Why Isn't Nintendo Hardware Powerful? Here's Why - Adam Koralik
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 сен 2024
- www.figureitout...
/ figureitoutproductions
This is a discussion topic video about Nintendo's console history relative to the Wii U and the idea of their hardware never being powerful enough.
It's very ironic that consoles meant for adults with multiplats like battlefield and call of duty are actually more popular with kids, while nintendo's games are becoming increasingly popular with adults.
+John Butch COD isn't aimed at older adults, it's aimed at teenagers and youngish adults. I guess it's the same for Battlefield?
+John Butch
I guess that's it's really only the adolescent market that buys the myth that greater technological capabilities necessarily make games better. Probably why special effects driven summer blockbuster films strive for PG-13 ratings over PG or R. Meanwhile, more experienced and jaded adults are growing both more nostalgic for their childhoods and growing more appreciative of games that focus on personality, atmosphere, art direction and unique game design.
+IwantaPlayStation4 omg I literally bought x,y back in 2012 and got the same feeling. I played for a few hours and put it down for 4 years. Recently all this nostalgia just came back and I'm super addicted to it. Definitely worth playing xy they are so improved and very well done. Even the story line explores darker themes than I remember. It's way easier as an adult to appreciate quality. Even if the story is too childish for some the underlying game is still very fleshed out. Battles are a joy to look at and the online component makes u feel part of a giant world (though it could be much more expanded).
I just broke out my old GBA + Poke Leafgreen. Good memories!
All hail the original 150! I want more. ...not more and more irrelevant pokemon, but more design and creativity with the originals. Better graphics on the same old concept would be great!
('Also been playing Pokemon XD and it's concept and graphics are great, but I don't recognize 80% of the pokemon) :(
+sportscardude Hey man add me on Facebook kie connor and message me!
The switch proved the theory of “power is the recipe for success” wrong. It has passed the Xbox’s sales a while ago while that is the most powerful console at the moment.
But then again the switch uses a tegra cpu same as the NVidia shield
The Switch is portable. Its direct competition would be Xcloud
a good business is when shit product still sells well, never using sales as benchmark because there are many retarded human
@@Schnitzeldawg Those tegra SOCs are not that powerful also the GPU is very old
@@diegofrgcand its also a home console so it competitors are also microsoft and sony
Nintendo’s hardware might not be top of the line anymore but it hardly matters due to the fact that the games still look beautiful and colorful and Nintendo games are hella fun
thats bad excuse making nintendo get away with it, try zelda botw in emulator pc at least 1080p 60 fps, wasted potential
@@richard35791 Do u will pay 500$-700$ for the Nintendo Switch if it was able to do that?
@@framedthunder6436 I'd bet he wouldn't
Botw looks like ass. So do basically all the pokemon games. I don't even know if it's hardware issue but they don't look good.
Why say this years later?
It's funny watching this having a ps5 , series x and a switch. How drastically things can change .
A long time ago a man made the Game Cube. People laughed at the price he set it at, while his competitors sky rocketed in comparison. He said, with a straight face, "People do not play with the console itself. They play the games MADE for console. This is why the console is made to be cheaply bought. So we can put money in the games FOR the consoles." I find it sad, this great man is still laughed at today. Why do we want consoles that cost a fortune but are replaced in 3 years time? Why not buy a cheaper console for the great games that it turns out? When consoles are all the same, priced extrodinarialy high. Made to last longer but made to make the previous gen obsolete...then what makes a console special? I don't dream of a super powerful machine. I dream of a machine that is HARDWARE backwards compatible with previous games. So that loyal customers aren't kicked in the face. How companies expect that people who want to still play older games must now emulate or buy copies on their "E-shops"....when they don't tether those games to your account. When they turn out their new consoles, after you have spent hundreds on the previous gen just to not be able to transfer or play the games on the newer console...that...that shrinks the newer gen's library considerably in my opinion. Plus, they cut off support for their older systems and skyrocket the games and replacement parts for those systems. SO in reality, they kick their customers in the face for remaining loyal. Those actions are unforgivable. So I will not dream of more powerful machines that ignore Loyal fans. I REFUSE to. Instead I will dream of a system which rewards fans for staying loyal for so long.
Samantha Fox Thay was nicely put!!!
Thank you very much ^
3 years? I've had my ps3 for a solid, solid 7 years now and aside from stopped dev support for new titles JUST to push PS Plus and PS4 onto people, it's hardware is no less than the newer gen.
Wii matching the PS3? Yeano....
So, you're saying that every new iteration of a particular company's system must support backwards compatibility through hardware and not software emulation.
I don't think you realize how BIG of a request that is. I don't think you understand how these systems work on a base level and for that, your argument is infinitely flawed.
Almost every new iteration of a console is based on a new architecture and completely different hardware. This means that for them to support older systems natively, they must also include the same hardware that was present in those systems. You can't simply run games from an older generation on different hardware without emulation, because the system wouldn't know what to do with the game. That would be like trying to speak a different language to someone who doesn't understand and expecting them to anyway.
When systems start to get into multiple generations of their product, do you really think it's a good idea for them to build the hardware to accommodate every system they've made since they started? Do you realize that the PS3 Phat was a HUGE brick and costed and astronomical amount because it literally had the hardware for the PS1, PS2 and PS3 all in the same system?
Now imagine if they had done the same thing for the PS4. I hope you have a fuck pile of real estate on your entertainment stand, because that would be one hell of a machine and as far as that nice price that they put on that system, well fucking forget that. The PS1234 would have cost at least a grand, not to mention the fact that they would have to source parts from decades ago that are no longer in production to make it.
The only way that Nintendo managed to get away from this was that they built the Gamecube, Wii and the Wii U off of the same architecture. They just upgraded it slightly through the iterations to make it better. That let them have the backwards compatibility, while still maintaining a decent size and price and look where that got them. They are constantly bashed for having inferior hardware and being behind the curve.
My last point is to argue your assumption that they should continue to support legacy hardware. This is just an absurd request. Hardware keeps moving forward. That's the point I've been trying to make this whole post. New stuff comes out and the old just doesn't get made anymore because it's inferior. Nobody is buying it. There's no money to be made producing this stuff. That's why the prices go up for older games and hardware. Nobody is artificially driving the prices here, it's expensive because it's rare and you're buying it second hand. It isn't being made anymore.
Black River what's the point the norm one is the same
He is wrong about one thing..
Nintendo 64 had this slogan. "The fastest and most powerful console on earth".
Ventilatingyes The Sega Master System proudly claimed "Now There Are No Limits." Doesn't always mean it's true. ;)
AdamKoralik What about facts? ;)
N64 had lots of games that was impossible to port to PS1 due to slow GPU speed and RAM size.
This is why the big bunch of FPS also were N64 exclusive.
Turok 2, Conkers Bad fur Day, Perfect Dark, Top Gear Overdrive and lots of others looks far better on N64 than any full 3D game ever made on PS1.
Ventilatingyes It's quite simple. The N64 could do things the other fifth generation hardware couldn't do.
But, the Saturn, PS1, etcetera could all do things the N64 couldn't. All stems from the moronic decision to use cartridges.
In other words, there was no console in the fifth generation that was "the most powerful."
It's hard for anyone to take that title when all of the others can do things the others can not.
AdamKoralik : Hardware benchmark is not measured by storage space. But yes, all consoles had their advantages overall. CD/DVD/Blu-Ray did never make any GPU and CPU powerful thou.
There was good 2 reasons why Nintendo went with carts.
- FMV was overused for years already on CDTV, CD32, CDTV, Jaguar CD etc. and was already boring to people before PS1 was ever launched.
- CD's had very slow loading times and carts was many times faster.
F-Zero X N64 still holds the record of the fastest booting 3D game ever made, and its maybe the only console game in 1990's that runs at 60 fps.
If you remove FMV from over 90% of PS1 games, they would all fit on N64 carts. Its already been proven many years ago in the homebrew scene.
I own both PS1 and N64 btw..Even the first CD consoles like CD32 and CDTV.
Ventilatingyes My point is that their format of choice cost them technical advantages. Which is a demonstrable fact.
That's why I am a Nintendo fan. I don't care in the slightest about graphics, I just care about good gameplay. And they always deliver.
DFG Music And without modern hardware that is up to snuff with developers expectations, they won't get many of those gameplay experiences the PS4, Xbone and PC will have.
My best case in point: Battlefield 3/4. The Wii U does not have the CPU GFLOPS to run a game of that kind of caliber without severe and I mean SEVERE reductions to the core game like reduced player counts, physics, animation, and level destructibility.
Like many others say, Nintendo designs systems for them, not for their 3rd parties. I think it's starting to become just way too brutally apparent to Nintendo that 3rd party support highly extends your system's potential market longevity. The Wii U 2 or whatever it will be called needs to be within some kind of ear shot of the PS4 or Xbone in order to attract 3rd parties. That means an x86 processor, 8+ Gigs of RAM and enough graphics compute units to compete with the new systems. AMD's Zen microarchitecture will be dropping by the end of 2016, and that correlates well with a Wii U successor in 2017. Also, there will likely be Zen APUs with HBM2 capability, and it's possible Nintendo might exploit it much like how every Nintendo system has some special memory setup.
***** Realistic graphics often needs to go hand in hand with realistic gameplay in order to better accentuate the gameplay and the feeling of one being absorbed in it. But you can still have a stylized game that requires alot of processing power depending on what you are trying to accomplish in terms of gameplay experience.
BF3 and 4 are actually incredibly impressive games when you consider all the things that are going on at once in 64 players matches on the PC and to a similar extent the console versions as well which are intensely processor constrained by their hardware, even the PS4 and Xbone. The ability to destroy parts of buildings, and in some cases entire buildings is an incredibly important part of the gameplay since you can engage enemies by blowing out part of a wall or even collapsing an entire building on top of an unsuspecting player. Also both games have simulated gun ballistics, so you have to account for gravity when aiming long distances, and to a lesser extent material penetration of walls and fences is simulated as well. Once again, these are gameplay essentials that add to the richness of the experience and build upon what has been introduced in previous Battlefield titles.
Calculating just all that at once takes ALOT of processing power, especially in the form of GFLOPS, something the Wii U doesn't have enough of to provide the same kind of experience as on even the PS3 or Xbox 360. GFLOPS stand for Giga Floating Operations Per Second, an important metric for gauging a processors ability to handle floating point and SIMD operations via it's FPU/SIMD array which are essential for processes that require alot of number crunching like physics, animation, and sound decode. Throw those processes on top of integer processes like AI, memory management, game code execution and draw calls and then you have a better idea of what game development is really like.
