switch them and that's accurate though. Gamecube had slightly lower capabilities in pretty much every regard but had the edge of being far easier to develop for. PS2's true power was a proprietary mess of hardware tricks you had to be familiar with and have in mind when designing your game, so multiplat games usually ran worse on it. For example Kingdom Hearts 2 gets away with hundreds of textured particle effects flying everywhere and genuinely good looking bloom at locked 30fps. Infact, that's something even the Dreamcast beats the Gamecube at. Xbox, PS2, and Dreamcast were generally good at handling the order to render translucent polygons in, but the Gamecube kinda sucked at it so you see far less particle effects and such in Gamecube games. Nintendo consoles have always been easy to develop for, so Gamecube had a pretty consistently good looking library instead of PS2's "sometimes amazing and often pretty rough"
RUclips filters probably won't let me post a link but this illustrates pretty well what I mean. This is the only part of KH2 that lags at all on PS2 hardware and honestly I don't think the Gamecube would have been able to run this at all ruclips.net/video/uOL6vVWT7w4/видео.html
@Rahlii Even if that is a myth (I don't think it is, it beats the PS2 on most parameters, but sometimes suffered from smaller disc size and slightly lower sram on the GPU), it was still on par with the other consoles. Games didn't look significantly downgraded like the Wii after did compared to other consoles.
@@JunScunthorpethe GameCube had a WAY more capable GPU... like, massively more. there's no myth. the PS2 had some cool hardware features, which developers were able to use to punch about its weight. its ability to render a shitload of transparencies for example. but that's about it. the GameCube and the Xbox were far above the capabilities of the PS2. the GC and Xbox were relatively close in raw power, but the Xbox had a more modern architecture which allowed for shader effects that the GC couldn't do. to actually see what happens if you port a GC game to PS2 is easily visible when you look at RE4 or Killer 7. RE4 was massively downgraded in terms of texture resolution, texture varuety, detail density etc. and Killer 7 ran horrendously bad in some scenes, while it ran perfectly smooth on GC. or play Time Splitters 3 on both. the PS2 struggles hard in some scenes, while Xbox and GC run at a near perfect 60fps in the same scenes
@@kevboard They're close enough that their hardware features are kinda what distinguish PS2 and Gamecube more than raw specs, but I still feel that the best looking PS2 games easily exceed anything on the Gamecube. I did acknowledge that cross platform games usually ran a lot worse on PS2, but that mostly seems to come down to what I mentioned, the PS2 being hard to develop for especially if the game isn't designed specifically and solely for PS2. Shadow the Hedgehog was WELL within the capabilities of the PS2, even being as harsh on the console as possible, but it's the only port of the game that lags because of the prior mentioned reason.
8:02 the GameCube is actually more powerful than the PS2. The problem was since it used smaller discs you just couldn’t tell that it was more powerful because they couldn’t put higher resolution textures in the games
@@pothitoskourtis the PS2 actually had a couple games that ran in 1080i HD such as Grand Turismo 4 and Tourist Trophy. Also back when those consoles first came out 480p was considered an HD version of 480i. It looked significantly better. and 480p looked pretty high res on a good CRT
I played many Gamecube games that had high resolution textures for it's time and the lighting is way better than the PS2... smaller discs made games more expensive requiring advanced compression techniques and no FMVs (never liked them).
they could put higher res texture, they just couldn't also put FMVs. Look at the differance in texture res in RE4. PS2 looks like muddy garbage in comparison.
7:56 Gamecube was more powerful than the Playstation 2 and had an ATI graphics chipset in it. It was middle of the pack of its generation, with the OG XBox just demolishing both of them.
The original Xbox’s CPU wasn’t RISC based compared to both GameCube and PS2, and wasn’t nearly as efficient either. Having a higher clock speed doesn’t make it more powerful since it’s an entirely different system that’s capable of executing different instructions and the fact that the processor was simply an x86 CISC processor.
And then I've yet to see a single Xbox OG game that looked better than best GC could offer tho. Maybe it was on paper? Halo 2 ? Metroid Prime 2 looked better
Maybe, but the Xbox had more RAM and a hard drive built in to stream assets from. That's why games like Morrowind were on it, why it got the best versions of many cross platform games like Max Payne, etc. Don't get me wrong I had a GameCube and loved it, and Nintendo did a great job at showcasing its horsepower, but the Xbox was the more powerful of that generation.
@@gerowen The Sony PSP had more ram than the PS2, yet no one would dare call the handheld more powerful than a home console. And on original phat units of the PS2, the system had a way to use hard drives anyway. But in general, having more ram and a way to access the hard drive isn’t everything either. A good example on why I would argue that the original Xbox isn’t as powerful as people say is it by simply looking at games such as Metal Gear Solid 2, not only does it look worse but it runs at a lower frame rate too, despite having “more powerful hardware” on paper.
The PS2 was the weakest of the 3 and even though the original models "could" use a hard drive, they didn't ship with it and there were only ever a couple of games, like Final Fantasy XI online, that used it. Then they released the slim models that couldn't use one at all without modding it so developers just made their games without the hard drive in mind. The advantage the Xbox had was that developers knew that every single Xbox had a hard drive in it, so they could plan for and leverage that. Halo 2 even had add-on content on a separate disc for the multiplayer that would install to the drive and like I said, games like Morrowind that wanted to be more open could just stream assets from the drive in real time instead of having to thrash the DVD drive around. I remember that the PS2 version of MGS3 could basically use a whole memory card on its own because of the optional camo you could unlock being saved to the memory card. Metal Gear, especially during that time, was very PlayStation oriented. Kojima loved looking for ways to do cool, cinematic stuff with the PlayStation hardware and the OG Xbox didn't do particularly well in Japan because it was so big, so my guess with the Metal Gear games is that they just didn't care enough to optimize the games for that console. Honestly I'm surprised they bothered releasing them on Xbox at all.
Ps2 had alien tech and Xbox was a glofied computer so they could do weird things game cube couldnt. Like ps2 could run Just Cause 1 which has a 1000 km sq map and Xbox can run HL1.
The fact my kids still play our WiiU quite often shows graphics don’t really matter. It’s all about the game and fun. You buy a Nintendo for their exclusives not hardware
8:04 the GameCube was a powerhouse. Not quite the original XBox but definitely more powerful than the PS2. The NES/SNES/N64/GameCube all competed on power. Just their handhelds were years behind on power. Something they then applied to their consoles starting with the Wii.
I felt like the PSP was ahead of its time - I also never had one but was saddened nonetheless when I heard they and the PS Vitas were discontinued. Apparently between the problems they had and Sony at the time it just wasn't meant to be.
@@SegmentW I think the PS Vita was ahead of its time as well, but I also think it wasn't ahead of its time _enough_ for it to fulfil the promise of a true console experience in handheld. It was fantastic tech, but not a fantastic product if you know what I mean (the totality in value proposition, features, marketing communication, game line-up, etc). I think why the DS/3DS line truly beat out Sony's handhelds is because it excelled at its promise: being the best in handheld gaming, at a very competetive price point.
@@seaofseeofMy mother refused to get me one because of the memory sticks. She took one look at that extra cost and said "hell no". A lot of other kids I knew had the same experience.
The problem was that Sony made an amazing portable console, but never care to create strong IPs for portable, that was one of the reasons for the Vita failure.
I would say Gravity Rush, Soul Sacrifice, Freem Wars, and Tearaway were potentially strong IP's. They just didn't have as many consistent big releases. The Vita had a lot of gems though. Mostly if you were in more niche Japanese games but there were some great games on that system. @@felipeemanuel5790
It's a feature, not a bug. Weaker hardware means games are cheaper to create. Meanwhile people blame all the gaming layoffs on AAA games being too expensive to produce. Nintendo knows what they're doing.
Mind you, even Nintendo execs admit that the cost of development is only going to increase. You can see it as a necessary evil in some of Nintendo's shortcomings like the Switch's chugging in Tears of the Kingdom or the absolute mess that was that last pokemon game. Some things people absolutely want scaled up... but that doesn't mean everything has to be scaled up to maximum settings all the time. Hopefully this new console will be a sweet spot that doesn't require extra development either for optimizing on potato hardware or for spit shining raytracing on every speck of shit.
DS & DS Lite were like Gameboy and Gameboy pocket: they removed the Gameboy port in the DSi to reduce the cost. The DS hardware was the same right up to the 3DS line (with the non-foldable 2ds) and then switched to the "New" line as far as I'm aware. It's confusing.
@@jolioding_2253no it's the same. The original DS just had a garbage back light. And the DS lite had a brighter one with more brightness options than just "turn off the light"
idk if by "The DS hardware was the same right up to the 3DS line" you mean the DSi too but just in case: the DSi had more powerful hardware that the ds (67MHz+33MHz CPUs with 4MB of RAM VS 133MHz+33MHz CPUs with 16MB of RAM)
Spoiler Alert: Nintendo does care. They realize the consumer will not spend $500 on a new console every 3 years, so they do the most with what they can, at a fair price, and squeeze as much as they can out of every console. Only a child cant see something so obvious
My Nintendo Switch never has to get cleaned out, meanwhile I have to unscrew my PS5 and risk damaging it if I make a mistake and clean out the dust with air cans and vacuum every 6 months or the PS5 could break. Oh yeah and I have over 80 physical switch games, with no fear of being locked out to play them. The other companies are doing it wrong.
5:23 At 8 inches 1080p "might" be useful, but honestly the 720p on the Switch OLED and 800p on my Steam Deck OLED looks pretty damned good and helps with performance as well. I wonder if they wouldn't opt for something like 1600x900 for an 8 inch screen instead of going full 1080p. That would still look really good at that screen size without sacrificing too much performance.
Considering rumors of official DLSS support, that might not matter as much anymore. Especially if handheld it does run like 720-900 but upscales to 1080 and while docked it runs 1080 but upscales to 4k (or whatever marketable equivalent).
Nintendo tried to go competitive with power during the N64 and GCN eras. The N64 had more power than the devs managed to use, but Nintendo's insistence on cartridge based media and anti-third-party policies made everybody abandon the console in favor of the PS1, and the GCN nailed it with the shape, controller and power, but screwed up once again with the stupid mini discs and couldn't compete with the momentum of the PS1>PS2 and Microsoft coming into play with the XBox, as the gaming industry was in its edgy teenager years and anything with color was deemed "childish." Realizing power wasn't the solution they went full on gimmicky with the DS and Wii, but they couldn't replicate the success with the 3DS and Wii U because they were too expensive for what they packed and no one wanted to develop for them. Nintendo managed to make the 3DS a success by cutting its price, but they never dropped the price for the Wii U and that hurt them badly. The Switch is considered underpowered for this generation because it's based on a chip that already outdated during its launch and could never do ray tracing, but look at its sales numbers! Being competitive on a hardware front would not have given them any advantage, it would only have made the Switch more expensive and less accessible. Why compete in power when that has only been catastrophic for them? On the other hand, they can't just do a repeat of the previous console, that has also never worked for them either, with the sole exception being the Game Boy to GBA era. I think they have learned where the sweet spot between innovation and hardware is now, given the leaked specs.
The original Xbox wasn’t that successful either and it only did well in America. As for the N64, it wasn’t really a boneheaded move for them to use cartridges since slapping a CD drive would’ve made the N64 even more expensive at launch.
