Are Nintendo foolish with hardware?

NOT a bash thread. I'm interested to know what people honestly think.

The N64 used cartridges. BUT, I can't blame them, optical drives didn't do gaming justice until GameCube, Xbox, ect, because of slow speeds. The only benefit the PS had with CDs were FMV and cost I think, but games were more fluid on the N64.

The GameCube was almost perfect in design at the time I thought, but using 1.5GB mini DVDs weren't a great idea.

The Wii really could have used a stronger GPU. Not miles better, but certainly better. It would have made all the difference.

The Wii U, we're hearing reports (IF TRUE) that it's using a 1.2Ghz Tri core Wii CPU, which was also in the GC. So it's more than 10 years old. In fact the PowerPC 7XX family was introduced in 1997. Now being an IBM PowerPC, I guess they have a different lifespan. But this will effect 3rd party games in the future.

There always seems to be one part of a Nintendo home console which is a bit of a bottle neck. They aren't the only ones, but they're consistent. So are Nintendo foolish with hardware decisions? They seem to make short sighted mistakes.

When it comes to consoles, nintendo fails bigtime. but they cant rely on handhelds anymore considering the 3DS is lagging behind the DS, also nintendo is meant to be something different, they appeal to a different audience to sony and microsoft.. well sony

We all know microsoft is going for the casual audience now.

I kinda see Nintendo as a "Good Enough" type of company.

If they see something that's "Good Enough" for them, they use it and stick with it.

Also keep in mind, Nintendo doesn't make Computers, Microsoft and Sony however have Computers behind them.

They know hardware more than Nintendo I bet.

Lol,the sh!t is this f*ck?

:P

Whatever,happy trolling man!

Nintendo lives and dies by gimmicks, not by good quality hardware.

When it comes to consoles, nintendo fails bigtime. but they cant rely on handhelds anymore considering the 3DS is lagging behind the DS, also nintendo is meant to be something different, they appeal to a different audience to sony and microsoft.. well sony

We all know microsoft is going for the casual audience now.

Meeeper282

I thought the 3DS was picking up steam after a slow start.

I kinda see Nintendo as a "Good Enough" type of company.

If they see something that's "Good Enough" for them, they use it and stick with it.

Also keep in mind, Nintendo doesn't make Computers, Microsoft and Sony however have Computers behind them.

They know hardware more than Nintendo I bet.

LegatoSkyheart

Well Sonys good at hardware and MS is good at software and networking. But Nintendo doesn't need to excell just balance out some of the foolish ideas such as one component being the weak point in the chain.

i am beginning to think so, there always one thing about there hardware that holds it back, last gen it was the mini disc format they used in the gamecube, Cartridges in the N64 and now a completely ineficient OS .delta3074

The OS in the Wii U? I think they'll sort that out over time through updates. Sounds like an early adopter problem. Both MS and Sony streamlined theirs over time contantly, it's an evolution. :P

[QUOTE="delta3074"]i am beginning to think so, there always one thing about there hardware that holds it back, last gen it was the mini disc format they used in the gamecube, Cartridges in the N64 and now a completely ineficient OS .HalcyonScarlet

The OS in the Wii U? I think they'll sort that out over time through updates. Sounds like an early adopter problem. Both MS and Sony streamlined theirs over time contantly, it's an evolution. :P

[QUOTE="HalcyonScarlet"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]i am beginning to think so, there always one thing about there hardware that holds it back, last gen it was the mini disc format they used in the gamecube, Cartridges in the N64 and now a completely ineficient OS .delta3074

The OS in the Wii U? I think they'll sort that out over time through updates. Sounds like an early adopter problem. Both MS and Sony streamlined theirs over time contantly, it's an evolution. :P

Yeah software isn't their forte. You make some good points. It's a bit silly when you consider that a PC uses 1GB or less for the OS on boot up.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="HalcyonScarlet"]

The OS in the Wii U? I think they'll sort that out over time through updates. Sounds like an early adopter problem. Both MS and Sony streamlined theirs over time contantly, it's an evolution. :P

HalcyonScarlet

Yeah software isn't their forte. You make some good points. It's a bit silly when you consider that a PC uses 1GB or less for the OS on boot up.

[QUOTE="HalcyonScarlet"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]it's about 1.5GB with Half the RAM (1GB) reserved for it's use ,Plus another Add another 600MB for the new firmware and it's 2.1GB, the 360 has ALWAYS been 32MB (which includes reserved space not yet used) , PS3's was Over 100MB but they have slimmed it down to 50MB (which is why the 360 has more usable memory than the Ps3) , i could understand if the Wii-U was that much more powerful than the 360 or Ps3 but it isn't really and the OS is probbaly the reason why it isn't in the first place.delta3074

Yeah software isn't their forte. You make some good points. It's a bit silly when you consider that a PC uses 1GB or less for the OS on boot up.

The thing is with Nintendo, is they don't really push physics and ai, but others do. So I think the CPU in the Wii U is going to be the problem. The OS is dumb but there's still quite a lot left over I guess to it might not be the worst thing. It's a waste for them in terms of cost though (extra ram just for the possibly bloated OS).

N64 was very impressive for its time, it was a huge jump compared to the PS1 and Saturn, even more than Dreamcast - XBOX.

NGC was also great in graphics, look at Starfox Adventures and Rogue Squadron, nothing on the PS2 comes close.