The PS3 and 360 have entirely impressed me with how well they've managed to surprise gamers over the years, and even more so the developers who poured so much time and sweat into creating some really awesome games that really pushed the hardware, as both systems really forced developers to find solutions to make their projects work on both systems. The fact that Nintendo had the gall to release such a weak system 6 years after the release of the PS3 goes to show that they really don't care about the 3rd party devs or were too overconfident about winning over mainstream and casual gamers a second time.
In complete honesty, I loved the Wiimote for FPSs on the Wii, but it's a damn shame that Ninty recycled the Gamecube's CPU and GPU. Even if it had managed to have half the power of a 360, so many of those great 360, PS3, and PC games could've actually made it to the Wii for me to enjoy with Wiimote. Goddamn BF2 or 2142 would've been so cool with those controls.
Blitzvogel Mobius I strongly disagree. better graphics is only necessary when you are re-pasting the exact same game under a different skin. (All FPS games). Nintendo is actually innovative, and invents completely new games every time, not just "what different environments can we get people to shoot each other in?"
DFG Music Nintendo has been pretty innovative in the past. But these days, Nintendo acts like a stubborn old man while everyone is moving on to newer and bigger things (dubious business practices aside). What are some of these "completely new games" you speak of?
In the end, all your arguments are refuted by the current market statistics. It's taken them 3 years to sell 10 million units, which is horrible. The market doesn't lie so obviously Nintendo is doing something wrong to attract buyers.
Blitzvogel Mobius Yes. A lot of people like yourself care about graphics over gameplay. That's why the Nintendo is failing. All I'm saying is I disagree with that logic, but nonetheless it still takes up the majority of the consumers.
Either way Mario Kart 8 looks beautiful.
And it runs 1080p 60fps something which...... Other consoles can't achieve
Ramit Manhas Well, those games on "other consoles" you're comparing to Mario Kart 8 are completely more complex - which the Wii U couldn't come near to achieving.
MightyKrizpp Those consoles are much more powerful, I'll admit that, but they don't use all of their power. Wii U games like Mario Kart 8 actually manages to achieve this since they are optimized for the console. It's not necessarily the consoles' fault, which I forgot to clarify (sorry about that), it's the developers who don't want to push those consoles to their limits due to their complexity. Those games that are on other consoles also released on last gen consoles and looked fine and ran fine on those. If the PS3 and Xbox 360 can run them, so can the Wii U. However, I still believe that the PS4 and Xbox One could run Mario Kart 8 just as well, if not better than the Wii U (Even though that's never going to happen).
Smartie 9000 It actually runs at 720p natively. It's only upscaled to 1080p, but you are correct that it runs at 60fps. Either way, it does indeed look beautiful. I just wish they could have used antialiasing to get rid of all the jaggies.
Sorry, my mistake, I did not know that it was an upscaled resolution. The anti aliasing might have to do with the less powerful GPU or less memory for the RAM. I would like to see it improved too, but not at the risk of the textures of the game or the framerate dropping. Perhaps Nintendo will update it in a patch, if not, not a huge loss since the game still looks absolutely beautiful and runs wonderfully.
Just realised this video is 3 years old when you said we may get a new Nintendo in 2016.
Nintendo doesn't try to be the cool kid with the most realistic look it tries make long lasting fun for all family and ages
they are like the Disney of gaming
haha yeah. I always tell people Nintendo are like the disney of video games. I play on ps too. I like having my gran torismo and mario kart. or battlefield and splatoon. I cant live without Nintendo there nor the other consoles. I like the diversty. Without Nintendo or ps or xbox Id be too limited.
They definitely are in terms of how scummy the company is towards the fans
It´s simple really: Gamecube was powerful... They learned from that.
GameCube was Nintendo's best console
@@EpsiIonEagle not for Nintendo
@@diegofrgc Yup, and look what happened. Gimmicks galore
@@EpsiIonEagle As if Nintendo hasn't been interested in gimmicks like the Cd add-ons for the Famicom Disk System, the canceled Super Famicom CD-ROM Adapter, and Japan only Nintendo 64 Disk Drive. Rob the Robot being a gimmick for the NES as a toy in the US. The idea of 3d/vr tech in the Famicom 3d, Virtual Boy, and the canceled Gamecube add-on. Nintendo had always been known for innovation and without them we wouldn't have things we expect like the rumble controller, a dpad, and shoulder buttons just to name a few.
@@hideofreakingkojima5457 Hey, show some respect! R.O.B. is a godamn hero! I hope my children can be half the machine he is.
In the end, it will be Nintendo vs. PC vs. mobile gaming.
***** Mobile Gaming is dead, It will most likely be Nintendo vs PC but PC has the upper hand.
IGs Zone we can argue power is not the question here.....
+IGs Zone nintendo is doing projects for mobile so maybe they'll be both console and mobiles.
Core games don't work on mobile. All you'll get is fee-to-pay skinner boxes. If Nintendo isn't designing their next console for VR I don't see how the can get back from that. VR is finally here; it's been obvious since the 1980's that VR would win over traditional displays and that time is finally here.
All the ingredients exist; small displays that run at >90 FPS, weigh almost nothing and have excellent resolution and negligible latency; sufficuent rendering hardware to run interesting experiences; accurate motion controls tracked in 6 DOF at sub mm precision; dirt cheap sensors by the hundreds. It used to be the case that it would cost tens of thousands of dollars just to make a system that would show the potential of VR, but now it is prime time for real.
+Edwin Contreras
I bet PC will prevail, like always....
Nintendo has been a company for 125 years. They are definitely not going anywhere anytime soon.
I agree completely.
i almost forgot they were i card company
The Roman Empire lasted 500 years and yet it fell.
No one is safe.
Nintendo is Innovative. That means they will continue to use the gamepad for all the games because they dont like to follow the crowd. Saying that they should drop the game pad is like saying to have Sony use their Move controller for more of their games. Its something they dont want to do and will not do.
Innovation and economic realities don't always align.
While Nintendo certainly has no desire to drop the gamepad, their desire to not lose money may outweigh that.
Nintendo is just like that though. They want to do something that can work until it does. Look at the normal Wii, They had a clear chance to opt out of motion controls and go to the GC ports on the top to get people to be more interested, but they didn't because they wanted innovation.
Yes you could Argue that the Wii was very successful for how small Nintendo is right now; but it's the principal of how they always were.
Thehunterpwn The Wii was a financial hit right out of the gate, going on to sell a hundred million plus units. Why would they opt out of that kind of financial success?
The Wii U is NOT financially successful, despite how much I love it.
Don't be the least bit surprised if they cut their losses and treat the console like a salvage operation, the way Sony did with the PS3.
you can also argue with the release of the 2DS that Nintendo has cut some of its innovative actions, but Look at what they have done in their past. They have gutted their machines to get more revenue. I.E. NES model 2 beings slightly weaker with its picture, the SNES model 2, and the Mini Wii dropping its GC support. The 2DS gutting its 3D gameplay was just something they did to boost their interest in the console and thereby its revenue.
They even directed the new Remodeled 2DS towards kids making me see that the Mini Wii was also directed there too, and even making me think that's exaclty what they did with the NES 2 and SNES 2.
True it was a financial success, but I've seen many a time where it's the driving factor in people not liking it. They could have easily gotten the normal controller and raked those that were sceptical.
You are an absolute pleasure to watch. Many reviewers are annoying to watch after a while but your logic hits the nail on the head very well. Great work dude keep it up!
Thanks for watching!
Adam was right, we just saw the new console from Nintendo now in 2016 (11:30) . Spot on Adam
Thanks.
Mario Suriel 2017
Mario Suriel Adam the Oracle.
+Adam Koralik Wow your predictions in 14:35 just came true!
@Omar Al-Bochi The N64 came out a year after the PS1, and two years after the Saturn. Improvements were bound to happen. But the use of cartridges was so limiting that it held it back behind both of those consoles. It's like having a Ferrari but no engine. So it doesn't matter how fancy it is.
GameCube, same deal. Year after the PS2, two after the Dreamcast. Improvements will happen. But again, crippled by its storage format. Obviously less intense than it's immediate contemporary rival, the XBox.
The point that people seem to fail to understand is that Nintendo never set out to have the most powerful hardware, and that's 100% true.
I'd say it was more like having a Ferrari with no gas tank. N64 had an engine, but it had nothing to put in it.
Whether they did or not isn't the point. You have claimed they haven't apart from the SNES.
edilcanidal My point, that perhaps was unclear, was that Nintendo has never tried to make the most definitively powerful console in a generation, and they have not.
***** PC whit all emulation in hd xD
***** actually the PS2 wasn't that far behind, being that it had online, and a built in DVD player. it was quite advanced to an extent, that being another reason it sold more
Your theory on past Nintendo consoles has one major flow:
the Nintendo GameCube.
It was the most advanced console of its generation, hands down. Compare the various versions of Tales of Symphonia, Resident Evil 4, etc.
XBox.
AdamKoralik They could produce roughly the same visuals (I think the GC was slightly better though). Xbox and GameCube were like P$4 and Xbox1 today. So your theory on Nintendo making outdated hardware since forever is still flawed (not to mention the "N64 vs PS1" era).
Bloody Davey Visuals sure, maybe. But storage medium, HD capabilities, etcetera. These are all factors.
As for the other one, I've answered that like a thousand times in the comments already.
Short version, the N64's use of cartridges held it back to the point where its technical advances meant dick.
AdamKoralik
Yes they're all factors but it all boils down to graphics these days. Internet is overloaded of people arguing about 60fps here, 40fps there, 1080p, 720p (like if they could tell the difference).
And yes the use of cartridges severely injured the N64, but just because software houses wanted to work with this new amazing CD technology (and fill their games with horrible loading times, apparently), but you can't say the N64 was outdated. It was quite the opposite.
***** the gamecube is still my favourite console right above the wiiu and ps2, such a good library, Animal Crossing, Path of Radiance, Baten Kaitos, Tales of Symphonia, Smash Bros Melee, Killer 7, Eternal Darkness, Mario Kart Double Dash the list just goes on, and I remember how it always saddened me when gamecube games were so limited and hard to find in stores compared to ps2 and Xbox even though it was that current era. whenever anyone speaks down on the gamecube I want to smack them so hard lol ^^
wtf? why are there people complaining about hardware? I play the games because of gameplay, story, just to have fun. Not so I can say I have good hardware?!