@@crazedlunatic43 But Nintendo charged for each cartridge manufactured, and it wasn't a small price. That's one of the reasons they didn't go with CD, because CD printing was done by third party companies.
@@TwilightWolf032 You have to understand that technology back then was very limited in comparison to what we have now. Back then, you could only have a 2x speed CD drive with very limited memory ram available. Even with the slowest CD drive speeds and tiny memory pool, it would’ve made the N64 just as expensive, if not, more expensive than the Sega Saturn’s infamous $399 price. It was either the price of the system or it’s games that would have to bite the bullet, and ultimately the N64 would’ve been too steep compared to what Sony was offering with their much simpler PS1.
Mini discs had faster data access like cartridges, without the cost or big discrepancy in storage capacity. For a video game system it was a great choice, but the thing is that dvd playback was a big thing at a time when standalone players were expensive and few people had one yet.
Similar to DS Lite and 3DS, alongside Switch Lite and Switch, It will simply be another console. While playing Nintendo games I realized that most of the games have a degree of consistency, without regard to random ads and other things that are borderline annoying when it comes to games that are on Steam. You buy what you get, sort of idea. And I wish that this was standard for Steam games but it’s not, and therefore makes even the simplest Nintendo games feel superior to the most graphically intense games on Steam. No unintended bloat, and no overwhelming popups.
Why Sony and Microsoft are spending $300 million and taking 6 years to make one game Nintendo's stylistic game with quality that doesn't even cost a 10th of those AAA games, still sells more then 20 million copies without fail
Uhh they only have like 8 games that actually sold more than 20 million and excluding Pokemon (which is its own problem around quality), the top nintendo all have pretty long development cycles or staple games from the prior gen ( Mario Kart and Smash ). It's not like they're constantly dishing out low cost bangers on their own and they still have an issue around shovelware from 3rd parties.
I think you may have it backwards. Nintendo cares a ton about hardware that allows them to design games differently. The Switch hybrid console concept with removable controllers that could be used to play 2 player games is definitely nothing to scoff at. I think the competition just sees hardware as pushing better graphics and almost nothing else. At least Sony has the cool haptics and adaptive triggers.
Nintendo cares about hardware - but not in the same way. They are not out for absolute performance, but they want devices to be small, light, durable and cheap. Gunpei Yokoi, inventor of the DPad and Gameboy, was famously quoted "lateral thinking with withered technology". No hardware in the last years was anywhere near what was technically possible, even the motion tracking technology in the Wii was years old. But they found creative ways to leverage it. And it hasn't hurt them in any way, in the contrary: instead of a technology war with Microsoft and Sony, they basically operate in their own market and are very fine with it.
Exactly. It is kind of what Meta is doing on the VR side. People bemoan about it not being powerful like PCVR, but became the bestselling VR headset with the Quest 2 due to how affordable and accessible it was. It broke down the huge barrier of entry and allowed people to play wirelessly. That seemed to be a worthy tradeoff for power. I wish power wasn't the only thing people see in regards to hardware. The Switch's hybrid concept and versatility is still really impressive and allows for a ton of flexibility in how you play.
Except they do care about hardware. Even so much that their consoles are confident to use and easy to program for. Except for the Wii U, where they cared sooo much on the utility of the console that it became overly complex.
That story at the end of Luke's brother one hand carrying his anvil of a PC with a welded-on handle and Linus linking that to the GC is one of the perfect moments I watch WanShow for.
As ironic as it sounds, giving users what they want is a bad business model and ultimately unrealistic. You can't have a powerful system that consistently and swiftly put out new games every few months for cheap. It takes many years and ridiculous amount of money to put out stunning AAA 4K games. It's just unsustainable.
Because having a larger canvas and brighter paint makes not for better art work The mona lisa is not made better with a larger work space or an entire gamut of colors to paint with. It’s great exactly because it is subdued and restricted with particular intention
Nintendo has never been competitive with portable hardware and the Switch carries on that legacy. The Game Boy Proved you didn't need crazy hardware and the Switch proves it today.
It doesn't prove anything. It can't even run the most basic indie titles without lagging. 90% of the games are on 30fps. Keep in mind the SNES which was 30 years ago ran a lot of titles on 60 fps.
@@GdBearman Switch spec is TECHNICALLY similar to the spec of most $100 phones today. 4GB of RAM, quad core ARM processor and 32-64GB of storage. The only thing that gives Nintendo so much advantage is their very strict exclusivity on their own IPs
The gamecube was definitely competitive. It got hamstrung by the mini DVDs which could only hold 1.4GB, it could have had a much better showing if a lot of 3rd parties didn't have to bitcrush the textures and videos etc.
No they could just print the game on two discs then but very few needed that anyway. There was a Resident Evil game I believe. The mini discs allowed for faster data access and Gamecube had graphically impressive games.
@@desamster Even the ones that did 2 discs like metal gear solid, lower quality videos and textures, a lot of effort to cram the data in with decent quality, a lot of repeated data across discs so you didn't really have 2.8GB to play with even then. And mini disc did nothing for data access, the reason gamecube had faster access than ps2 was because ps2 was earlier in the dvd lifecycle, very early because sony was pushing for it as a format, so the ps2 had a slower reader.
N has great hardware, crippled by stupid decisions: SNES: processor not fast enough, slowdown with 6+ sprites from release. Ultra64: insufficient RAM, needed expansion. Lunchbox: minidiscs crippled ports. Wii: motion controls. (I own one, thousand hours +, hate the waggles. U: crap marketing, expensive tab. Switch: drift king.
XBOX names are bad because they make it hard to differentiate between the consoles. When you get to naming "XBOX" system "One X" and "Series X", you know something went wrong.
It's interesting seeing people react to Nintendo's tweet on the Successor because I've seen people be like "is that it?" but actually that's ALL it needed to be. It got 38 million views in a day aswell that was full of negativity mostly towards Microsoft. It does amaze me how much Nintendo can grab millions of people like that. They've got the audience where they want them. There's a lot of struggle going on in the industry so I imagine 3rd-Parties are hoping on Nintendo to recreate another success or else the industry's going be in a hard place for a good 3-4 years.
Nintendo’s naming isn’t even close to as bad as Xbox because they never use the same name twice they always add something like U or 3DS Xbox has so many consoles with X and S in the title as well as calling the 3rd Xbox the Xbox one. It makes no sense.
"Why Doesn't Nintendo Care about Hardware?" Because as the late great Satoru Iwata said 20 years ago in 2004: *"The Time When Horsepower Alone Made An Important Difference Is Over."*
This guys failed to do their research, I can't take them seriously. The GameCube was last console from Nintendo that focused on hardware. It was the most powerful console until the OG Xbox came in. The PS2 is a early generation of a multi-media device like a cheap DVD player, a music player and a game console. And games were cheaper to make on the PS2 since it has regular CD trays. The GameCube's minidisk ment you have to add another layer to the disk and that cost more money.
Ummm…. It’s always been about hardware. Just not high performance hardware. But hardware in the form of functionality and features, Nintendo has been head and shoulders above everyone else since the dawn of time.
BINGO. But you cant reason with these PC nerds. When they think tech, they think chips and that all they think about. Sucks to be them because PC gaming SUCKS.
@@timo4463 Ask the shills that made this video why USB 3 keeps randomly disconnecting on PC and why it hasn't been fixed for over 10 years. When I play my games on consoles, USB 3 DOES NOT DISCONNECT. That's only one example.
@@Molybed1 never expirineced that Maybe use a better Motherboard or cable? What are soem stuff thats every PC Gamer expirienced Like having to pay extra to Play online?
@@timo4463 That's the beauty of consoles though. It's no fuss, turn key solution. I love PC gaming just as much as my Switch and RG35xxH retro handheld. There are pros and cons to everything. But Linus and these guys are totally wrong about Nintendo not being so focused on hardware. High performance chips, sure, I'll give you that. Hardware is much more than just transistors.
The main problem with the push for cutting-edge hardware is you are competing against home computers and your hardware is already dated the moment you release the console. For sure 4k graphics look nice but it isn't necessary for making a good game. I expect the next console will be a slight bump in performance since we are seeing more games suffer lower FPS but I don't expect it to be a large jump. Who knows though. For better or worse, Nintendo does its own thing.
One key factor no one is mentioning is affordability. It launched as the lowest proced console at the time. And the lite is still the cheapest console in the market now. Which is why I always get a slight feeling of classism every time someone starts talking about how they wished the switch was monumentally more powerful (I.E. expensive)
Gamecube was the last "power console" they developed. After that, the changes were very minimal for the later consoles.. They began to focus on their own way of doing things.
The code name is "Ounce" based on OS data mining. Also there have been references to a game codenamed "UKing-O". "UKing" was the codename for Breath of the Wild, and Switch ports end in "-S" (so the Switch port of BOTW is internally called "UKing-S"). UKing-O plus the rumors of what was shown to the press seem to point to an upgraded port of BOTW on the Switch 2. (Also btw, games ported to 3ds end in "-C" (3ds's codename was CTR))
I think they actually care a lot about hardware, but they don't care or boast about SPECS. Apple has shown us that specs don't matter and Nintendo has too. They create world class games and experiences. They don't want to be a media center, Netflix hub, DVD player or anything else. They care about the games and I'm glad they are different. This latest generation with PS5 AND XBX Series has been garbage.
Powerful hardware doesn't automatically make your console launch successful. Nintendo learn that long time ago... Nintendo just have to wait for SONY and XBOX to implode themselves by chasing tech and making their overall game developments cost too expensive to maintain.
Agreed. Backwards compatibility, or power never meant success. Marketing, games with appealing elements did. People that look closely know this. People seeking things they want to see don't.
You said they don't look back, but not necessarily. You have to remember the big problem w/ N64 was that Nintendo refused to update to disc media at the time, which RLY hurt game design. It may have led to graphics holding up better in the long run bc it enabled developers to include specialized chips with their games, but you couldn't put the same sized game on a PS1 (650mb) disc & a N64 cartridge (64mb). They decided to stick w/ that model because it worked so well on all their previous systems despite trends in contemporary gaming & the before they brought.
Gamecube was the most graphically advanced of its generation. It just had a similar problem to N64 with a gimped storage medium. Load times were faster than competition due to the smaller disc, though.
Nintendo has never cared to be on the front lines of hardware. that said, they've never not cared, either. the Wii looks significantly better than the Gamecube, although the gap isn't as big as the PS2>PS3 or Xbox>360. then the Wii>WiiU graphics jump felt huge to me. but Nintendo knows that stronger hardware != better games. we have plenty of HD trash right now and the demand for retro games seems abnormally high to me. Indie games are also doing really well. but when the top-of-the-line games look better than real life, why upgrade? why not just let that stuff get cheaper, and be satisfied where we are? for example, audio casette tapes (with the right noise cancelling) honestly can sound pretty great. since their creation, we made CDs and MP3s which have made audio more convenient and cheaper, but the quality hasn't significantly changed, and CDs became mainstream in 1991 (according to Google), same year Sonic 1 came out. if we're hitting the same point graphically, then it makes all the sense in the world to hang back a generation and not bother with diminishing returns. I say Nintendo is doing exactly the smartest thing, although I wish they'd rerelease more legacy content, fix joycon drift, and stop suing everyone and their grandmothers.