Hardware though can make better games that can look better and give you more features (bigger scenarios,complex environments,etc) an example would be a game like Ghost Recon wouldn't be able to run a decent framerate unless you strip a lot of things from the game or you have a very good porting team (which a part from Rockstar I don't see another company pull it off)
what justaguy said, and lack of proper or competitive hardware makes game developers want to go sell to other parties where their games arent limited
So you are saying that you wouldn't like all those things with good graphics? They arn't an exclusive thing you can have it all.
The thing is, better hardware allows developers to produce something better, and let the player play the game "more properly". Not that a good game can be done with less hardware (for example, Tetris is totally better than Superman 64), but that goes for what the developer can make. Being your own limit is better than being limited by the tools you use.
To say something, the Snes had some problems when making sprites; they had to be squares, 32x32, 16x16, you name it, but in the Sega Genesis, you could have some wild combinations, like 8x32, 32x16, etc. While on the other hand, a bad processor can make your game run too slow to actually enjoy it. Hardware IS an important point.
And Shigeru Miyamoto and Gunpei Yokoi and the rest of them would concur.
you was almost predicted it right about when we'll see a new Nintendo console. You was just a year off but I would still get lottery numbers from you
Great video, subscribed. I agree with most of what you said! Just wanted to add that the philosophy of using older hardware they understood well that Gunpei Yokoi talked about he actually named "Lateral Thinking with Withered Technology". And it has gone on to inform almost every console release since the success of the Game Boy :P
Thanks Brian! :P
The Wii is a useful console. I use it to rest my beer on while playing my PS4
I don't usually say this but...LOL.
YOU WILL BE THE FIRST OF OUR DARK HARVEST
What, you gonna beat me to death with your Wii controller? You know they're not real nunchucks, right?
ever heard of a joke?
The wii stands up right, you aren't resting shit on in.
+Lee Wilson Not if you actually know your history. The N64's use of cartridges was far more limiting than people seem to realize.
I never said the PS2 exceeded the GameCube in anything, aside from storage capacity.
But the XBox did...
So I submit to you that your understanding of gaming history is flawed.
Yes indeed the cartridges massively limited the N64 load times :)
Mighty Poo Of course there were no load times, it's a cartridge.
That doesn't mean the cartridge suddenly is capable of superior performance or storage. It just means you didn't have to wait an extra few seconds.
Alan Cube The max was around 128 MBs. Only a handful used it, and they were so expensive to produce, even at full retail price Nintendo lost money on each unit.
In the end, the use of cartridges were a horrendous idea. Not only because they limited what the console was capable of, but because it caused third party developers to bail on Nintendo.
AdamKoralik those extra seconds pisses the hell outta me, and so do the need for memory cards on those damn cds
Tony Jn
You're thinking about it from the perspective of a customer. That has very little to do with what's under the hood of the console.
I’m not saying Nintendo needs the most powerful system ever made but I do think it’s disappointing how far behind they are. PS5/Series X literally do 4K gaming up to 120fps while the switch can barely play games at 720p 30fps. That’s like two generations behind.
weird thing is, listening to these great rambles which interest me, more entaining than watching 95% of the stuff that's on tv :)
Thanks.
Gotta say, it kinda surprises me how many people keep bringing up N64 and Gamecube as a counter-argument.
N64 was awful with textures (and not just because of storage capacity) and it had pretty slow RAM. Then, there was the storage issue. It had a better CPU and could handle more polys, but that was about it aside from better loading times. In a way, if you say the N64 is more powerful than PS1 then you could take the same logic and say Genesis was more powerful than SNES. Almost the same sets of strengths and weaknesses apply in comparison.
GC is a bit harder to gauge though. It was more powerful than xbox in some ways and not in others. But those differences are much more negligible here than they were with the previously mentioned systems. In reality, the GC was their most competitively built system and was neck to neck with the best in terms of power. But it fits in your theory because it wasn't specifically made to be the most powerful. Just, very competitive.
I love you so much, just want you to know that.
The N64 had the amazing games that even with its cartridge limit seemed huge. It was better than Ps1, but not as good as the PS2, which is understandable seeing as there is a 2-3 years difference between them all in development time.
The N64 actually had Z-buffer for perspective correction of textures which I think makes the graphics look way more presentable. The PS1 had no such thing and had jittery textures as a result.
gold lightning Trying to say the N64 is weaker than Ps1 is lunacy. Bad with textures? That was the 5th generation, and the N64 at least had a Z-buffer and texture filtering, which was huge. Slow RAM? Compared to what? It had 4mb's standard and had 8 with the expansion pak.
As for gamecube, yeah Xbox aand GC traded blows. Where I feel GC gets the edge though is loading times, which were blazing fast on the cube.
"Slow RAM? Compared to what? It had 4mb's standard and had 8 with the expansion pak." You acknowledged the speed point but then countered it with the AMOUNT of ram it had....not it's speed. And no I've no idea of memory speeds so can't confirm if he is right was just pointing out your mistake
Adam was right about Nintendo, the Switch came out in 2017.
Dude you talk so much sense, and i learn so much from a short video like this
I don't see any flaws with this theory; the new hardware that Reggie mentioned, "Nintendo NX", will already be announced next year. Nintendo doesn't have the most powerful consoles, but they definitely have a larger amount that sold better. Their strategy is to make consoles quickly, to keep up with the market, and then release quality game titles to make up for the inferior software.
Nintendo just shows to prove that looks, or more specifically, graphics, do not matter as long as the game is fun.
Hold up.
The NES came out 3 years before the Master System, but it wasn't that far behind it power-wise.
The SNES was toe to toe with the Genesis (despite the super expensive NeoGeoAES with its huge size)
The N64 had smoother graphics than the PS1(despite its advantages)
And the GameCube was more powerful than the PS2.
I think the point is that Nintendo was never really significantly behind other platforms. This all started with the Wii.
False.
SNES was ahead of the Genesis, sans the CPU speed. AKA "blast processing."
N64 came out a year after the PS1, two after the Saturn. Certain advancements would be made, it makes sense. But using cartridges was so limiting that it didn't matter. It's like having a Ferrari with no fuel.
Finally, why do people forget about the XBox?
AdamKoralik
Well yes, the SNES was a bit more powerful than the Genesis, which further proves my point that Nintendo was never really a whole generation behind. Just like the Xbox One is able to go toe-to-toe with the PS4. I think Nintendo should be part of it.
It's true that the Xbox was more powerful, but the GameCube didn't suffer because of it, you know what I mean? Especially when it came to multiplatform games compared to the Wii and Wii U.
WobBUFFet I never claimed they were a whole generation behind.
The point of the video, which I apparently didn't communicate clearly enough and I apologize for that, is that Nintendo has never set out to dominate a generation. The closest that came to happening was the SNES, and it was more of an accident than anything else.
AdamKoralik
I know you didn't claim that. I did lol
But what I mean is that, Nintendo doesn't need to dominate an entire generation with the most powerful hardware. They just need hardware that is just good enough to be able to keep up with the competition the same way their previous systems have. PS2, for example, was weaker than GC and Xbox, but not significantly weaker that it needed special treatment like the Wii/Wii U.
But I do agree with the rest of your video though. Dropping the Gamepad might be a good idea. I do hope they don't announce a new system as soon as 2016 though. I'm thinking about picking one up soon and I was hoping to get more than 2 or 3 years out of it.
exactly
@alex hannam Thanks for watching.
Mario Revuelta
And still got dominated by the PS1.
CDs > Cartridges in terms of space.
AdamKoralik The NES, the SNES, the N64, well pretty much every single Nintendo console, until the Wii, was actually the most powerful system of their console gens, the only thing that hurt Nintendo in those days was that they refused to move into industry standard storage, such as sticking to carts during the N64, and going for the Mini disks during the Gamecube. Also with the SNES the CPU might have been slower than the Sega Genesis, however the GPU, and Audio processor were more powerful than the Genesis.
***** Sega Master System...
XBox...
And you ignore how much cartridges crippled the N64.
AdamKoralik I did mention the cartridge disabling the N64 and as far as the Sega master system goes that was due to it coming out after the NES and advantages in technology over time, same with the Xbox, that was just tech being more advanced and less expensive over time.
***** Yeah, you did. My bad. Sorry, I'm operating on very little sleep at the moment.
I love your predictions about the 9th gen consoles and now we definitely know about the PS5 and Xbox Scarlet!!!!!! 😂
It’s interesting to go back and see what we thought back in the day of the video being made!!!! 😯
I believe the reason is simple. Nintendo has cornered the family market oriented games. They aren't going after GTA, Dark Souls, Fallout type players who want ultra realism with insane graphics. Their customers are people who want to play light hearted games like their cornerstone Mario, Mariokart, smash bros., zelda, and metroid games. They back that up by being creative. Wii, Wiifit, and Wii U, break the mold. Motion controller, secondary screen, etc.
Nintendo = graphicsgameplay
Not in the case of the Super Nintendo. The system was designed primarily for aesthetics, great color/graphics and versatile sampled sound but let everything else to fall to the wayside technically.
Retro Soul what is everything else? The only other thing it needs is great games, which the snes most definitely has
Fanboy spotted. I don't even own a modern console and can smell that BS from a mile away lmao
@@retrosoul8770 The SNES was just even with the Mega Drive. They're both graphically impressive with the SNES's colors, and the Mega Drive's 3D graphics and resolution.
Stoop, of course the Snes has great games but I'm not talking about the games themselves, I'm referring strictly to hardware capability. Nintendo prioritized gfx & sound and didn't give 2 cents over performance (how well games actually played) and it shows when you play MMX, Contra, Gradius, Castlevania, Super M, Chrono T etc. and you're hit with slowdown (when barely anything is happening), or you play Final Fight and there's barely any characters on screen at once (maybe like 3 or 4 max with mediocre animation?)
Developers were forced to optimize and program around the Snes's sail level performance to get games running decently, enough for ppl not to notice, and yeah they obviously succeeded because people are blind to its hardware handicap.
And Tonny yeah, you could very much argue that given the strengths of both systems, you could argue that it's a tie for sure (though I kind of disagree with that somewhat)
The weirdest thing to me when the discussion of Nintendo hardware comes into play people don't seem to to realize that literally every generation Nintendo to me had the defining game of the generation, and I'm only speaking of graphics. Here's some examples:
NES: Kibry's Adventure
SNES: Star Fox
N64: honestly there's a lot but I honestly have to go with Conker.
GameCube: a lot here too but I'll go with Resident Evil 4
Wii: a little harder but either Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword or Super Mario Galaxy 2. I think those 2 games pushed their system more than the PS3 or 360 did.
Wii U: still to come but there's already been countless graphical masterpieces on this system.
Also anybody that says that Nintendo has never cared about hardware being powerful enough clearly wasn't alive from like 1985 to 2006 so yeah.....
+John DiLoreto I may be wrong, but I think what he means is that it started and popularized the idea of adding additional processing power onboard the game cartridge, making it possible for the SNES to do things it could have never done before on it's own. It was such a hit with consumers it, as a result, became a popular idea with developers. Look at the library of games prior to Star Fox and then look at the library after. We had some stunning games come out that I don't think we would have ever been able to experience had Star Fox and it's SFX chip had been a commercial failure. At least, that's what I think, and gathered by it being in Joe's list above.
Just to support this, I looked up Virtua Racing since I am not familiar with it's history. Indeed it too used an onboard processor like Star Fox and came out a year later. This stands to support that Star Fox was a defining game when Nintendo's competition started doing the same thing after Star Fox came out.
+Joseph Lathrop
I don't think that this video was arguing that Nintendo never cared about hardware or graphics hardware capabilities, I think that it was arguing that they never prioritized hardware capabilities over affordability, their goal was never simply to be the most technologically advanced of each generation. Nintendo has always provided more powerful hardware each generation ... relative to their previous releases. Their focus has always been on designing devices that balance power and price, also balancing risk taking and risk reduction. Unlike Sony and Microsoft, they have never sold a console for less than it cost to manufacture just for the sake of having the most powerful console out on the market faster than the competition, and they have never rushed hardware out on the market with known design flaws just for the sake of securing a user base. They have focused, predominantly, on a more sustainable, conservative business model than their competitors, who think more like Silicon Valley Tech companies, treating their industry like a perpetual bubble market, racing to get new products to market before the bubble burst (and in many ways, actively contributing to making it a bubble). They have had failures in the past, but given their focus on sustainability, none of their failures had significantly hurt them.
+Joseph Lathrop xenoblade chronicles on Wii for me
+Felix Jones That's why people still talk about Pitfall II right?
***** Yup.
It's wild to see predictions like this 8 years later
I'm curious if Nintendo's dominance of the "family friendly genre" could get toppled by either Sony or Microsoft if either one just spent a bunch of money on making great family friendly games...
+Jacob Rommel I have a bunch of them.
Bunch of what?
+flameace50 So do I, (But that's our little secret)
The SNES also had inferior hardware. Does it even have blast processing?
Checkmate.
Blast processing is not even a real thing, idiot.
Erick Gómez García no shit, moron. It was a joke. You must be really slow
that's actually debatable like there was something the genesis had and I forget exactly what it was but they called it blast processing for marketing purposes
Squigin James Rolfe (of AVGN) has a video where he breaks down the hardware specifics of SNES vs Genesis. Check it out, he mentions that stuff.
yeah the snes vs genesis vid he did right? I've seen every avgn episode at least twice I love James i need to buy the avgn x DVD so I can have all the episodes and so I can give him some cash for all the years of free entertainment and also the 12 days of shitsmas kind of made me like Christmas again at a time where I was really disenchanted with the holiday .
The Nintendo 64 was more powerful than the ps1 and Sega Saturn as well but because of cartridges being used we never got to see it utilize it's full power
Got news for you, those aren't all the fifth generation consoles.
Nintendo never was about powerful hardware. The Genesis came out 3 years before the SNES and yet they still didn't put a blast processor in it.
Cenamark2 You win! :D
***** Uh - the Genesis has a much faster CPU than the Super NES.
***** Despite what you'd choose to believe, having a significantly faster CPU does make a difference. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. As for other technical aspects of the systems, right: the Genny can't display as many colours on-screen (without trickery) and has less memory. It is still faster.
***** Apologies if this is rude, but you're clueless. The Genesis' faster processing and being able to move data around much faster makes it much better for 3D. There's a lot of 3D games for the system which didn't use enhancement chips (e.g. Star Cruiser, Hard Drivin, Bloodshot, Starfox homebrew), while the SNES had to use enhancements chips (Star Fox SFX CPU, Doom SFX2 CPU, Super Mario Kart DSP-1 CPU chipset etc.) and when it didn't (e.g. Hard Drivin') it was a helluva lot slower. The Genny is WAY more capable for 3D due to its way faster processor + setup. There's even a homebrew port of Virtua Racing which doesn't use the SVP chip at all - and is so very impressive. As for the Sega CD and 32X, I disagree. I'd wager that Sega CD was Sega capitalizing on the CD market (PC Engine CD was the no.1 system in Japan at the time) - having FMVs was the simplest way of making a game look vastly better than a Genny one back then. 32X was released in 1994, even after JP Sega Saturn, and was cheap entry into 5th gen gaming, not specifically vs. SNES.
Cenamark2
CPU's don't usually handle graphics, its usually the GPU which is basically a purpose built CPU for video handling
SNES GPU could handle a lot more complex graphic, usually around 3 for 4 times the Genesis, and had around 2 times the RAM.
N-64 was pretty powerful in its day.
PS1 was still better though.
It'sMyBirthday in sales yes
Game sales took a huge beating due to the massive piracy market for ps1 games. Not so much for n64 games.
actually N64 is pretty weak and the ports are awful and has a small library and the controller is actually super shitty imo
It'sMyBirthday the ps1 was less powerful just that the n64 used cartridges
Great video, it's the first of yours that I've seen. I'll watch more.
Another benefit of older hardware is the firmware is usually more stable. the Wii U had very few issues at launch, the XB1 and PS4 had more issues (not a lot of big problems, but more problems for sure).
the SNES still hasn't needed a firmware update and it's really old ;)
As far as the next XBOX, I think it'll be integrated into PCs and basically just disappear. some 3rd party manufacturers may release things like the steam box, but that run Windows and auto launch the XBOX app on boot but I don't think MS will keep making new consoles.
The Wii remotes were a poorly conceived idea in general, but "not working" I don't fully believe, they work as well as they were designed to, they're just crappy. Looking at that generations issues though, at least the system wasn't nearly guaranteed to fail after a few months like the first model of the 360. I'd say the ps3 was pretty reliable other than overheating a lot after a year or two.
Current gen though, the Wii U Gamepad can have some connection issues but that's usually just if there's crap left on or immediately around the console, but it was far more stable as a whole than the XBOX One or the PS4 at launch.
@@ScottBarrett I agree with this idea, but because of consumer habit, it might take another console generation before it becomes true. For 40 years, people go to the store, buy a console, put games in it and play. Old habits die hard. Whether the successor is purely software, or a small hardware add-on/in for a PC, the dedicated X-Box console is probably a dying thing.
Interestingly, the SNES actually had one of the weakest central processors of the 16-bit era (The Genesis/MegaDrive and if I remember correctly the PC-Engine both had superior ones). Hence why a lot more SNES games lag than Genesis ones.
Most of the SNES's muscle came from its cutting edge graphics & sound processors, their patented Mode 7 system, and the console being very friendly to cartridge based enhancement chips (The most famous being the Super FX series).
Its a true pity that CD/DVD/Blueray and digital based games can't be equipped with enhancement chips, as they were truly the biggest loss of the death of cartridge based home consoles.
Gamecube's hardware was more powerful than the PS2 and was only bottle-necked by their disastrous decision to go with the mini disks. The N64 was also comparable to the PS1, again the only real difference being the cartridge. Nintendo really didn't start having crappy hardware until the Wii, which was basically just an overclocked Gamecube with the gimmick of motion control.
+jaykia I didn't say they had crappy hardware, I said they never had the most powerful console in a generation, and they never did.
But that's what I am saying. That's simply not true. N64's hardware was more or less on par or exceeded that of the PS1 with the main imitation being the delivery system. Gamecube unquestionably had better hardware than the PS2 but not the Xbox.
+jaykia You seem to misunderstand my point.
Let's look at the N64, it certainly had advantages the PS1 and Saturn did not have, I don't dispute that. But they could do things it could not, largely as you point out because of the use of cartridges. If they used CDs, I'd be right there with you, but they didn't.
As a result, they had limitations on storage, inability to use high fidelity audio, inability to have FMVs, not to mention rendering and texture issues.
You can't claim a console is definitively more advanced than another when the second can do things the first can not. My argument isn't that the PS1 or Saturn are more powerful, it's that the generation didn't have a "most powerful console."
In regards to the GameCube VS PS2 thing, I agree with you...but the XBox existed. It won that debate, you even admit this. So why are you still bringing this up?
Because a major point in your video was that Nintendo did not invest in heavy hitting hardware. Both the N64 and Gamecube had hardware that was comparable with other systems for their generation, unlike the Wii and the Wii U. The trend of them really scaling back the power of their hardware really only started with the Wii and extended to the Wii U.
+jaykia I'm flat out telling you to your face that that was not what I meant. What I meant is exactly what I told you in the previous comment.
The end all be all point to this whole thing is I said Nintendo never had the most powerful console in a generation, and again, they never did.
Why do people want Nintendo to be cookie cutter clones of the competition? Don't you want differences?
I do.
I can tell, by the way this is the video that won me over to sub to you. Keep Rocking on man.
DOKU Fox Thank you sir.
XInfinity2013 1: they have cod on the wii u. 2: you are ignoring the other 2nd party and 3rd party games : 3 the games from nintendo is rated much higher than cod or bf is! 4: the wii u is very cheap and is getting cheaper as we speak. or you can get a pre owned wii u and just save yourself about 70-100$.... you know what you must do now right ? now you must get a wii u because i debunked all your opinions. have fun!
XInfinity2013 then you sir are damaged psychologically!
@adm11111111 Where to start.
All I said about the Neo Geo was that it was commercially irrelevant, and it was.