I truly believe that a big part of the state of the games industry has been the chase of higher and higher specs. More scope means more investment, more investment means taking fewer risks which results in the kind of saturation and consolidation we’ve seen. Games have never been about hardware and I really respect that Nintendo understands that. The most exciting games have always been the low spec ones at least for me. Like think of the most iconic games of each generation they were pretty much all games that could run on low-spec machines.
I just find it funny that the "power" argument NEVER covers perf/watt, but when comparing GPU generations to explain why RDNA had less TFLOPS than GCN2, it magically exists. Switch was unveiled in 2016, and at the time was the most powerful mobile SOC on the planet until Apple dethroned it. Nintendo Switch runs games at Watts PS5 can't even boot with. If tech is going to be accurately compared, it shouldn't be done in such a disingenuous way by RUclipsrs and gaming press. Switch 2 will be fine, and will be capable of 1440p natively.
Nintendo Switch is the 3rd highest selling console of all time, more people own Mario Kart 8 on the Switch (62m) than they do a PS5 (60m), there's your answer.
i think 800p is emerging as a defacto standard for handheld game systems. Its the perfect balance of performance and sharpness. 1080p on a 8" diagonal screen is slightly diminishing returns because of costs to things like performance and battery life when 800p gets you most of the way there and is easier to drive and cheaper to manufacture. If its over 800p ill genuinely be surprised, even with the advent of dlss.
My main issue with Nintendo consoles is that they always come with a caveat compared to the competition. N64 was cartridges, GC was Mini-DVD, Wii was a generation behind on performance, WiiU as well plus the controller, and the Switch is still 7th gen performance.
Referring to the title, Nintendo has said they are the only company that is a game company, all the others are tech companies. I think thats why they make oddball decisions from a tech perspective. Like using 2 gen old hardware for a modern console :p
1. The more powerful the hardware, the bigger the work load, the longer the game dev time will be, less games overall, much pricier games, games focus and blow budget on gwaphix solely, doomed to repeat the downfall of AAAs 2. Price, accessibility, affordability 3. Handhelds will simply never be on par with non-handhelds. That's the unfortunate reality of small hardware and battery-powered devices. It's a LOT better now than it was in 2015/17 tho 4. Consoles have absolutely no value outside of Portability and Exclusivity. Only Nintendo has both. PC will always do it better than a stationary console. Now that we got PC handhelds, games are the only selling point and Nintendo has a LOT 5. If games run poorly, it's 99% the fault of the devs. This ESPECIALLY applies on consoles. They had 1 job: make and/or optimize the game to run on SPECIFIC hardware. If they couldn't do that, it's 101% incompetence on their behalf
I think the only time Nintendo was hardware competitive was the SNES and when the original Game Boy first launched. But the Gameboy was around for a decade without a spec bump, so it was outdated hardware very quickly. Even the original NES/Famicom was outdated on release. The N64 had technical capabilities that Sony and Sega didn't, but that didn't seem to translate into game mechanics or visuals. It was slightly behind on computational power and way behind on storage media. I wouldn't bet against continuing the name either. Just look at Gameboy line, there was Pocket, Lite, Color, Advance, Advance SP, Advance SP2 (which was just called SP on the packaging and if you find an SP outside of Japan it is almost certainly an SP2), and Micro. Then with DS they had Lite, DSi, 3DS, 3DS XL, and 2DS (and probably 1 or 2 more that I'm forgetting). Switch Advance or Switch 4K seem like reasonable. Super Switch just doesn't feel right. One thing Nintendo has never done is simply call something Console 2.
N64 is way more powerful than the PSOne and the Game Clube is way more powerful than the PS2 (check resident evil 4 PS2 vs game Clube). It was exactly because the "strongest console always lose" that Nintendo dropped their Focus on hardware. The original Xbox was more powerful than the game Clube, which was already way more powerful than the PS2. The PS2 was the weakest of its generation, thus the cheapest one.
@@kissadev. The N64 CPU was a lot more powerful than the Play Station, but my understanding is that it didn't matter because the GPU couldn't keep up. Either way, it doesn't really get credit because it came out nearly 3 years after the PlayStation.
@@nehylen5738 The raw CPU and GPU performance of the GC was 10-30% faster than PS2. However PS2 had a lot of other accelerators to make it perform better. PS2 also had 30% more memory and 50% more storage on disk. Game Cube was competitive, but it was not a clear leader. GC also released over a year after PS2.
Those Switch naming alternatives run the risk of another WiiU situation happening, ie "oh, this is the Lite verison to my DS, I already have a DS so I won't buy it". They need a name that both evokes the Switch juuust enough to cash in on brand recognition while presenting a new name that makes it clear it is indeed a new console and not the same as the old one or a peripheral to the old console. Personally, I'm a fan of "SwitchUp", but I can see the value of "Super Switch", could even be persuaded to see a combination "Super SwitchUp!" I hope the marketing guys that Nintendo hires are actually good at their job this time...
I think this is the generation where we hit diminishing returns on raw power. It’s so expensive to develop games that take advantage of that hardware it isn’t really worth it except for the top performing games.
DS Lite was a perfect name for a perfect handheld. Same exact processing power, but brighter screens, much sleeker shell. DSi was the weird one. I think it did have a slight boost in power, could be wrong.
Definition has shifted as our standards have. For example RUclips stopped labeling 720p as HD. Now that we have 8K TVs, 4K is standard, and 1080p is budget, 720 has fallen to standard definition
@@JunScunthorpe Outside of the techie bubble, most things are still done in 1080. 4k has higher requirements for every step (content, network, playback, screen) and doesn't add too much under 30 inches.
"high definition" implies it's better relative to some other format. There IS no usage of 480p ANYWHERE these days. The "low resolution" standard is 720p. Hence why it's been lumped into the "standard definition" bubble now. 720p is still fine. I love my Steam Deck that's just a slightly taller 720p. But it's definitely not "high definition" anymore.
The GameCube was actually quite powerful for it's time. The main issue with it was the file size limitation from using smaller discs. For example, Resident Evil 4 was actually GameCube exclusive for around a year. They had to make significant graphical downgrades to get it running on the PS2, but at least the PS2 version was all on a single disc, rather than the GameCube version's two. The Wii was basically just a GameCube with motion controls, though. That's when they fell(and stayed) a generation behind hardware wise.
6:20 thank you! You are the only person I have ever heard say that. That screen was super helpful. Some games like monster hunter 3U a launch title used it amazingly to declutter the screen. And let you play on the screen if say family wanted to watch a movie. It was great. I pirated anime on the WiiU and watched it while my family watched bingbong theory
I'm not sure if they should even continue with the SWITCH moniker Its a double edge sword: if you name it Switch, yes it has brand recognition, BUT it might turn off the general audience because they would just think its MORE OF THE SAME. If you name it something else, it doesnt have the recognition, it still has Nintendo, but it can also be CLEAR that its a BRAND NEW SYSTEM
honestly is kinda smart to not focus on graphics/performance because developing games would take much more time to make, thats why xbox and playstation struggle now because they need to release games in a steady manner and now they have 2 options taking too much time to develop games for too long or release games earlier with missing features being incomplete or straight up being a buggy mess
They do care about hardware. They just don't care about it in the same way as Xbox and PS. It's not about power, it's about form factor. The whole point of the low tech hardware was to not compete against the other platforms at the time. Provide a cheaper alternative and concentrate on quality games. And it's a strategy that works.
They've said time and time again that they use old hardware to keep prices down. Nintendo games always put gameplay first, so graphics don't matter as much as PlayStation/Xbox that go for realism
But this a a lie. Graphics do matter which is why Nintendo pushed TotK to the limits and couldn't hold a solid 30 fps. Why do Nintendo fans lie and say graphics and hardware doesn't matter when Nintendo push their games beyond what the hardware can handle. Nintendo had to go around suing emulation because it was so easy to emulate their games on a PC and run better than the Switch.
@@smidlee7747 Nintendo makes their games look the best they can, but they're not pushing 4k ultra realism. Going after people illegally distributing their games is fair. And no duh more powerful hardware runs the games better
@@SCP-tn2ln From my hundreds of hours of experience it runs them fine. I mean if you're comparing it to something like an Xbox One, you're going to have a bad time. Look at the specs and compare it to what's comparable on the market. It has a majority of the top-selling PS3 and Xbox 360 games ported to it
Gamecube was much stronger than the PS2, Xbox was a little stronger iirc but the Gamecube came out a little earlier. The only problem it had was the mini DVD because tbqh, it was one of the best Nintendo consoles.
They had the system done for years and are doing the Nintendo Strategy of making really good games and polishing them for launch instead of releasing a top of the line console with no profit or game appeal.
7:45 - 8:05 The Gamecube was actually hardware competitive for its time. It was the 2nd most powerful 6th gen console ahead of the PS2 and Dreamcast, but behind the original Xbox. The only issue was that the Gamecube had way smaller disks to fit digital media for games in whereas all of their competitors used full sized disks.
Really frustrating to listen to people who put themselves out there as if they have some expertise on a subject who can’t even get basic facts right and also whining about the same tired arguments about “more power=better”. I’ve never seen these guys before this appeared in my feed and after listening to their drivel I won’t be seeing them ever again.
GameCube was really strong; it actually had an ATI graphics module, which looked conventionally “nicer” on screen than the custom graphics compute and frame buffer solutions Sony and Microsoft were coming up with
I am not a graphics glutton. As the AAA industry shows, chasing the next visual fidelity high is not sustainable. Game development budgets have soared to all time highs where developers today are willing to take fewer risks and the gameplay often takes a backseat to the visuals. There are also those also annoying little micro-transactions, dlcs, and poorly fleshed out stories. Nintendo is doing the right thing here!
Also the fuck the gamecube was very competitive power wise, only suffering from architecture. It blew the ps2 out of the water, but it couldn't compete quite with Xbox because that was a pc. And it used DVDs. But it was close. The wii was nearly identical to gamecube and it was the outlier at the time. It gave it backwards compatibility though.
Man this is painful to watch. These people have such a big platform and don't know a damn thing about what they're talking about. Gamecube not being hardware pushing? DS lite having improved specs? What
Piracy & Zelda. Hopefully was a wake up call. I want to enjoy the experience to its absolute fullest. Most of us can agree we just can’t do that on the hardware they provide. Tears had it worse with its frame drop issue. It’s definitely worth $70, but with higher frames, higher resolutions. Because god damn it it’s a beautiful world. I don’t feel bad for playing it on PC. What an experience.
Nintendo has proved time and time again that better hardware does not necessarily equal better games.
Well they have also proved that they can't always win with this strategy they seem to fail success fail success fail success. It's never garranteed for them even though this is more innovative.
The Steam Deck is independent confirmation. The experience is 80% the hardware is 20%.
It doesn't need to be great hardware, but the Switch rn is to a point where it's pretty unreasonable. I've tried to play Age of Calamity a couple of times now but every time I try I'm greeted with 10 fps whenever I try to do anything which to me makes an action game unplayable
Women and brownouts make objectively worse products in general
Fair enough... but in this day and age... with large tvs... would be sweeeeet to atleast play at a -steady- 60 fps at atleast 1080p.