The N64 came out a year after the PS1, and two years after the Saturn. Improvements were bound to happen. But the use of cartridges was so limiting that it held it back behind both of those consoles. It's like having a Ferrari but no engine. So it doesn't matter how fancy it is.
GameCube, same deal. Year after the PS2, two after the Dreamcast. Improvements will happen. But again, crippled by its storage format. Obviously less intense than it's immediate contemporary rival, the XBox.
The point that people seem to fail to understand is that Nintendo never set out to have the most powerful hardware, and that's 100% true.
Gunpei Yokoi actually used the phrase "lateral thinking with withered technology"
The storage format was not all that limiting in terms of the performance of the system in running games. What it meant though was that it made it more difficult for developers to create/port games for Nintendo N64 and Gamecube, and so they lost a lot of 3rd party support. so they had fewer games. Nintendo began focusing mainly on the 1st party games, a trend that became stronger with the N64 and continues to today. The Wii, being underpowered and motion oriented, many 3rd parties were turned off by it. Now with the U, its an issue of the gamepad and units sold.
***** yes it did... But it was mostly shovel ware and shitty ports. Developers trying to cash in on the success of the motion control gimmick.
***** that does seem to be it's achilles heel. The cartridge issue wasn't anywhere near as big a problem as the texture cache. Ironically, independent estimates from homebrew devs suggest Nintendo was forcing even worse limits by insisting devs used 'high quality' microcode for the gpu, which was a set of low level code better suited to high quality pre-rendered scenes than games... (remember the N64 design derives from SGI workstations that at the time were often used to render 3d graphics for films). There was also a 'fast' renderer, which by some accounts could manage 700,000+ polygons (easily beating a ps1 by most estimates), but nintendo wouldn't let anyone use it. Aside from these two included sets of microcode for the graphics chip, it was also possible to write custom micro-code. And that's exactly what most of the more graphically impressive gamee made towards the end of the system's life did... Once again though, nintendo made life difficult for 3rd parties by refusing to provide any documentation about the microcode... So lots of things were done that needlessly hamstrung performance... And of course that insane 4kb texture cache... Thungs would probably have looked vastly different if they had fixed that one specific insane bottleneck, even if they had left every other limit in place... (the often cited cartridge problem is not such a clear disadvantage by comparison. After all, it had some clear advantages over CD's that are still apparent even today, not just disadvantages... And it seems to have been one such advantage that made it plausible to work around the 4kb limit...)
***** You're right. That would've helped a lot early on. And providing proper documentation for the microcode would've helped for more advanced developers.
The 4kb issue is a hardware design fault which is hard to fix after the fact , but the rest was stuff they could've easily changed at any time...
Every time I watch one of your videos I feel smart for a little while. Like I got a PHD from Figure it Out university.
I hear this argument all the time on game forums, and to put it bluntly, dropping the gamepad is not even remotely feasible. You simply can't drop the standard controller that comes with a system.
It would take steps obviously, but it's quite doable. Though I'd prefer they didn't have to resort to it.
I have thought that they could make it cheaper though, make the screen smaller,
even if they can get the Wii U down to $250. I don't know how well having the Wii U and 3DS XL at the same price would go over.
It's only been the past 2 generations that Nintendo's consoles have been significantly underpowered. The thing is, Sony and Microsoft are manufacturing their product and barely making profit (especially PS3, apparently it cost more to manufacture the console then it did to buy it at one point in time). Also, for Wii, I don't think there were very many developers willing to put the time in to have improved graphics. The problem is that TEV is a bitch to program for (it cost moneyzzz) and requires customization for the best graphics (take a look at Super Mario Galaxy, the game is sexy, runs at 60 FPS, tons of bump mapping and whatnot, just imagine if the frames per second were dropped to 30, the graphics would probably be even more impressive). If it weren't for the gimmicky motion controls/tablet forced onto Wii/Wii U the consoles would have been beefier (or cheaper, if they decided to stick with the hardware).
Nintendo consoles before Wii (NES, SNES, N64 and GCN) were quite powerful, the only limitation setting them back was usually memory (whether it be RAM, cartridge space, disc space etc.). The Gamecube's disc space wasn't all too bad though, devs usually cut down their audio before anything else (most GCN music is 32Khz ADPCM or sequenced). N64 used cartridges with a max storage space of 64 MB, which few games made use of. SNES didn't really have any problems, with the exception of audio (the CPU was a bit slow, but it didn't really hinder it all that much). The APU only has 64 Kilobytes of RAM (dedicated to the audio, of course), meaning drivers, samples, sequencing, sound effects, DSP's echo buffer etc. had to fit into the RAM. It could've used a few more audio channels than just 8. 10 or 12 would have been perfect. NES...well...I don't know much about NES, but I know that there isn't much cartridge space and the color palette is kind of shitty...Also, the audio could used an extra white noise channel and maybe a saw wave.
Underpowered and significantly underpowered are two different things.
What I said is that Nintendo has never set out to have the most powerful hardware in a generation, and that's true.
why dont you compar the neogeos powr and tell me why it did not win as it was way more power
*****
one word ... price
***** Shitty games, shitty graphics and gameplay. Same with the Jaguar even though it was supposed to be "powerful"
WickedJuggalo82 the neo geo had a few great games but not many the point is that power means nothing
The Gamegear failed because it had like a 20 minutes battery life... Oh yeah, and a lot of crap games :D
Barnacules Nerdgasm as an owner of a gamegear...i agree entirely....
I had the atari lynx , witch I thought was much better
OMG I just watched one of ur videos btw good luck with the diet ur doing great ☺
Your opinion on the Game Gear sucks ass. It was better than the Game Boy, Lynx, and TurboExpress.
The Game Gear has way better games than the Gameboy. Gameboy games are slower than a dead snail.
The Gamecube was the second most powerful in it's day but all the games looked glorious and ran at flawless fps. Rogue Squadron 2 still blows my mind that it came out in 2001!
The NES was inferior to the Master System, besides the audio chip. The SNES had a wimpy CPU compared to the Mega Drive, with superior audio and graphics. The N64 was definitely something, but they fucked up using cartridges. The GameCube was average, the Wii was heavily underpowered, and the Wii U was underpowered.
Nintendo don't have to make a powerful system, but if they could release a powerful console with easy development, why wouldn't they? (besides cost). It only opens up more potential for the developers if they have more power to work with, but even so, they've got a really good track record for decent titles, regardless of the hardware.
I keep the virtual boy out of this, because it's more akin to the Gameboy.
That fuckin wii u controller seems like it adds more cost than just having more powerful hardware would.
I really enjoyed this future speculation of gaming consoles. Interesting and fun to think about...
False. With wii, ninty changed plans and made their consoles weaker. snes was stronger than genesis, n64 was stronger than psone and gamecube was stronger than ps2. But that doesn't mean ninty was dominant on each generation. Only with snes and wii they were.
I discussed the SNES VS Genesis in great detail.
N64 used cartridges, often is was a technical marvel to get PS1 or Saturn games on it.
Yeah, GameCube was more powerful than the PS2. Too bad you forgot about the XBox...
People seem to assume not having superior power means being nearly a generation behind, it doesn't. It simply means their console wasn't the most powerful console hands down in a generation.
AdamKoralik xbox was stronger since it was launched later. N64 had more spped and gpu, but cartridge limited yes, but that doesn't mean it was weaker. ps3 had blue rays with 25gb storage, but their games were only 6gb. I remember when sony presented the ps3 introducing the blue rays, they said due to the wide storage, you could add many details and thousand of objects (showing thousands of flowers) The problem was ps3 couldn't hold and run those elelments at screen, so the memory is pointless. Like saying my dual core pc has 2tera but a i7 pc has 500gb. that means the one with 2tera is more powerful?
The only advantage on psone discs was the pre render scenes cause used a lot memory and better sound.
Javier Pool The GameCube came out the same weekend as the XBox actually, after it technically.
AdamKoralik And Gamecube was limited on disc size. It did have technically the best GFX processor of the 3 but less than half the space per disk as the competitor making it more expensive in the long run for larger games. Im sure if they pulled a full size disk standard they could of got more Final Fantasy titles than crystal chronicles. Also they lacked something very important in that era which was a stable online community and games to support it. xbox obviously was king, PS2 had the socom series which sold ALOT of adapters. Lastly that generation also was ushering in DVD movie playability, which may of not seemed like a big deal at the start of the generation, but considering they were already using the laser tech they missed the ball on that one with not supporting full size disc and movie playback. I loved my cube but the gcn took a lot of peoples faith away from Nintendo and it has stayed that way since, The wii didn't help that by pretty much being a small gcn with slightly better gfx.
Michael Simpson And to add with the limited disc space the "better" gfx were null as they could not fit the texture and polygon data needed to proper utilize that on a disc for most games
Hey Adam! It’s amazing watching this old videos and noticed your predictions were very accurate lol!
Except ps5 being a streaming box
1) Casuals don't care about console power.
2) The games themselves are way more important than the console and you do not need the most powerful console to make the best games.
3) If power is all that matters, everyone should just play the PC. Which they should, consoles should just be replaced with computer systems.
I am not a casual and I could give to fucks about power as long as the game is fun
If its power and get gaming pc's they would in turn spend WAAAY more money, also ever heard of CFW, superkarts, emulators? if most gaming happened on pc's 60%+ people would hack/torrent games and dev's would lose more, every COD/elder scoll's/GTA/Sports games out now on release date get's 200 thousand+ torrenters that don't pay cause they have a pc release.
Konstantin Morozov Guesstimating to be honest haha Im not being serious though, I do know that COD games within a month get over 2 million torrenters per game though, news sites were saying stuff about pirate's and whatnot awhile back and I didnt believe them so I looked them up myself. If you know know the actual statistics of the others please share.
Bob Jones People buy the most powerful console they can get for the price they are willing to play. The only reason people will choose a less powerful console is if it's out of the industry comfort zone. If Sega decided to come back into the market with the Sega Resurrection and was able to play Witcher 3 : 1089 at 60fps at launch with a $599 price point - it would crash and burn since it's out of the $399 zone, but zero would choose xbox one if it was priced $349 at launch.
Bob Jones I totally disagree with you. Casual gamers all want HD this and HD that and don't care about less powerful retro gaming consoles. The most powerful console makes it easier to make the best game. NO ONE should play the PC to play the most powerful games because unlike consoles the graphics get worse each year and there is constant slowdown due to all sorts of PC issues. Consoles can deliver gaming without slowdown, crashing, and the game graphics improve every single year.