Gamecube was more powerful than the PS2. It was their last console to be competitive hardware-wise.
It was closer in power to Xbox than PS2 and arguably easier to develop for than either due to the PowerPC architecture
That's a sad fact if true,
Fun learning about one of my favorite consoles.
Yeah but they were too stubborn to use DVDs. Third parties didn't really wanna work with them.
@@SegmentWwhy is it sad?
TECHNICALLY the Wii U was the most powerful console for a little while, but was quickly outclassed in late 2013
The CFO of Nintendo of America once did a Q&A for our college class.
Nintendo *has* to make a profit on their hardware sales. Sony and Microsoft both have other business lines that can subsidize a *multi-billion dollar* subsidy on hardware for years if it can justify hardware lock-in. Nintendo has no other business lines.
Besides that, Nintendo designs their products to circumvent the lock-in of the other brands by focusing on unique features and games. They assume if you want monster graphics you probably already own another console. They don't want to play an arms race again.
wait... so RT is a very unlikely proposition unless years down the road ( not that it's very much used right now...)
@@PrograErrorConsidering that the leaked Switch 2 chip has ray tracing accelerators in it, RT should be a very reasonable expectation.
True, to an extent. They do have another avenue of revenue now in entertainment. The super Mario bros movie made a shit ton of money. And they now have theme parks.
But yeah, they don't care about super juiced consoles, they know their games are fun and that sells
@@PrograError id like to be optimistic but RT for switch doesnt make a whole lot of sense except for the devs to not have to paint shadows
I don't think that was always true, but iirc it has been true since at least the Wii. I think GameCube and N64 were loss leaders. Could be wrong
Due to the magnetically attached controller rumor, I've seen people guessing it would be called "Nintendo Snap"
too close to thanos snap...
I actually like that name
please god dont use magnets
They could make a game where you're rude to Pokemon while taking their photos called "Pokemon: Snap, Snap 🫰"
That actually works really well.
How is it possible to be a hardware enthusiast and be so ignorant about hardware specs?
Go look at the GameCube and PS2 versions of Resident Evil 4. The GameCube was cutting edge at the time.
Gamecube also was more capable than OG xbox. The only thing that really held it back was the mini disc format. Higher disc cost for publishers and held less data.
@@baddabaddabaddaswingBut faster data access
i'm 16 yo and don't consider myself a hardware enthusiast but i thought everybody knew the gamecube was a beast specs wise. just look at RE4, Metroid Prime, F-Zero they hold up pretty well even today.
When i heard him saying the gamecube wasnt on par with the ps2 my heart stopped for a moment lol
@@Anradak It's a common misconception because the PS2 was hyped with hypothetical specs and looked space age. 't Was part of Sony's marketing and it worked really well. You'd expect better from hardware enthusiasts though.
@@baddabaddabaddaswing Hey the faster data access doesn't really check out, sorta. Apparently the Xbox had faster read speeds, but on the other hand if your disc holds less data you can locate data faster. Miyamoto said in an interview the mini discs offered better data access, though probably the most important reason was to maintain a proprietary form factor over which Nintendo maintained control. It also allowed the compact form factor of the console and they intentionally avoided a disc loading tray because they break down easier. Gamecube was built well.
Nintendo was competitive in performance in the home console space up to the gamecube. Then they changed strategies. But, in the portable space, they’ve always prioritized battery life over performance and it has been good strateg for these types of consoles. The switch is the same, the only reason people even complain about it is because it being a hybrid makes people think it should compete with purely home consoles. Doesn’t make sense. Switch is a portable first. NSW follows the same line as all the previous portables from nintendo. The same is gonna be true of the switch 2.
they even make comparison with PS5 in term of graphic and power.. 😂😂😂
@@zultriova89 It's not outlandish. It's certainly weaker but it's totally able to run current games. The PS5 GPU is close to a 2070 super after all.
The switch does not have good battery life 💀
Super Nintendo Switch is the only answer.
‘SNS’ almost there mate, or maybe ‘SNeS’?
@@gordonoboh833 The Nintendo - Super Switch
@@gordonoboh833 The 'switch 3' can then be Super Nintendo Enchanced Switch. and with that it comes full circle
"new" nintendo switch
Big agree. It fits how Nintendo has named products more recently, and it fits historically.
Man, this stuff hurts to watch as a gaming historian, The GameCube was the last console that was a "hardware pusher" it wasn't the most powerful, but that doesn't mean that this wasn't what they were going for. At the time it was up against PS2 OGXbox and the Sega DreamCast, with a 2 year head start, their ultimate Rival.
SNES, N64 and GC were all hardware pushers, Satoru Iwata is famously quoted: "If we continue down the same path as we have in the past, people may become tired of gaming"
Recognizing that pushing hardware wasn't effective for them as a brand, and to lean into a new family friendly console where everyone could play together.
He went into RND1 and found them working on a motion control peripheral for the GC, and had them building a Motion control GC very quickly.
Gamers no longer being the core audience of the Wii, were upset and flocking to competitors, Nintendo's response to this was an HD Console, but the name was just too bad, and it was already far too late, with no killer app to really draw people to the console, the WiiU was Doomed to fail from day 1, but its existence can be boiled down to "for the sake of better hardware (pushing)"
I agree with their strategy having 2 boxes be similar to me is boring. Gameboy Color motion/GBA motiotans rumble carts to Wii motion.
Then again NES SNES, New 3DS. Wii U are fine names. Not great but to gamers mostly understandable.
Then again Xavix Port was ex Nintendo employees. Very Wii Sports like but peripherals as controllers for games.
Gizmondo and Wii U had their talking aka Wii U chat.
GameCube had GBA with it like Dreamcast VMU, Xbox was fine. PS2 had pressure sensitive buttons.
Games were refining from PS1/N64/Saturn etc. but they had their gimmicks. The analogue stick was still not 100% camera. Even games like Knack as old God of War format. Yet for dodging. While you had attacks, camera, for tools /to collect things, acceleration and braking or more.
So to me while Sony did peripherals or the odd controller ideas. Xbox did impulse triggers as well before HD Rumble/Dualsense features.
Or SmartGlass, Vita remote play and Wii U dual screen elements or off tv play.
They sometimes have similar ideas.
To me gaming is boring because of the dumbed down for casuals movesets, modes, quest design. That's why I get bored.
PS3/360/Wii. Was fine. But refining them for PS4/Xbox One/Wii U to just even more games.
Many Indies are nostalgia focused in platformers or racing. Yet I can go back and find better ideas in 5-6th gen. Why because Indies focus on popular games. Or make the most generic core then what they offered of cooler mechanics.
Or we get play as a cat/goose wow how magical I had that and better animal abilities in 5-6tth gen games not so dumbed down AAA or Indies I get so disappointed.
So to me if games are generic I need gimmicks to care or I just avoid more and more games.
Games with good design don't need gimmicks. Splatoon 2 was the best puzzle/platformer shooter why because most are shooting with platforming but purely combat. The ink guns used in platforming. Barely happens and that's why I loved playing that 2017 solo mode in 2024 for the first time is it's HOW they do it.
But I hated how Pikmin 4 and Bayonetta 3 did things. They just ruined the gyro and the core design of Pikmin 4 for me to hate it.
I get gamers hating the Wii but I came around to it and love it. Motion when done well is worth it.
Red Steel 2 balances motion and buttons better than PSVR2 games. Because they overcomepate on REALISM. Or awkward set pieces. The set pieces being awkward is fine I don't mind that but bad gyro to reload a gun when I know the tracking isn't capable yet. Don't try and fool me developers I know the tech isn't there yet and it barely functions to have fingers do it. So why bother.
Do more particular things.
The Wii U I mean we use phones to set up TVs. That's how it's repeated.
Not DS 2 angle videos or lid closing.
The Wii U people went nope TV and I went what. Seriously the Gamepads can do so much. The Surface Duo and Samsung phones are what I wish the Wii U was. Less restrictions on apps/games on screens.
The Xbox Series Quick Resume comes close but not close enough.
The fact PCs and phones have app switching even yet consoles don't. Sure Vita and Xbox One or others kind of do but phones offer it more.
Minecraft Vita or Borderlands 2 Vita 1.0 work fine and I can use trophy app. With updates it's them only you can't open a second app to check trophies or do anything else from the OS menu.
Battery life over graphics. I'd rather a Switch or 3DS for 3-7 hours then a PC handheld for 1-2 hours for the sake of power.
But most gamers don't care about hardware gimmicks. I have over the years and researched and experimented (not physically I'm not engineer but have mentally questioned what's possible).
While IR could be better I mean Switch it Pocket PC docking aka Steam Deck docking, PSP cables to the TV.
Sega Nomad continued. But that's not a bad thing. It's just not as amazing to me it's been done before. The Joycons were a good idea. The handheld smallness isn't ideal but hey a split screen handheld is amazing. Joycons to hand people with fewer controls is interesting.
HD Rumble is something compared to impulse triggers and Dualsense haptics or tension of triggers.
Fortunately the Switch came and reunited not only people that plays from time to time, but gamers returned as well 👍
@@TheAlex3712what really helped the Switch was that it did what the Wii U promised, but even better. Plus it had such a strong lineup in its first year on the market that only got better over time.
@@suntannedduck2388 what is my man rambling about?
Just to correct you, it was Takeda that said (during Iwata Asks):
"This may sound paradoxical, but if we had followed the existing Roadmaps we would have aimed to make it "faster and flashier." In other words, we would have tried to improve the speed at which it displays stunning graphics. But we could not help but ask ourselves, "How big an impact would that direction really have on our customers?" During development, we came to realize the sheer inefficiency of this path when we compared the hardships and costs of development against any new experiences that might be had by our customers.
It must have been about a year after we started developing Wii. After speaking with Nintendo's development partners, I became keenly aware of the fact that there is no end to the desire of those who just want more. Give them one, they ask for two. Give them two, and next time they will ask for five instead of three. Then they want ten, thirty, a hundred, their desire growing exponentially. Giving in to this will lead us nowhere in the end. I started to feel unsure about following that path about a year into development."
And they were right when looking at the current state of gaming now.
"nobody would use HD branding"...... Nintendo: HOLD MY BEER
Its already HD.
@@ar-videos
... technically
I'm still using my TV HD.
@@fluidthought42 Yes… it is. Almost every single first party game on Switch runs in AT LEAST 720p, if not 900p or 1080p.
HD-er
Should call it the super Nintendo switch pro
Just to annoy everyone
or just the "nintendo" :)
New Entertainment Switch
Super New Enlarged Switch
Switch Blade
*New* Super Nintendo Switch Pro XL - Year of Luigi Edition
GameCube was more powerful than the PS2.
Ps2 was sold before and after the life of the gamecube. Ps2 could take a dvd 4.7gb of files and textures. Play movies. The ps2 did more. You could even run linux on it.
@@aquactrl1484 Yeah, not talking about that, though.
@@aquactrl1484 Spec wise, the GameCube was stronger. Any third party game that released between both consoles ran and looked better on GameCube.
@@aquactrl1484 easily modded also, they true reason it sold so well.
@@pothitoskourtisidk if I’d say the extremely small minority of people modding a console is gonna make all that much of a difference in overall sales 😂
Love how after more than a decade of them doing this and having more success than their competitors people still question their clealy succesful business model.
Tbf they did follow the Wii with the Wii U
@@skellez That failed more because of its marketing and name though. Lots of people thought it was yet another peripheral for the wii. The switch is almost two generations behind and look at how its doing
@@gwimbly519I remember getting the Wii for one Christmas and our primary interest was SSBB at the time - since we already had GC Controllers.
@@gwimbly519
Well that and the absolute lack of games. Sure there was the wonderful 101, Smash Bros and Mario Kart. There that's it, that's literally all the Nintendo games. I joke but really nobody cared about any of the other games, even the Mario games were bleh (with maybe the exception of Mario Maker). Nintendo hopefully this time has a lineup of games coming out the year (and the next) of the new console, which I suspect is one of the many reasons they kept delaying the announcement (and we'll also see if their anti-scalp measures measure up).
@@fluidthought42 mario kart 8, smash, mario 3d world, pikmin 3, bayonetta 2, wonderful 101, mario maker, kirby, new super mario u, star fox zero, xenoblade chronicles x, etc
By not caring about performance, Nintendo is able to make consoles far cheaper than the competition, and when you're targeting kids and families, that's always going to be the winning factor. You can literally get a Switch Lite for under $300 AUD rn, while the PS5 is $800 AUD. Like it's not even a competition for parents at that point
That's why I bought my Switch for $300 used with a dock but no grip or lanyards in a retro game store when in an EB it was $400-500 OG or OLED but Lite was reasonablely cheaper just wasn't what I wanted. Aussie prices yes.
Pro controller was I remember and kept the box $59 but the old sticker was $69.
So about a game price as they usually are.
The Xbox Controller has impulse triggers of Xbox One, a share button z a grip I find is like sand and hate so I use the Xbox one with Bluetooth controller (the 2nd model). A lot of tech, a fair shell. The Wii U roo was ok. Wasn't into the triggers but the sticks were good and the plastic was very Wii/Wii U design matching but not great. I use the Gamepad for everything because I love it. XD I didn't even grow up with a Wii U but Wii/DS pickups to a Wii U later. I loved the Wii U faults, possibilities I dreamt up for it to expand on it. Software app/games and hardware use cases of gimmicks.
For families and kids I think it's fair. For people in their 20s too it's fair to a degree and not for everyone of price or game appeal. The first party prices sure but third parties for $20 yeah it's possible.
Seeing $5 PS3/360/PS2 in error game store. To $28 PS4/Xbox One games or higher in bargain bins. The odd Switch games in bargain bins.
I usually get the first party for Christmas or birthdays. But may the third parties for cheap.
I am the only one that cared for a Switch others tried it and moved on. I knew what I was getting and got a Wii U 2018, 3DS 2020 for around $140 or so. Vita around $100 or $200. 2000 for $100 in 2017, 1000 for $200 in 2022 I think among other retro consoles under $100. PS3 Super Slim 500GB for $59.
For the average person it makes sense and it being family first.
For me being a collector yeah my perception and expectations are totally different. :)
Like people could get old stuff or a Switch to take it places, have a split Joycons or Pro controller. Play solo or with family. Why not. Whatever family friendly, mature or solo that enjoy both.
Like animated movies some of us too like family friendly games and mature games. :)
So to me having a PS3/360 type handheld after the Vita and phones were for so long. I find the Switch fine.
People just go oh no it's not PC handheld or phone now or console/PC competitive and like yeah sure. But it's a PS2/360 handheld on the go. Vita and phones people seem to forget that was the gap before.
The 3DS didn't end up with a Tegra but it could have.
Wii u hardware was expensive as hell to design lol.
Would have been waaaaaaaaay cheaper to just have a normal more powerful cpu and more powerful gpu instead of the transforming PPC Frankenstein monster that was wii u.
In thel9ng r6nn it is not cheaper, n7nt3ndo games are expensive and never go 8n sale.
@@Nobody-sp7ugclearly not if it was so cheap
@@madnessarcade7447 WIi u is historically known as the only hardware nintendo ever sold at a loss.
How is Nintendo making bad names for their consoles? With exception of Wii U, Nintendo usually has good names for the consoles, what do you guys want they to called it? Nintendo 1, Nintendo 2, Nintendo 3? Just put a number there like PlayStation?
Game Cube under powered? Are those guys serious?
Tears of the Kingdom runs like CRAP on the Switch. It is a shame that so much world-class programming effort is wasted on such weak hardware.
@@kellymoses8566
It can def rough to run sometimes, but im not sure what you're expecting? The fact that tears of the kingdom runs at a solid 30fps on switch hardware is a technical marvel
Power on par with Xbox, compact, efficient. Gamecube was an incredibly well designed console.
@@Esteban_907 except it doesnt run at a solid 30fps... have you tried activating ultrahand? lol
new Nintendo 3ds/2ds, 2ds as a whole
I hate when people talk about the GameCube's technical specs when they have no idea what they're talking about. The weakest console of that generation was the PS2 (or the Dreamcast except for texture memory). This isn't to say any of these consoles were bad, but the engineering of the GameCube was amazing... From a technical perspective. From a marketing perspective, it was a bad design, unfortunately, for reasons like this. It was designed to be like a like a lunchbox and it didn't communicate anything the average person cared about. But looking back, the graphics of the system were beautiful for the time.
This might come off as fanboyism, and I'll admit to some nostalgia goggles if asked, but I despise Nintendo as a company.
I think the design of the GC was amazing, the only problem is that purple being the main color, it made the console looks like a toy, in an era where everybody want to make videogames looks more serious.
@@felipeemanuel5790I had both a black and an orange one (I believe it was called "spice") during the system's lifetime. The system felt very clucky, being partially designed to be portable, and stood out a bit too much. A black version certainly fit in a bit better, but it was still a bit out of place compared to the DVD Player design of the PS2. The original Xbox wasn't any better in this regard, though, feeling like alien technology under your TV
Lunchbox?
The Gamecube was the Switch before it, it's insanely portable.
I was following the development of Dolphin and was hyped seeing how it was gonna be an incredibly well designed and powerful console, thinking Nintendo may be making a comeback. Then it came out and it was mocked for being purple and having a handle and I understood it was all about image. Just look at that PS2 font or the look of the console. Nintendo didn't stand a chance. A shame because hardware-wise it was a fantastic console; powerful, efficient, compact, cheap, and it had some great games.
Gamecube was hardware competitive for the time. IIRC for 6th gen consoles it's basically Xbox > gamecube > ps2 > dreamcast from a hardware perspective
Gamecube being more powerful than the PS2 is a myth from what I can tell. Switch them and that's accurate though. Gamecube had slightly lower capabilities in pretty much every regard but had the edge of being far easier to develop for.
PS2's true power was a proprietary mess of hardware tricks you had to be familiar with and have in mind when designing your game, so multiplat games usually ran worse on it.
For example Kingdom Hearts 2 gets away with hundreds of textured particle effects flying everywhere and genuinely good looking bloom at locked 30fps.
Infact, that's something even the Dreamcast beats the Gamecube at. Xbox, PS2, and Dreamcast were generally good at handling the order to render translucent polygons in, but the Gamecube kinda sucked at it so you see far less particle effects and such in Gamecube games.
Nintendo consoles have always been easy to develop for, so Gamecube had a pretty consistently good looking library instead of PS2's "sometimes amazing and often pretty rough"
RUclips filters probably won't let me post a link but this illustrates pretty well what I mean. This is the only part of KH2 that lags at all on PS2 hardware and honestly I don't think the Gamecube would have been able to run this at all
ruclips.net/video/uOL6vVWT7w4/видео.html
@Rahlii Even if that is a myth (I don't think it is, it beats the PS2 on most parameters, but sometimes suffered from smaller disc size and slightly lower sram on the GPU), it was still on par with the other consoles. Games didn't look significantly downgraded like the Wii after did compared to other consoles.
@@JunScunthorpethe GameCube had a WAY more capable GPU... like, massively more.
there's no myth. the PS2 had some cool hardware features, which developers were able to use to punch about its weight. its ability to render a shitload of transparencies for example.
but that's about it. the GameCube and the Xbox were far above the capabilities of the PS2. the GC and Xbox were relatively close in raw power, but the Xbox had a more modern architecture which allowed for shader effects that the GC couldn't do.
to actually see what happens if you port a GC game to PS2 is easily visible when you look at RE4 or Killer 7.
RE4 was massively downgraded in terms of texture resolution, texture varuety, detail density etc.
and Killer 7 ran horrendously bad in some scenes, while it ran perfectly smooth on GC.
or play Time Splitters 3 on both. the PS2 struggles hard in some scenes, while Xbox and GC run at a near perfect 60fps in the same scenes
@@kevboard They're close enough that their hardware features are kinda what distinguish PS2 and Gamecube more than raw specs, but I still feel that the best looking PS2 games easily exceed anything on the Gamecube. I did acknowledge that cross platform games usually ran a lot worse on PS2, but that mostly seems to come down to what I mentioned, the PS2 being hard to develop for especially if the game isn't designed specifically and solely for PS2.
Shadow the Hedgehog was WELL within the capabilities of the PS2, even being as harsh on the console as possible, but it's the only port of the game that lags because of the prior mentioned reason.
8:02 the GameCube is actually more powerful than the PS2. The problem was since it used smaller discs you just couldn’t tell that it was more powerful because they couldn’t put higher resolution textures in the games
you say that like ps2 had high resolution games ..
@@pothitoskourtis the PS2 actually had a couple games that ran in 1080i HD such as Grand Turismo 4 and Tourist Trophy. Also back when those consoles first came out 480p was considered an HD version of 480i. It looked significantly better. and 480p looked pretty high res on a good CRT
@@WigWoo1Grand Turismo is crazy looks like a PS3 game when I played it.
I played many Gamecube games that had high resolution textures for it's time and the lighting is way better than the PS2...
smaller discs made games more expensive requiring advanced compression techniques and no FMVs (never liked them).
they could put higher res texture, they just couldn't also put FMVs. Look at the differance in texture res in RE4. PS2 looks like muddy garbage in comparison.
7:56 Gamecube was more powerful than the Playstation 2 and had an ATI graphics chipset in it. It was middle of the pack of its generation, with the OG XBox just demolishing both of them.
The original Xbox’s CPU wasn’t RISC based compared to both GameCube and PS2, and wasn’t nearly as efficient either. Having a higher clock speed doesn’t make it more powerful since it’s an entirely different system that’s capable of executing different instructions and the fact that the processor was simply an x86 CISC processor.
And then I've yet to see a single Xbox OG game that looked better than best GC could offer tho. Maybe it was on paper? Halo 2 ? Metroid Prime 2 looked better
Maybe, but the Xbox had more RAM and a hard drive built in to stream assets from. That's why games like Morrowind were on it, why it got the best versions of many cross platform games like Max Payne, etc. Don't get me wrong I had a GameCube and loved it, and Nintendo did a great job at showcasing its horsepower, but the Xbox was the more powerful of that generation.
@@gerowen The Sony PSP had more ram than the PS2, yet no one would dare call the handheld more powerful than a home console. And on original phat units of the PS2, the system had a way to use hard drives anyway. But in general, having more ram and a way to access the hard drive isn’t everything either. A good example on why I would argue that the original Xbox isn’t as powerful as people say is it by simply looking at games such as Metal Gear Solid 2, not only does it look worse but it runs at a lower frame rate too, despite having “more powerful hardware” on paper.