NES was the most powerful console when it launched bested slightly by the Sega Master System...
N64... Gamecube were graphical powerhouses that were more powerful or nearly on par with the competition... so... yeah...
N64 was released 2 years after PS and was barely more powerful than it.
Bolek Lolek PSX released 1995, N64 was 1996. By my math that's one year. Nonetheless, the point he was making was that Nintendo historically released inferior hardware to the competition. So... yeah... uh...
Mizzah Tee Ellipsis...
***** Mizzah Tee However, if you look at the N64, and what he's talking about in the video, it still fits with Nintendo's philosophy.
They didn't move to optical discs like the Playstation, and stuck with cartridges, because of the R&D costs.
Developers were already used to programming with polygons in a 3D environment, as they've been programming for the Playstation two years before that, and even some stuff on the SNES was polygonal, so there wasn't much R&D that had to be done for that stuff, either.
Plus, if you compare the price at launch, the N64 was only $200 USD, compared to the Playstation, which was $300 USD.
They may have had more powerful hardware, but cut costs by sticking with what worked, while still appearing to be innovative by introducing a controller with an analog stick.
Nintendo is a company that traditionally takes small, inexpensive risks to be innovative, and it usually pays off for them. I think the only time they really took a big risk was with the Wii, and that gamble also worked out in their favor.
***** I was just mentioning it because, even though the N64 is *technically* superior hardware, it still fits with their philosophy.
Good video. I liked a lot of your points. I think the people criticizing Nintendo are largely one of those who want a) better hardware for bragging rights b) play primarily CoD or FIFA, and maybe a smattering of more varied gaming, or c) are just looking for a news story.
That said, Nintendo has made some mistakes this generation, despite having a solid console and some great games, their loss of third-party games has hurt them.
Thanks for taking the time to watch!
Nintendo make some great gaming console
While you mentioned a system where games would be entirely streamed, it begs the question, what does the future hold for piracy. Slowly but surely, piracy is being squeezed out from the gaming industry. How would an end to video game piracy affect retail prices of games. Would the revenue lost from game sales to piracy reduce the pricing of titles to consumers, or would the price of games increase because there wouldn't be any alternative source other than paying full price for games. It seems obvious game developers would benefit from an end to piracy, but I suppose my question is, would developers pass these savings on to the consumer.
***** I would think the latter not the former. Once there is no outlet to get games but "buy them at the store" the price will sky rocket. It is like all the shenanigans with pre ordering crap from game stop. People are getting things in the game unlocked that were there the whole time by "pre ordering" and even though they sold games before they were released the prices on games keep going up and up. The only thing that will stop all this is if people stop buying triple A crap before it's released and people actually wait for the price to come down on stuff.
ScientifikX1 that's what I feel too. That the prices would rise. I'm also one of those people that would wait. I'm always 1 step behind. :( Settling for PC hardware hand-me-downs, like waiting for the new 300 series Radeon (released tomorrow) for prices of the r9 280x to drop hopefully.
***** You need to use question marks.
***** That's not 100% true though. There is definitely a price gouging dynamic going on here. Especially when you consider all the DLC nonsense going on in gaming today where you buy a $60 game and you might have like $70 of DLC crap to pay by the time you buy the "whole game".
Totally agree. ..nothing more naive than all this support the developers nonsense. ...because more demand would only jack up prices...it'll be the atari days all over again, bloated prices and over saturated markets with mediocre games
Quality and fun games trump powerful hardware. For example, SNES games are more fun to play in 2017 than PS4 or XSux One games are in 2017. Nintendo simply has always had their priorities correct.
i respectfully disagree.
Definitely, and that's how the best games were always decided, playability, from day one. It's where Nintendo has always had a nice spot.
+Ebefren Revo I saw it.
I loved the snes and i was a bit of a nintendo fan boy. It was visually amazing but what always annoyed me was the slow processer which caused slow down in games.
the gamepad is the wii u. why get rid of the thing which makes it stand out to the 2 much powerful consoles.
$
The Nintendo 64 was twice more powerful than the Playstation and Dreamcast.
That's just straight up not true.
It had certain advantages over the PS1, (mostly due to coming out a year later) but largely was held back by its use of cartridges.
And the Dreamcast, what? The Dreamcast was in every way technologically superior to the N64.
AdamKoralik
my bad, I meant Sega Saturn. Not that familiar with Sega. Anyway, yes, the games themselves were a downgrade being on cartriges, but the operating system itself was more powerful (it was 64 bit over 32).
***** Bits alone don't mean shit.
Like I said, the N64 came out a year after the PS1 and two years after the Saturn. Certain improvements were bound to exist.
But don't underestimate how much of a problem cartridges was.
When it was considered a technical marvel to be able to port PS1 and Saturn games to the N64, it can't be considered the superior hardware.
AdamKoralik
bits *do* mean shit. if bits hadnt changed since the 80's we'd be playing CoD and Smash Bros. pac-man style. The N64 was delayed and came out a year after the PS, but the console was already so far into development that they hadnt really changed the hardware they used before.
My point I'm trying to say here is that the N64 is a great system, and so is the Playstation. i still have both of mine, and i frequently play them to this day. Perhaps the N64 isnt *twice* as powerful, but it is more powerful in at least one way. If not in the hardware, than in the games, and damn they were good.
***** I repeat, bits alone don't mean shit.
Hell, the Jaguar was a 64 bit system and came out in 1993. But we don't sit here and claim it was more powerful than the PS1 and Saturn.
As for the second part, that makes no sense. Both consoles (all three including the Saturn) also had R&D time.
Having an extra year over your competition will always result in various improvements.
I like you sir! the gamer truther
Poké AK Thanks for watching!
A lot of people discuss nintendo's dependency on 1st party exclusives and lack of 3rd party multiplatform games. But one of Nintendo's most valuable assets in the past that people aren't mentioning is their 3rd party exclusives. I think the most important factors in the NX's success will be how approachable the developing environment is and how well the developers expect the console to do after getting their hands on it.
NES, SNES, N64 and GameCube were all top of the line consoles in terms of hardware for their era. It wasn't until the Wii and the Wii-U that Nintendo started releasing under powered hardware. So this notion that Nintendo has always released under powered hardware isn't true at all. It's actually a new trend for them. My friends and I used to be loyal Nintendo customers precisely because they could be counted on to release a powerful console.
+Edgar Harris You're arguing a different point. Mine was that they never had the most powerful console in a generation, and they never did. There is a wide difference between that and being nearly a generation behind as they have been with the Wii and Wii U.
+AdamKoralik Ok. I would argue that the NES, SNES and N64 all have a claim as the most powerful consoles of their generations. It's a bit more difficult to make that claim for the N64, but it's certainly defensible. The NES and SNES are indisputably more powerful than any other consoles of their respective generations. I'm not including the Sega Master system in this comparison, because like you, I don't think we should include consoles that were irrelevant in the market place.
The Sega Master System was wildly popular in Europe where the NES wasn't. Hell, to this day it's still on going and supported in Brazil, it's the world's longest lasting console. Not counting it is ridiculous to be honest.
+AdamKoralik Yeah, I looked up the sales numbers real quick, and I was in fact surprised to see how well it still sells in Brazil. That's crazy. However we're looking at 16.39 million Sega Master systems vs 61.91 million NES worldwide. I suppose it's debatable if the Master System should be considered a market contender. I think if you just look at sales numbers for that era, it's harder to argue that the Master System was a market contender.
You're right that it was an incredible system. I'm still blown away that a console from the 80's was as capable as the Sega Master System.
+AdamKoralik Point being, Nintendo has had the most powerful hardware in multiple generations. SNES was, N64 was, and GameCube was (Xbox had more modern effects, but at the cost of polygon and pixel fill-rate vs GameCube).
That's three generations where the layman will confuse (and will continue to confuse until they learn computer science) capability with buzzwords, and theoretical vs real-world (i.e. sustained) performance.
The only miss steps I have seen Nintendo make with their consoles was choice of storage, cartridge, mini disks and blocks spaces. Other then that they are solid, durable and reliable systems. The just recently stop repair services for the original NES, but will walk you through how to repair it if you have the tools and parts. I see Nintendo being around with the occational 'oops' they make, like in he past.
Gameplay is more important than graphics.
+TheBigRagoo.com Agreed.
both are important but it depends on the type of game it is. an fps with shitty graphics can ruin it. but a interesting 2d indie game with shitty graphics but great gameplay can be great.
hitek9wittafulclip That’s the dumbest thing i’ve ever heard. FUN is the most important part the gameplay
I never thought of the fact that if you have less powerful hardware it will make it easier for programmers to learn the inside and out of a console faster so they can begin to produce quality games quicker that really is an important thing to consider and it always,seems to me like companies ditch major support for consoles just as developers are really starting to take full advantage of it's capability.
18 BILLION! That's a lot of 0s. I always laughed when people would scream that Nintendo should just drop the Wii U, or that Nintendo should just stop making systems and just stick to software...hahaha, like honestly dude relax, i'm sure you have a PHD in business and all but Nintendo is doing just fine.
Yeah, I know they are, but like any company I'm sure they'd prefer to generate profit than take a loss.
AdamKoralik
Very true!
couldn't have said it better myself. I agree 100%
I don't understand why Nintendo decided to keep the Wii name and just add the U at the end. I would get as far away from the Wii name as possible. Call the new system the Nintendo Sony Xbox Killer 3000 or something, I'd buy it.
xD
+ArcadeGames when I hear about WII I think World War II.
I never got over them calling it a wii instead of revolution wii is such a stupid name. Also not letting it play dvds was a BS decision.
Why would you want to get away from the name of the console that sold the most in it's generation and made an absolute butt ton of money for nintendo (can't imagine each wii cost as much as a 360 or ps3 to make and they sold more than both combined....)
Calum Knight main reason is most none gamers (a lot who purchased the wii) though the Wii U was a $300 controller add on.
"Blast Processing" was a marketing fiction. Citing it as something the genesis had over the SNES is silly.
Apparently my sarcasm didn't come through on you sir.
AdamKoralik Well, I was only half paying attention. :)
gonzotw Yeah, that might do it. :P
AdamKoralik
if that was sarcasm, it was rather faint. Went over my head too, and i'm usually pretty perceptive to it, even in text lol..
antonb000 I was told in my youth I accelerated as sarcasm.