The PS2 was the weakest of the 3 and even though the original models "could" use a hard drive, they didn't ship with it and there were only ever a couple of games, like Final Fantasy XI online, that used it. Then they released the slim models that couldn't use one at all without modding it so developers just made their games without the hard drive in mind. The advantage the Xbox had was that developers knew that every single Xbox had a hard drive in it, so they could plan for and leverage that. Halo 2 even had add-on content on a separate disc for the multiplayer that would install to the drive and like I said, games like Morrowind that wanted to be more open could just stream assets from the drive in real time instead of having to thrash the DVD drive around. I remember that the PS2 version of MGS3 could basically use a whole memory card on its own because of the optional camo you could unlock being saved to the memory card. Metal Gear, especially during that time, was very PlayStation oriented. Kojima loved looking for ways to do cool, cinematic stuff with the PlayStation hardware and the OG Xbox didn't do particularly well in Japan because it was so big, so my guess with the Metal Gear games is that they just didn't care enough to optimize the games for that console. Honestly I'm surprised they bothered releasing them on Xbox at all.
Game Clube is way more powerful than the PS2. WHO would thing It was underpower for Christs sake???
It got the stigma of “kiddy console” and so nobody knew it was the most powerful console they could buy
Clube
@@minecrafter3448Xbox was the most powerful console in that generation
@@yang6642 from a certain point of view. It had the most powerful gpu, but the GameCube had other graphical advantages
Ps2 had alien tech and Xbox was a glofied computer so they could do weird things game cube couldnt.
Like ps2 could run Just Cause 1 which has a 1000 km sq map and Xbox can run HL1.
The fact my kids still play our WiiU quite often shows graphics don’t really matter.
It’s all about the game and fun.
You buy a Nintendo for their exclusives not hardware
8:04 the GameCube was a powerhouse. Not quite the original XBox but definitely more powerful than the PS2. The NES/SNES/N64/GameCube all competed on power. Just their handhelds were years behind on power. Something they then applied to their consoles starting with the Wii.
I felt like the PSP was ahead of its time - I also never had one but was saddened nonetheless when I heard they and the PS Vitas were discontinued.
Apparently between the problems they had and Sony at the time it just wasn't meant to be.
@@SegmentW I think the PS Vita was ahead of its time as well, but I also think it wasn't ahead of its time _enough_ for it to fulfil the promise of a true console experience in handheld. It was fantastic tech, but not a fantastic product if you know what I mean (the totality in value proposition, features, marketing communication, game line-up, etc). I think why the DS/3DS line truly beat out Sony's handhelds is because it excelled at its promise: being the best in handheld gaming, at a very competetive price point.
@@seaofseeofMy mother refused to get me one because of the memory sticks. She took one look at that extra cost and said "hell no". A lot of other kids I knew had the same experience.
PSP was ahead of it's time! And now Sony doesn't seem to care about a proper portable system!
Ayyy I was hoping I'd find a PSP comment way, deep down in the comments.
Never had one but heard they were awesome for the time.
The problem was that Sony made an amazing portable console, but never care to create strong IPs for portable, that was one of the reasons for the Vita failure.
I would say Gravity Rush, Soul Sacrifice, Freem Wars, and Tearaway were potentially strong IP's. They just didn't have as many consistent big releases. The Vita had a lot of gems though. Mostly if you were in more niche Japanese games but there were some great games on that system. @@felipeemanuel5790
Because Switch, Smartphones & Steam Deck -type devices are already filling that market
It's a feature, not a bug. Weaker hardware means games are cheaper to create. Meanwhile people blame all the gaming layoffs on AAA games being too expensive to produce.
Nintendo knows what they're doing.
game dev just want to make games AAA as possible, one flop and they are done for..
Mind you, even Nintendo execs admit that the cost of development is only going to increase. You can see it as a necessary evil in some of Nintendo's shortcomings like the Switch's chugging in Tears of the Kingdom or the absolute mess that was that last pokemon game. Some things people absolutely want scaled up... but that doesn't mean everything has to be scaled up to maximum settings all the time. Hopefully this new console will be a sweet spot that doesn't require extra development either for optimizing on potato hardware or for spit shining raytracing on every speck of shit.
DS & DS Lite were like Gameboy and Gameboy pocket: they removed the Gameboy port in the DSi to reduce the cost. The DS hardware was the same right up to the 3DS line (with the non-foldable 2ds) and then switched to the "New" line as far as I'm aware. It's confusing.
no the original DS has a lower resolution than i think even the DS lite
@@jolioding_2253same resolution. The ds hardware was the same, except for the bigger screens on the dsi xl
@@jolioding_2253no it's the same. The original DS just had a garbage back light. And the DS lite had a brighter one with more brightness options than just "turn off the light"
You forgot the DSi, granted I only mattered for maybe 20 games that required it
idk if by "The DS hardware was the same right up to the 3DS line" you mean the DSi too but just in case: the DSi had more powerful hardware that the ds (67MHz+33MHz CPUs with 4MB of RAM VS 133MHz+33MHz CPUs with 16MB of RAM)
I have the opposite problem with the Switch name, any time I try to search for networking stuff all the results are Nintendo
switch -nintendo
Spoiler Alert:
Nintendo does care.
They realize the consumer will not spend $500 on a new console every 3 years, so they do the most with what they can, at a fair price, and squeeze as much as they can out of every console.
Only a child cant see something so obvious
Fr. Nintendo above all is loyal.
We came to a point in which complaining about Nintendo's lack of horsepower means being out of focus. They simply don't care too much about it.
"Why Doesn’t Nintendo Care about Hardware?" Why should they?
Because it will be their downfall in the next few decades
Yeah. Nintendo cares about games and that's what matters
Their hardware at least historically has been very durable. That's what matters.
I literally have appreciation for any device they make. That's the magic of nintendo. From snes-wiiu .
3ds still stands king
My Nintendo Switch never has to get cleaned out, meanwhile I have to unscrew my PS5 and risk damaging it if I make a mistake and clean out the dust with air cans and vacuum every 6 months or the PS5 could break. Oh yeah and I have over 80 physical switch games, with no fear of being locked out to play them. The other companies are doing it wrong.
5:23 At 8 inches 1080p "might" be useful, but honestly the 720p on the Switch OLED and 800p on my Steam Deck OLED looks pretty damned good and helps with performance as well. I wonder if they wouldn't opt for something like 1600x900 for an 8 inch screen instead of going full 1080p. That would still look really good at that screen size without sacrificing too much performance.
the switch 2 needs to be 768p 1366x768 🙃
that will make all the difference
Considering rumors of official DLSS support, that might not matter as much anymore. Especially if handheld it does run like 720-900 but upscales to 1080 and while docked it runs 1080 but upscales to 4k (or whatever marketable equivalent).
Id rather play a weak handheld for 5hrs than these powerful bulky handheld pc that only last 2hrs on battery only
This is where the Steam Deck is the killer app, best of both worlds
Nintendo tried to go competitive with power during the N64 and GCN eras. The N64 had more power than the devs managed to use, but Nintendo's insistence on cartridge based media and anti-third-party policies made everybody abandon the console in favor of the PS1, and the GCN nailed it with the shape, controller and power, but screwed up once again with the stupid mini discs and couldn't compete with the momentum of the PS1>PS2 and Microsoft coming into play with the XBox, as the gaming industry was in its edgy teenager years and anything with color was deemed "childish."
Realizing power wasn't the solution they went full on gimmicky with the DS and Wii, but they couldn't replicate the success with the 3DS and Wii U because they were too expensive for what they packed and no one wanted to develop for them. Nintendo managed to make the 3DS a success by cutting its price, but they never dropped the price for the Wii U and that hurt them badly.
The Switch is considered underpowered for this generation because it's based on a chip that already outdated during its launch and could never do ray tracing, but look at its sales numbers! Being competitive on a hardware front would not have given them any advantage, it would only have made the Switch more expensive and less accessible.
Why compete in power when that has only been catastrophic for them? On the other hand, they can't just do a repeat of the previous console, that has also never worked for them either, with the sole exception being the Game Boy to GBA era. I think they have learned where the sweet spot between innovation and hardware is now, given the leaked specs.
The original Xbox wasn’t that successful either and it only did well in America. As for the N64, it wasn’t really a boneheaded move for them to use cartridges since slapping a CD drive would’ve made the N64 even more expensive at launch.
@@crazedlunatic43 But Nintendo charged for each cartridge manufactured, and it wasn't a small price. That's one of the reasons they didn't go with CD, because CD printing was done by third party companies.
@@TwilightWolf032 You have to understand that technology back then was very limited in comparison to what we have now. Back then, you could only have a 2x speed CD drive with very limited memory ram available. Even with the slowest CD drive speeds and tiny memory pool, it would’ve made the N64 just as expensive, if not, more expensive than the Sega Saturn’s infamous $399 price. It was either the price of the system or it’s games that would have to bite the bullet, and ultimately the N64 would’ve been too steep compared to what Sony was offering with their much simpler PS1.
Mini discs had faster data access like cartridges, without the cost or big discrepancy in storage capacity. For a video game system it was a great choice, but the thing is that dvd playback was a big thing at a time when standalone players were expensive and few people had one yet.
Because Nintendo care more about the art of video games, not the realism. Still the next generation is needed to do better art.
Similar to DS Lite and 3DS, alongside Switch Lite and Switch, It will simply be another console. While playing Nintendo games I realized that most of the games have a degree of consistency, without regard to random ads and other things that are borderline annoying when it comes to games that are on Steam. You buy what you get, sort of idea. And I wish that this was standard for Steam games but it’s not, and therefore makes even the simplest Nintendo games feel superior to the most graphically intense games on Steam. No unintended bloat, and no overwhelming popups.
DS lite was a revision, not a new console
Why Sony and Microsoft are spending $300 million and taking 6 years to make one game Nintendo's stylistic game with quality that doesn't even cost a 10th of those AAA games, still sells more then 20 million copies without fail
Uhh they only have like 8 games that actually sold more than 20 million and excluding Pokemon (which is its own problem around quality), the top nintendo all have pretty long development cycles or staple games from the prior gen ( Mario Kart and Smash ). It's not like they're constantly dishing out low cost bangers on their own and they still have an issue around shovelware from 3rd parties.
I think you may have it backwards. Nintendo cares a ton about hardware that allows them to design games differently.
The Switch hybrid console concept with removable controllers that could be used to play 2 player games is definitely nothing to scoff at.
I think the competition just sees hardware as pushing better graphics and almost nothing else. At least Sony has the cool haptics and adaptive triggers.
Nintendo cares about hardware - but not in the same way. They are not out for absolute performance, but they want devices to be small, light, durable and cheap. Gunpei Yokoi, inventor of the DPad and Gameboy, was famously quoted "lateral thinking with withered technology". No hardware in the last years was anywhere near what was technically possible, even the motion tracking technology in the Wii was years old. But they found creative ways to leverage it. And it hasn't hurt them in any way, in the contrary: instead of a technology war with Microsoft and Sony, they basically operate in their own market and are very fine with it.