I respect Nintendo for not feeding the public the 60 fps 4K graphics that people apparently can't live without. If you look at the history of games, there are many games that I love, even though they have "horrible" graphics. Nintendo realizes that what matters is the quality of their games. By decreasing hardware power, it makes it much easier to develop for a console. Of course, the Wii U was difficult to develop for because of the gamepad though.
I'm skipping the ps4 and Xbox one for now. Getting the Wii U. Nintendo is getting good games now. First party Games!
#FirstParty.
and second party, i guess.
Hell yeah Smash Bros and Star Fox!!!
@00Kaleidoscope00 Actually it makes perfect business sense.
***** not this gen, WiiU had a very high rate of bricking out of the box. google it.
Nintendo makes the hummer's of consoles. They rarely if ever fail. In desert storm when the hum-v was released only like 12 of them broke down out of 10s of thousands. I've never had a problem with any of my nintendo systems
samljer That's because people were unplugging their consoles during the day one update. Not Nintendo's fault.
That Guy actually it kinda is their fault. they rushed wii u to the market
Bolek Lolek it was also a business decision. The xbox 360 was rushed into the market and even though it keeps breaking it did well compared to the ps3.
What about games that do utilize the gamepad? (coughKirbyRainbowCursecough).
Assuming it's a game that can be patched, then it would.
Games like Nintendoland would require that you have a gamepad. But like most accessories through out history, you'd be able to buy it separately. Assuming they did all this of course.
AdamKoralik I'm not the one to say what happens of course, but here is my take on the whole "drop the gamepad" discussion:
Isn't that asking a lot to patch games that use the gamepad (or the OS for that matter)?Seriously. Think of ALL the games that use the gamepad. That means if Nintendo dropped it, that would rip-off the developers that took the time and effort to program that thing. EVERY game on the Wii U uses the gamepad (off-TV play in minimal terms).
But what about the consumer? If the gamepad is dropped, then they get none of the benefits of the gamepad. Furthermore, they miss out on games that do use it. Say they do buy a Wii U with only the Pro Controller. What if they want to buy the gamepad? That's one hell of a piece of hardware to buy. And since the gamepad is a Pro Controller with a screen, Nintendo isn't taking anything away if you have the gamepad. In other words, the Wii U with the gamepad gives you the FULL experience from the get go, and saves the hassle of the consumer to buy it for games that use it. I get it. A price drop would help, but dropping the gamepad is NOT the best way to go. Even so, all the recent bundles going on should be enough to justify the price.
A thing about accessories. It's not the same as, say, dropping the Game Boy Player on the Gamecube or the Multitap of the PS1 and PS2. But what about 3D on the 3DS? Nintendo figured out that 3D does not drastically change the game nor was it used a lot, which is why the 2DS was developed. Taking out the 3D did absolutely nothing to how games were developed. The Virtual Boy was removed because it was just not supported. Period.
The gamepad is an integral part of the console experience, and is Nintendo's effort for trying to be unique in the video game industry. Nintendo is pushing for it to be used one way or the other. It was developed for the console and it should be used somehow. How about the analog stick on the N64? It was there to use. So it should be used. Speaking of that, barely ANY game used the N64 d-pad. Why didn't Nintendo drop that? It's like removing a button from a controller.
There have been lots of videos about this particular subject, but I gotta be honest with you, dropping it is just... dumb. Really, it makes the situation of the consumer and the developer more complicated once the gamepad is removed. Will Nintendo remove it? In my opinion, they won't and shouldn't for the rest of the consoles lifespan.
BizerkPixel Dropping the gamepad makes perfect fiscal sense if the console continues to stagger. It's just the economic reality of it.
As it stands, the vast majority of games don't even really use it.
Patching would obviously be required, that's a given. But it's quite doable with most software.
Would it be perfect? Of course not.
But if the sales continue to suffer through the holidays, don't think Nintendo won't seriously consider it.
AdamKoralik Did you watch E3? They won't be dropping the gamepad, they wouldn't consider dropping gamepad. They specifically said they are making more games for gamepad and like you said, Nintendo can sit on the Wii U, they have the money to do so and because of that, they can stick to not pissing off developers and customer who bought into the gamepad.
LostTrainofThoughts Of course I did.
You're claim operates under the assumption Nintendo already plans to drop the gamepad, it's obviously they don't currently plan to.
They're making a big push for the holiday season. Amiibo and Wii Sports Club etcetera make that very clear.
What I am telling you is that if the holiday season staggers again, then don't be surprised if they drop the gamepad in early 2015 and turn the Wii U in to a salvage operation like Sony did with the PS3.
Again, if it doesn't do well, then it makes perfect financial sense.
Though personally, I hope it kicks ass in sales and they don't have to drop it.
Good points. It's always been interesting to me that, while the SNES clearly is 'superior' hardware, Genesis games can really do a lot of things that the SNES couldn't. It must have been nearly impossible to make fast paced shooters on the SNES (at least without dismal amounts of slowdown), because there aren't any. There are GOOD shooters on the SNES of course, but Musha Aleste and Thunderforce 3 and 4 show that the Genesis is actually better at certain things. Try playing Thunder Spirits on SNES and you'll see what I mean. And if you can direct me to any SNES platformer that does as many large and detailed sprites as Alien Soldier, I'll take it all back.
I think you're overstating the differences between the mega drive and snes as well as ports being better on snes.
Maybe things was different in America but in Europe where ninty was second best and couldn't use their dodgy business practices to stop people making games and definitely in Japan there was plenty of games that probably couldn't be made on the snes without sacrifices due to the weaker processor causing limitations in sprites and big slowdown.
You do have a very good point that with 2 years extra time the snes shouldve blown the mega drive away specs wise not been a case of, well the mega drive is better this way abs the snes this way but both are equally as good this way"
Nintendo really dropped the ball with the Wii U. Although Nintendo have an unbelievable knack for recovering from set-backs.
Coming back to this many years later, you weren't necessarily incorrect about Xbox. They definitely have been striving for more social/entertainment. But with Gamepass being a thing now, it turns out your theory about Playstation was actually Xbox's route.
Now with your theory about PS, I don't know how you could have tried to predict something so poorly. Haha. Either way, it is nice to see the ninth generation thriving 7 years later.
I thought he was dead wrong about the Sony making a weak, streaming device for a PS5, and he was dead wrong about that. But that being said, even I thought Sony was in serious trouble as a company 7-8 years ago. Flash forward almost a decade and Sony really has pulled off a miracle turnaround few could have predicted. The company really reinvented itself.
Interesting fact about the Game Boy, considering the NES (Famicom) was originally designed with the intention that they *didn't* want competing developers to be familiar with the hardware, as the 6502 was extremely unknown in Japan at the point.
Of course that was a different time, and before the idea of having third party software on their platform was not in their plans at the time.
Many how weird would it be if replacing Sony and Microsoft; Apple, Valve & Samsung entered the Console Wars.
Please don't let that happen that would suck
The Audiosurferr Then Nintendo would OBVIOUSLY win
The Audiosurfer Vavle would lose, they can't even count to three.
SwordKirby Why would they need to count to three? When they only deal with numbers beyond a million?
The Audiosurfer What about the Pippin? That would be why Apple isn't in the console war anymore.
Nintendo focuses on gimmicks (Wii nunchuk+remote, WiiU gamepad) and quality software; graphics are just an afterthought. As it should be, since pretty graphics don't make a good game.
How good do the graphics need to be anyway? Bayonetta 2 on the Wii U looks absolutely beautiful, and if you told me it was an Xbone game, I'd believe it. Nintendo consoles may not be as powerful as the Sony ones, but they have plenty to offer to hardcore gamers.
Hardware does not make good or bad games, but it sets limits that are expensive or or annoying to work with. Weak hardware can prevent artists from realising their visions, they have to the hardware always but weaker hardware is more limiting. A self-imposed limitation that has ruined most console games since the N64 and ps1 era is the virus of targeting 30 FPS and dumbing down the controls and difficulty to meet that target. I remember the 90s and early 00's, onxe you've played games at 100-160 FPS with the unmatched motion clarity of a CRT there is no way to go back to 30 Hz. But there's hope; VR will become the norm and it absolutely requires 90 FPS and super low latency. Designing to 30 FPS has been a deliberate choice, you can always add more stuff, increase view distance, use better texture filtering and antialiasing until the game bogs down to 30 FPS; it looks better in screenshots and on TV-shows and web videos that are still, unfortunately, at 30 fps more often than not. 30 FPS isn't playable, in the same way First person shooters aren't playable with a controller; you can always design the game to be "playable" at 1 FPS if you like, but you'll drastically cut down on the speed and mechanical conplexity so that the game almost plays itself. From the SNES to the N64 something was lost and it never came back.
(I wrote that on a phone without realising what a ridiculous, paragraphless block of text that was until after I posted...)
+Azariachan
power does not only affect graphics.
+Azariachan I agree with everything except the word 'gimmick'. I think the nunchuck and the Wii U gamepad are practically great discarding anything 'motion' related (as anything 'motion' related was annoying but experimental at the time) and games play great on those controllers. Thankfully the motion stuff has died out pretty much across the board!
Emerald Zone
You're right, I probably shouldn't call it a gimmick. I prefer traditional controls over motion/touch controls, so I tend to be a bit condescending when talking about them. Which is a mistake, especially when discussing Nintendo. They've made some of the greatest motion controlled games last gen.
AdamKoralik The SNES wasn't the most powerful of that era. It beat the Genesis, but that was it. You should say the most powerful for the price. Because the NeoGeo by SNK had it beat. Also the N64 might not of had the CD-rom drive, but if you look at the specs and the graphics, it was clear the N64 trumped the PS1 an Saturn. So sorry Adam, your facts are wrong.
LegendaryGamer he said the most powerfull console that matterd. the power of 10 neogeo's are thrown to the wasteland by the tens of millions of SNES's out there.
Rising_Star_
ok
LegendaryGamer N64 trumped those two? LOL. Delusional?
salozmen29
The horsepower of the N64 is more impressive than both the Saturn or PS1. Good and look at the polygons on any of the 3 systems and you'll see.
LegendaryGamer
You keep making that up in your head. Next you will be saying how much better the Wii U's power is compared to Xbox One and PS4.
This is exactly why the Switch has done so well. It focuses on FUN, not flashy nonsense(which CAN be good, but shouldn't be PRIORITY)
As always you are spot on with your points. I also agree with your views on the future if gaming. Streaming will be the way of Sony and Microsoft and nintendo will stay true to their gaming roots... For now ! Wii U for me personally has been hammered more than I would ever expect a console to be hammered. Ignorance is a big part of that but I do think people of certainly stature in the industry wanted wanted to demonise and destroy them just because people like to see a car crash... It didn't work though
That's part of it, also doesn't help that Nintendo doesn't seem to understand the value of advertising.
why i stopped buying consoles cause of this virtual crap bs i like to own a physical copy of my games not digital if i can play them offline then i would buy games again i am glad there is torrents and i can play games offline if i wish to do so mabe i will support the companies when they give a shit about its fanbase only reason why nintendo is making money because there is to many diehard fans out there but that is good i suppose more power to them
Yeah this seems like what has happened
Well, it's 8 years later and his prediction is flat out wrong. There is a 9th generation of consoles, and while digital models exist, Sony and Microsoft have largely conventional, high powered physical media consoles. There is a shift towards digital gaming consoles, but it's MUCH more gradual than he predicted and largely isn't happening in the 9th generation of consoles. He was also dead wrong about the future of Sony. Literally the minute he made this video, Sony went into one of the biggest turnarounds of any corporation in decades. Sony was in serious trouble 8 years ago, with a stock price of around $30. Today, it's upwards of $80, with the company successfully diversifying and thriving.
The SNES was the most powerful of it's generation.
The N64 was much more powerful than PS1 in all stats but storage size.
The Gamecube had a more powerful CPU and slightly better graphics than the PS2.
The Wii is when it all went to hell.
The lesson is that Nintendo doesn't need the most powerful hardware to win... but it needs to be COMPETITIVE. The Wii is a joke hardware wise and so is that Wii U thing. They also banked way too heavily on gimmicks like 10 screens and motion control.
Nintendo's edge is making amazing gameplay while also having passible graphics, controls, everything else.
The SNES was the most powerful of it's generation.
no, the Neo Geo was much more powerful.
True. The Super Nintendo and Sega Mega Drive are even power wise. It's like with the 3DO and Atari Jaguar (sort of). The Super Nintendo might have 2D games looking better, especially with more on-screen colors (sometimes), but the Mega Drive might have better looking 3D games.
3rd Gen: Sega Master System>Nintendo Entertainment System>Atari 7800
4th Gen: Neo Geo AES>Sega Mega Drive=Super Nintendo Entertainment System>PC Engine
5th Gen: Nintendo 64>Sega Saturn>PlayStation>Atari Jaguar=>3DO>PC-FX>Amiga CD32=>FM Towns Marty
6th Gen: Xbox=>Gamecube>PlayStation 2=>Dreamcast
7th Gen: PlayStation 3=>Xbox 360>>Wii
8th Gen: PlayStation 4=>Xbox One>Switch>Wii U
Wii U is competing with PS3 and X360... Not current gen.
You...you are kidding right? Because that statement is a 100% not correct.
AdamKoralik Hardware wise, they are competing with last gen... It's better for N to put it this way. Wii U is not getting any current gen games, it got only few last gen, like AC and WD. I think it's cruel to put Wii U vs PS4
Raew CH2 Just because the specs are, admittedly, basically a generation behind, that doesn't mean the Wii U is competing in 2007.
It's not a time machine. This is an undeniable fact, the Wii U, for better or worse, is competing with the PS4 and XBox One. To deny this absolute truth is like denying the Earth being round or that gravity exists.
Ok, I accept it. Don't want to fight :)
Raew CH2
: Bro hug. :
After 3 years of its release on the market, I finally bought a Nintendo Switch. I preferred to buy first a PS4 pro and then an Xbox one than a Nintendo Switch, for the obvious reasons you can imagine.
After playing the 5-6 most well known first party games that Switch has, and after some good third party games, I could say that I like the whole concept of the Switch has with that nice felling of the old-time classic first party games combined with the portable gaming. I also really like the remasters on the console and especially the Sega Ages games with Sonic’s exclusive drop dash in Sonic 1 and 2.
But there’s another fact. All the predictions Adam did back then, were right. I remember I saw this video when Adam uploaded here and I remembered that he said too many true facts about Nintendo, on hardware market. Then, as I was playing the Switch, sure, I was having fun, but I got also that feeling Adam said in this video and that’s the reason today i searched for this video and saw it again.
Well done Adam👍
That’s the best think on these videos. To become your thoughts true and confirmed by the history after 4-5 years.
WTF man the SNES was not the most powerful at all look at the Neo Geo AES
Yeah, I mentioned that. Did you miss it?
That is true, but the Neo Geo also cost an insane amount of money for the time, had only a handful of games and nobody bought one.
Snes and genesis are the only ones that mattered
We got a nerd here
Neo Geo was like the Rolls Royce of consoles.
GameCube was like the last powerful console for it's time. Nintendo started going in the underpowered path starting with the Wii
Not true. The GameCube was competitive, yes. But it by no means was the most advanced console in that generation, that title goes to the XBox.
AdamKoralik It was at least as powerful as PS2 which is something we don't see anymore with Wii and Wii U
Yes, like I said, it was competitive. But by no means the most advanced. The problem people tend to have with this video is that people seem to think I'm claiming Nintendo was always a generation behind, they weren't. That started with the Wii and continues with the Switch.
But to suggest they ever had the most advanced tech just isn't true.
AdamKoralik That is what I'm also trying to say
: High five. :
Really great video! I've been defending Nintendo over this argument for ages! I don't own a Wii U but that's down to m,oney! At the moment out the 3 I would get a Wii U as it is more appealing and has more diversity & fun.
When people say Nintendo should just go software they forget that Nintendo is the last game company left! Atari is a blip compared to it's former self, I'm sure Sega would love to make profitable hardware again as they were really innovative, but it's not going to happen. Sony & Microsoft aren't game companies. They can leave the market whenever they want. It's Nintendo that will still be here!
Whe talking aobut the Wii U's "gimmicks", they're not, it's just that Nintendo is always trying to find new ways of playing and doesn't want gaming to become stale. In the golden era innovaiton was always happening. Nowadays it is just Nintendo as Sony & Microsoft are quite happy making the same console again & again!
Thank you for taking the time to watch.
SEGA never had much success making profitable multi-region hardware. Their only successful console in the US was the Genesis :-\
They beat that thing like a dead horse trying to keep it alive and that is probably why Saturn was unsuccessful (if you ignore the insane initial launch price), consumers were not confident with SEGA anymore, sadly..
I think SEGA has the right idea being software-only. Ultimately Nintendo will probably go that route or be absorbed by another hardware company for their video game console division. They are alive and well in the handheld console market however, but I do not think they can keep the video game console market afloat banking on that 20 years down the road.
Enjoy the fallout series you apparently like, on the Wii U......
@MrGencyExit64 Back in the day Sega had more success in Europe then Nintendto as they largely ignored it. The same for South America. The Master System lasted in Brazi till 1997. Both that and the Megadrive were much more popular in the UK aswell.
Slug Jones I love the Fallout series! Fallout 2 is my favourite game of all time. That would be awesome if that happened! The way you could implement the tablet controller would be quite interesting. If not I can play it on my PC.
Just watched this video and you hit the nail on the head as far as I’m concerned with Nintendo’s strategy and your theory of next gen
Powerful or not powerful, I'll take the Wii U anyday over the Xbone.
Oh! Sorry! This is an old comment! It's kind of obsolete now!
2 months is a long time ago? Not really, hell the 90s wasnt that long ago and its been 20 years.
halo3odst Basically what i meant is that my thoughts have changed since... March 2016!
Your right! it wasn't that long ago but still...
I would take the wii u over the xbone too
I'll take the Wii u over ps4
the gamecube had more powerful hardware than the playstation one and 2 another hole in your theory
also its not really the hardware power that sells its marketing
prototype9000 XBox says hello.
Obviously it was more advanced than the PS1, why even bring that up?
AdamKoralik i forgot to mention then64 the hardware was more powerful thanthe ps1 it didnt sell well because of the poor marketing and the industry was switching to cd dvd technology it was far superior to the ps1 hardware when the gamecube came out it was far more powerful than ps2 but it still was outsold mainly because of poor marketing there not just marketing to gamers but also game developers. sonys and microsofts method of marketing was offering kickbacks for using graphical apis like directx which was an allready widely used and understood one. the switch and cost of development is allot lower plus there were kick backs to use it it would make more sense to switch toit. when the wii came out it outsold everything out there for a while not because of powerful hardware it had the weakest out there nintendo momentarily adopted a similar strategy as microsoft and sony also tapped an unused nich market of older gamers and still managed to end up with some great games.
Theres a reason to believe if nintendo did some out with far superior hardware more than sony or microsoft could ever manage that the machine still would sell poorly lack of marketing and kickbacks and people unwilling to learn new features of an exotic processor and have a complete lack of understanding for it.
Most people only look at a processor and see processor speed cache and all that other stuff and not understand the significance of the processor architecture a good example is take a 1000mghz powerpc ibm processor and put it up against a 2.0 ghz duel core and its going to wipe it out performance wise lots of programmers and people fail to recognize the differences and mistake it as underpowered based on cpu speed usually it takes someone with a A+ certification to explain to them the differences.In the end all that really makes no difference it comes down to marketing to sell a products theres many examples out there of superior products that get undersold by total crap purely because of marketing
prototype9000 The N64 came out a year after the PS1, and two years after the Saturn.
Improvements were bound to happen. But the use of cartridges was so
limiting that it held it back behind both of those consoles. It's like
having a Ferrari but no engine. So it doesn't matter how fancy it is.
AdamKoralik yeaht he lack of storage space was really limiting would have been awesome if it hadnt been so with the cartridges
The Gamecube even though wasn't successful was very powerful compared to the PlayStation 2. This video is very misleading.
+Fanblow Not if you actually pay attention to what I said.
I said they never had the most powerful hardware in a generation, and they never did. In regards to the PS2/GameCube debate, the XBox says hello.
i had a N64 and a Gamecube, and I had WAY more fun with the N64. It was such a shock and awe from the previous generation, to now have really good 3D and sound. The N64 version of Mario Kart had the most fun maps of any of the games. Great channel, good video. I have subscribed and gave you a thumbs-up.
Thanks!