Exactly.
It is kind of what Meta is doing on the VR side. People bemoan about it not being powerful like PCVR, but became the bestselling VR headset with the Quest 2 due to how affordable and accessible it was. It broke down the huge barrier of entry and allowed people to play wirelessly. That seemed to be a worthy tradeoff for power.
I wish power wasn't the only thing people see in regards to hardware. The Switch's hybrid concept and versatility is still really impressive and allows for a ton of flexibility in how you play.
Except they do care about hardware. Even so much that their consoles are confident to use and easy to program for. Except for the Wii U, where they cared sooo much on the utility of the console that it became overly complex.
That story at the end of Luke's brother one hand carrying his anvil of a PC with a welded-on handle and Linus linking that to the GC is one of the perfect moments I watch WanShow for.
As ironic as it sounds, giving users what they want is a bad business model and ultimately unrealistic. You can't have a powerful system that consistently and swiftly put out new games every few months for cheap. It takes many years and ridiculous amount of money to put out stunning AAA 4K games. It's just unsustainable.
Because having a larger canvas and brighter paint makes not for better art work
The mona lisa is not made better with a larger work space or an entire gamut of colors to paint with. It’s great exactly because it is subdued and restricted with particular intention
I get your argument, but... the Mona Lisa is also not that good of a painting.
Nintendo has never been competitive with portable hardware and the Switch carries on that legacy. The Game Boy Proved you didn't need crazy hardware and the Switch proves it today.
It doesn't prove anything. It can't even run the most basic indie titles without lagging. 90% of the games are on 30fps. Keep in mind the SNES which was 30 years ago ran a lot of titles on 60 fps.
It proves it can be successful, even with the drawbacks.
@@GdBearmanand the switch still sold like hotcakes just like the gameboy
@@GdBearman Switch spec is TECHNICALLY similar to the spec of most $100 phones today. 4GB of RAM, quad core ARM processor and 32-64GB of storage. The only thing that gives Nintendo so much advantage is their very strict exclusivity on their own IPs
@@sihamhamda47yeah but the Nintendo games are great. AAA games on pc are normally bad.
But I always find all mario games fun and polished.
The gamecube was definitely competitive. It got hamstrung by the mini DVDs which could only hold 1.4GB, it could have had a much better showing if a lot of 3rd parties didn't have to bitcrush the textures and videos etc.
No they could just print the game on two discs then but very few needed that anyway. There was a Resident Evil game I believe. The mini discs allowed for faster data access and Gamecube had graphically impressive games.
@@desamster Even the ones that did 2 discs like metal gear solid, lower quality videos and textures, a lot of effort to cram the data in with decent quality, a lot of repeated data across discs so you didn't really have 2.8GB to play with even then. And mini disc did nothing for data access, the reason gamecube had faster access than ps2 was because ps2 was earlier in the dvd lifecycle, very early because sony was pushing for it as a format, so the ps2 had a slower reader.
N has great hardware, crippled by stupid decisions:
SNES: processor not fast enough, slowdown with 6+ sprites from release.
Ultra64: insufficient RAM, needed expansion.
Lunchbox: minidiscs crippled ports.
Wii: motion controls. (I own one, thousand hours +, hate the waggles.
U: crap marketing, expensive tab.
Switch: drift king.
Ok device 4K would shorten the battery too much
even 1080p might not actually be necessary
4K for tv mode.
@@emperorfaiz output doesnt work without being plugged in so how does that shorten the gaming time while on the go? im FOR 4k when in the dock
1080p portable would be nice but not necessary. I'd like 900p, it's a good compromise between 720 and 1080.
XBOX names are bad because they make it hard to differentiate between the consoles.
When you get to naming "XBOX" system "One X" and "Series X", you know something went wrong.
It's interesting seeing people react to Nintendo's tweet on the Successor because I've seen people be like "is that it?" but actually that's ALL it needed to be. It got 38 million views in a day aswell that was full of negativity mostly towards Microsoft.
It does amaze me how much Nintendo can grab millions of people like that. They've got the audience where they want them. There's a lot of struggle going on in the industry so I imagine 3rd-Parties are hoping on Nintendo to recreate another success or else the industry's going be in a hard place for a good 3-4 years.
Nintendo’s naming isn’t even close to as bad as Xbox because they never use the same name twice they always add something like U or 3DS Xbox has so many consoles with X and S in the title as well as calling the 3rd Xbox the Xbox one. It makes no sense.
"Why Doesn't Nintendo Care about Hardware?"
Because as the late great Satoru Iwata said 20 years ago in 2004:
*"The Time When Horsepower Alone Made An Important Difference Is Over."*
This guys failed to do their research, I can't take them seriously. The GameCube was last console from Nintendo that focused on hardware. It was the most powerful console until the OG Xbox came in. The PS2 is a early generation of a multi-media device like a cheap DVD player, a music player and a game console. And games were cheaper to make on the PS2 since it has regular CD trays. The GameCube's minidisk ment you have to add another layer to the disk and that cost more money.
"Now you're playing with power; super power. Super Nintendo Switch"
Switch it up, with power!
listen to people talking about Nintendo when they don't know ANYTHING about nintendo is the worst this I can do, bye!
Ummm…. It’s always been about hardware. Just not high performance hardware.
But hardware in the form of functionality and features, Nintendo has been head and shoulders above everyone else since the dawn of time.
BINGO. But you cant reason with these PC nerds. When they think tech, they think chips and that all they think about. Sucks to be them because PC gaming SUCKS.
@@Molybed1 how? we litteraly got everything any consol has
@@timo4463 Ask the shills that made this video why USB 3 keeps randomly disconnecting on PC and why it hasn't been fixed for over 10 years. When I play my games on consoles, USB 3 DOES NOT DISCONNECT. That's only one example.
@@Molybed1 never expirineced that
Maybe use a better Motherboard or cable?
What are soem stuff thats every PC Gamer expirienced Like having to pay extra to Play online?
@@timo4463 That's the beauty of consoles though. It's no fuss, turn key solution. I love PC gaming just as much as my Switch and RG35xxH retro handheld.
There are pros and cons to everything. But Linus and these guys are totally wrong about Nintendo not being so focused on hardware. High performance chips, sure, I'll give you that. Hardware is much more than just transistors.
The main problem with the push for cutting-edge hardware is you are competing against home computers and your hardware is already dated the moment you release the console. For sure 4k graphics look nice but it isn't necessary for making a good game. I expect the next console will be a slight bump in performance since we are seeing more games suffer lower FPS but I don't expect it to be a large jump. Who knows though. For better or worse, Nintendo does its own thing.
One key factor no one is mentioning is affordability. It launched as the lowest proced console at the time. And the lite is still the cheapest console in the market now.
Which is why I always get a slight feeling of classism every time someone starts talking about how they wished the switch was monumentally more powerful (I.E. expensive)
Gamecube was the last "power console" they developed. After that, the changes were very minimal for the later consoles.. They began to focus on their own way of doing things.
The code name is "Ounce" based on OS data mining.
Also there have been references to a game codenamed "UKing-O". "UKing" was the codename for Breath of the Wild, and Switch ports end in "-S" (so the Switch port of BOTW is internally called "UKing-S"). UKing-O plus the rumors of what was shown to the press seem to point to an upgraded port of BOTW on the Switch 2.
(Also btw, games ported to 3ds end in "-C" (3ds's codename was CTR))
I think they actually care a lot about hardware, but they don't care or boast about SPECS.
Apple has shown us that specs don't matter and Nintendo has too. They create world class games and experiences. They don't want to be a media center, Netflix hub, DVD player or anything else. They care about the games and I'm glad they are different.
This latest generation with PS5 AND XBX Series has been garbage.
Powerful hardware doesn't automatically make your console launch successful. Nintendo learn that long time ago...
Nintendo just have to wait for SONY and XBOX to implode themselves by chasing tech and making their overall game developments cost too expensive to maintain.
Agreed. Backwards compatibility, or power never meant success. Marketing, games with appealing elements did. People that look closely know this. People seeking things they want to see don't.
You said they don't look back, but not necessarily. You have to remember the big problem w/ N64 was that Nintendo refused to update to disc media at the time, which RLY hurt game design. It may have led to graphics holding up better in the long run bc it enabled developers to include specialized chips with their games, but you couldn't put the same sized game on a PS1 (650mb) disc & a N64 cartridge (64mb). They decided to stick w/ that model because it worked so well on all their previous systems despite trends in contemporary gaming & the before they brought.
Gamecube was the most graphically advanced of its generation. It just had a similar problem to N64 with a gimped storage medium. Load times were faster than competition due to the smaller disc, though.
Because the last time they did, they got steamrolled by the PS2 and OG Xbox
Nintendo has never cared to be on the front lines of hardware. that said, they've never not cared, either. the Wii looks significantly better than the Gamecube, although the gap isn't as big as the PS2>PS3 or Xbox>360. then the Wii>WiiU graphics jump felt huge to me. but Nintendo knows that stronger hardware != better games. we have plenty of HD trash right now and the demand for retro games seems abnormally high to me. Indie games are also doing really well. but when the top-of-the-line games look better than real life, why upgrade? why not just let that stuff get cheaper, and be satisfied where we are? for example, audio casette tapes (with the right noise cancelling) honestly can sound pretty great. since their creation, we made CDs and MP3s which have made audio more convenient and cheaper, but the quality hasn't significantly changed, and CDs became mainstream in 1991 (according to Google), same year Sonic 1 came out. if we're hitting the same point graphically, then it makes all the sense in the world to hang back a generation and not bother with diminishing returns. I say Nintendo is doing exactly the smartest thing, although I wish they'd rerelease more legacy content, fix joycon drift, and stop suing everyone and their grandmothers.
I truly believe that a big part of the state of the games industry has been the chase of higher and higher specs. More scope means more investment, more investment means taking fewer risks which results in the kind of saturation and consolidation we’ve seen.
Games have never been about hardware and I really respect that Nintendo understands that. The most exciting games have always been the low spec ones at least for me. Like think of the most iconic games of each generation they were pretty much all games that could run on low-spec machines.
I just find it funny that the "power" argument NEVER covers perf/watt, but when comparing GPU generations to explain why RDNA had less TFLOPS than GCN2, it magically exists. Switch was unveiled in 2016, and at the time was the most powerful mobile SOC on the planet until Apple dethroned it.
Nintendo Switch runs games at Watts PS5 can't even boot with. If tech is going to be accurately compared, it shouldn't be done in such a disingenuous way by RUclipsrs and gaming press.
Switch 2 will be fine, and will be capable of 1440p natively.
Nintendo Switch is the 3rd highest selling console of all time, more people own Mario Kart 8 on the Switch (62m) than they do a PS5 (60m), there's your answer.
i think 800p is emerging as a defacto standard for handheld game systems. Its the perfect balance of performance and sharpness. 1080p on a 8" diagonal screen is slightly diminishing returns because of costs to things like performance and battery life when 800p gets you most of the way there and is easier to drive and cheaper to manufacture. If its over 800p ill genuinely be surprised, even with the advent of dlss.
16:10 is better for smaller displays because it’s just a more comfortable field of view for that distance and size.
My main issue with Nintendo consoles is that they always come with a caveat compared to the competition. N64 was cartridges, GC was Mini-DVD, Wii was a generation behind on performance, WiiU as well plus the controller, and the Switch is still 7th gen performance.
Referring to the title, Nintendo has said they are the only company that is a game company, all the others are tech companies. I think thats why they make oddball decisions from a tech perspective. Like using 2 gen old hardware for a modern console :p
1. The more powerful the hardware, the bigger the work load, the longer the game dev time will be, less games overall, much pricier games, games focus and blow budget on gwaphix solely, doomed to repeat the downfall of AAAs
2. Price, accessibility, affordability
3. Handhelds will simply never be on par with non-handhelds. That's the unfortunate reality of small hardware and battery-powered devices. It's a LOT better now than it was in 2015/17 tho
4. Consoles have absolutely no value outside of Portability and Exclusivity. Only Nintendo has both. PC will always do it better than a stationary console. Now that we got PC handhelds, games are the only selling point and Nintendo has a LOT
5. If games run poorly, it's 99% the fault of the devs. This ESPECIALLY applies on consoles. They had 1 job: make and/or optimize the game to run on SPECIFIC hardware. If they couldn't do that, it's 101% incompetence on their behalf
I think the only time Nintendo was hardware competitive was the SNES and when the original Game Boy first launched. But the Gameboy was around for a decade without a spec bump, so it was outdated hardware very quickly. Even the original NES/Famicom was outdated on release. The N64 had technical capabilities that Sony and Sega didn't, but that didn't seem to translate into game mechanics or visuals. It was slightly behind on computational power and way behind on storage media.
I wouldn't bet against continuing the name either. Just look at Gameboy line, there was Pocket, Lite, Color, Advance, Advance SP, Advance SP2 (which was just called SP on the packaging and if you find an SP outside of Japan it is almost certainly an SP2), and Micro. Then with DS they had Lite, DSi, 3DS, 3DS XL, and 2DS (and probably 1 or 2 more that I'm forgetting). Switch Advance or Switch 4K seem like reasonable. Super Switch just doesn't feel right. One thing Nintendo has never done is simply call something Console 2.
N64 is way more powerful than the PSOne and the Game Clube is way more powerful than the PS2 (check resident evil 4 PS2 vs game Clube).
It was exactly because the "strongest console always lose" that Nintendo dropped their Focus on hardware.
The original Xbox was more powerful than the game Clube, which was already way more powerful than the PS2. The PS2 was the weakest of its generation, thus the cheapest one.
@@kissadev. The N64 CPU was a lot more powerful than the Play Station, but my understanding is that it didn't matter because the GPU couldn't keep up. Either way, it doesn't really get credit because it came out nearly 3 years after the PlayStation.
The NGC was also competitive. Pretty close to the original Xbox, and way past the PS2.
@@nehylen5738 The raw CPU and GPU performance of the GC was 10-30% faster than PS2. However PS2 had a lot of other accelerators to make it perform better. PS2 also had 30% more memory and 50% more storage on disk. Game Cube was competitive, but it was not a clear leader.
GC also released over a year after PS2.
Those Switch naming alternatives run the risk of another WiiU situation happening, ie "oh, this is the Lite verison to my DS, I already have a DS so I won't buy it". They need a name that both evokes the Switch juuust enough to cash in on brand recognition while presenting a new name that makes it clear it is indeed a new console and not the same as the old one or a peripheral to the old console.
Personally, I'm a fan of "SwitchUp", but I can see the value of "Super Switch", could even be persuaded to see a combination "Super SwitchUp!"
I hope the marketing guys that Nintendo hires are actually good at their job this time...
I think this is the generation where we hit diminishing returns on raw power. It’s so expensive to develop games that take advantage of that hardware it isn’t really worth it except for the top performing games.
In my opinion it was already the previous one. This generation just have made it more obvious.
DS Lite was a perfect name for a perfect handheld. Same exact processing power, but brighter screens, much sleeker shell. DSi was the weird one. I think it did have a slight boost in power, could be wrong.
This has always been Nintendo's thing. Legacy hardware that affordable
“Switch HD” it’s already 720, which is HD. FHD on the tv
Definition has shifted as our standards have. For example RUclips stopped labeling 720p as HD. Now that we have 8K TVs, 4K is standard, and 1080p is budget, 720 has fallen to standard definition
@@JunScunthorpe
Outside of the techie bubble, most things are still done in 1080. 4k has higher requirements for every step (content, network, playback, screen) and doesn't add too much under 30 inches.
in handheld mode you don't need anything above 1080p it wouldn't even make a difference
"high definition" implies it's better relative to some other format. There IS no usage of 480p ANYWHERE these days. The "low resolution" standard is 720p. Hence why it's been lumped into the "standard definition" bubble now.
720p is still fine. I love my Steam Deck that's just a slightly taller 720p. But it's definitely not "high definition" anymore.
Switch and Steam Deck are standard definition consoles by reasonable 2024 standard, and that's okay.
The GameCube was actually quite powerful for it's time. The main issue with it was the file size limitation from using smaller discs. For example, Resident Evil 4 was actually GameCube exclusive for around a year. They had to make significant graphical downgrades to get it running on the PS2, but at least the PS2 version was all on a single disc, rather than the GameCube version's two. The Wii was basically just a GameCube with motion controls, though. That's when they fell(and stayed) a generation behind hardware wise.
6:20 thank you! You are the only person I have ever heard say that. That screen was super helpful. Some games like monster hunter 3U a launch title used it amazingly to declutter the screen. And let you play on the screen if say family wanted to watch a movie. It was great. I pirated anime on the WiiU and watched it while my family watched bingbong theory
C'mon the GameCube was a powerhouse.
The problem was the Mini-Disc. Nintendo later said the Mini-Disc was a dumb idea.
I'm not sure if they should even continue with the SWITCH moniker
Its a double edge sword: if you name it Switch, yes it has brand recognition, BUT it might turn off the general audience because they would just think its MORE OF THE SAME.
If you name it something else, it doesnt have the recognition, it still has Nintendo, but it can also be CLEAR that its a BRAND NEW SYSTEM
I think you're onto something. But what then would be the name?
What about switch 2?
@@diskyariajetmiko
No, I have an Idea.
The Switch One. Doing it the Microsoft way baby.
honestly is kinda smart to not focus on graphics/performance because developing games would take much more time to make, thats why xbox and playstation struggle now because they need to release games in a steady manner and now they have 2 options taking too much time to develop games for too long or release games earlier with missing features being incomplete or straight up being a buggy mess
Nintendo just wants games to be fun while making maximum profit with cheaper hardware.
They do care about hardware. They just don't care about it in the same way as Xbox and PS. It's not about power, it's about form factor. The whole point of the low tech hardware was to not compete against the other platforms at the time. Provide a cheaper alternative and concentrate on quality games. And it's a strategy that works.
Super Switch, Switch Snap (or Nintendo Snap), or Switch Attach all make sense to me. Switch Advance or Switch Pro or New Switch would all be dumb, imo
They've said time and time again that they use old hardware to keep prices down. Nintendo games always put gameplay first, so graphics don't matter as much as PlayStation/Xbox that go for realism
But this a a lie. Graphics do matter which is why Nintendo pushed TotK to the limits and couldn't hold a solid 30 fps.
Why do Nintendo fans lie and say graphics and hardware doesn't matter when Nintendo push their games beyond what the hardware can handle. Nintendo had to go around suing emulation because it was so easy to emulate their games on a PC and run better than the Switch.
@@smidlee7747 Nintendo makes their games look the best they can, but they're not pushing 4k ultra realism.
Going after people illegally distributing their games is fair.
And no duh more powerful hardware runs the games better
@@kylespevak6781 Who talking about 4k? The Switch can't even keep TotK at 30fps at 720p.
@@kylespevak6781the switch can't even run totk and pokemon games properly tf you're talking about lol
@@SCP-tn2ln From my hundreds of hours of experience it runs them fine. I mean if you're comparing it to something like an Xbox One, you're going to have a bad time. Look at the specs and compare it to what's comparable on the market. It has a majority of the top-selling PS3 and Xbox 360 games ported to it
GameCube was up there. More powerful than Dreamcast and PS2, but not quite Xbox. The only shortcoming was the small sized discs
IIRC the GC also didn't natively connect to the internet.
Never had an original Xbox though so I'm unfamiliar with its specs and features.
@@SegmentW ummm it had a broadband adaptor. A lot of those consoles did tho. Xbox was the only one with a built in one
@@jiggylookbackSony would introduce the PS2 slim which did feature a built in broadband adapter for Ethernet connections.
N64 and GameCube were hardware competitive but they didn’t use cds so the games couldn’t be as big as they could be on the other cd based consoles
Gamecube was much stronger than the PS2, Xbox was a little stronger iirc but the Gamecube came out a little earlier. The only problem it had was the mini DVD because tbqh, it was one of the best Nintendo consoles.
They had the system done for years and are doing the Nintendo Strategy of making really good games and polishing them for launch instead of releasing a top of the line console with no profit or game appeal.
A high budget and low budget option called Top and Bottom
Underrated comment
That would so funny
7:45 - 8:05 The Gamecube was actually hardware competitive for its time. It was the 2nd most powerful 6th gen console ahead of the PS2 and Dreamcast, but behind the original Xbox. The only issue was that the Gamecube had way smaller disks to fit digital media for games in whereas all of their competitors used full sized disks.
Really frustrating to listen to people who put themselves out there as if they have some expertise on a subject who can’t even get basic facts right and also whining about the same tired arguments about “more power=better”. I’ve never seen these guys before this appeared in my feed and after listening to their drivel I won’t be seeing them ever again.
I want them to call it ✨new✨ nintendo switch because i like to sow chaos
Fr tho switch advance goes really hard
Consoles need enough hardware to run games made for them comfortably all the way until the next generation comes out, IMO
GameCube was really strong; it actually had an ATI graphics module, which looked conventionally “nicer” on screen than the custom graphics compute and frame buffer solutions Sony and Microsoft were coming up with
I am not a graphics glutton. As the AAA industry shows, chasing the next visual fidelity high is not sustainable. Game development budgets have soared to all time highs where developers today are willing to take fewer risks and the gameplay often takes a backseat to the visuals. There are also those also annoying little micro-transactions, dlcs, and poorly fleshed out stories. Nintendo is doing the right thing here!
Also the fuck the gamecube was very competitive power wise, only suffering from architecture.
It blew the ps2 out of the water, but it couldn't compete quite with Xbox because that was a pc. And it used DVDs. But it was close.
The wii was nearly identical to gamecube and it was the outlier at the time. It gave it backwards compatibility though.
Man this is painful to watch. These people have such a big platform and don't know a damn thing about what they're talking about.
Gamecube not being hardware pushing?
DS lite having improved specs?
What
10:40 I did personally like the fact the wii also doubled As a GameCube
I dont know youtube recommended this. These guys clearly know nothing about Nintendo.
Piracy & Zelda. Hopefully was a wake up call.
I want to enjoy the experience to its absolute fullest. Most of us can agree we just can’t do that on the hardware they provide.
Tears had it worse with its frame drop issue. It’s definitely worth $70, but with higher frames, higher resolutions. Because god damn it it’s a beautiful world. I don’t feel bad for playing it on PC. What an experience.