N64 was very impressive for its time, it was a huge jump compared to the PS1 and Saturn, even more than Dreamcast - XBOX.

NGC was also great in graphics, look at Starfox Adventures and Rogue Squadron, nothing on the PS2 comes close.

Stefan91x

Don't exaggerate!

At least Nintendo isn't as stupid as Sony.

NOT a bash thread. I'm interested to know what people honestly think.

The N64 used cartridges. BUT, I can't blame them, optical drives didn't do gaming justice until GameCube, Xbox, ect, because of slow speeds. The only benefit the PS had with CDs were FMV and cost I think, but games were more fluid on the N64.

The GameCube was almost perfect in design at the time I thought, but using 1.5GB mini DVDs weren't a great idea.

The Wii really could have used a stronger GPU. Not miles better, but certainly better. It would have made all the difference.

The Wii U, we're hearing reports (IF TRUE) that it's using a 1.2Ghz Tri core Wii CPU, which was also in the GC. So it's more than 10 years old. In fact the PowerPC 7XX family was introduced in 1997. Now being an IBM PowerPC, I guess they have a different lifespan. But this will effect 3rd party games in the future.

There always seems to be one part of a Nintendo home console which is a bit of a bottle neck. They aren't the only ones, but they're consistent. So are Nintendo foolish with hardware decisions? They seem to make short sighted mistakes.

games r good who cares bout the hardwareJigglyWiggly_

Well if developers want to do more but can't because of a limitation, isn't that a problem?

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]games r good who cares bout the hardwareHalcyonScarlet

Well if developers want to do more but can't because of a limitation, isn't that a problem?

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

I kinda see Nintendo as a "Good Enough" type of company.

If they see something that's "Good Enough" for them, they use it and stick with it.

Also keep in mind, Nintendo doesn't make Computers, Microsoft and Sony however have Computers behind them.

They know hardware more than Nintendo I bet.

Well Sonys good at hardware and MS is good at software and networking. But Nintendo doesn't need to excell just balance out some of the foolish ideas such as one component being the weak point in the chain.

[QUOTE="HalcyonScarlet"]

NOT a bash thread. I'm interested to know what people honestly think.

The N64 used cartridges. BUT, I can't blame them, optical drives didn't do gaming justice until GameCube, Xbox, ect, because of slow speeds. The only benefit the PS had with CDs were FMV and cost I think, but games were more fluid on the N64.

The GameCube was almost perfect in design at the time I thought, but using 1.5GB mini DVDs weren't a great idea.

The Wii really could have used a stronger GPU. Not miles better, but certainly better. It would have made all the difference.

The Wii U, we're hearing reports (IF TRUE) that it's using a 1.2Ghz Tri core Wii CPU, which was also in the GC. So it's more than 10 years old. In fact the PowerPC 7XX family was introduced in 1997. Now being an IBM PowerPC, I guess they have a different lifespan. But this will effect 3rd party games in the future.

There always seems to be one part of a Nintendo home console which is a bit of a bottle neck. They aren't the only ones, but they're consistent. So are Nintendo foolish with hardware decisions? They seem to make short sighted mistakes.

ronvalencia

Really, lol I don't know anything about that era of tech. But for the demands back then it sufficed, no?

[QUOTE="HalcyonScarlet"]

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

I kinda see Nintendo as a "Good Enough" type of company.

If they see something that's "Good Enough" for them, they use it and stick with it.

Also keep in mind, Nintendo doesn't make Computers, Microsoft and Sony however have Computers behind them.

They know hardware more than Nintendo I bet.

ronvalencia

Well Sonys good at hardware and MS is good at software and networking. But Nintendo doesn't need to excell just balance out some of the foolish ideas such as one component being the weak point in the chain.

lol that's also true. But they seem to be good in many areas of hardware. I think MSs goal was just to have a very unified design, RAM, GPU erm... XBL. :P

[QUOTE="HalcyonScarlet"]

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]games r good who cares bout the hardwareJigglyWiggly_

Well if developers want to do more but can't because of a limitation, isn't that a problem?

klonoa?

So if a dev wants to make bigger games on the GC but storage is an issue. They want better graphics on the Wii, the GPU is a problem. They want more advanced physics engines in their games, but the Wii U CPU could be a problem.

"Nintendo/Sega for SP" But you're limiting yourself, there are so many amazing developers out there. If anything it wouldn't be wrong to say 3rd parties have far and away made the best games this gen, not on the Wii obviously, but a lot of 3rd parties haven't known how best to use the Wii remote.

N64 the had the most expensive, crappiest looking games out of every system ever made. It was nothing more than snes with every game using a third person view. The colors were basic, everything looked like it was made out of legos. And the used game market was non existant, while ps1 exploded.

Gamecube came way too late. If you didn't get burned by being an early dreamcast adopter, you already had a ps2, or were a hipster and owned a xbox. No one was buying another $200 system that was over sized, looked like a jack in the box, and had no games at launch. Never did have a mario, and double dash was a failed abortion. Not only did no third party developers support the system, even nintendo abandoned the thing.

If the wii wasn't some sort of miracle success the company would have been liquidated. Even with its success Nintendo barely supported the damn thing. The second most successful system ever and 8 games were made for it. And instead of trying to fix that problem, they rush a bloated, unneeded successor, using dated hardware. All because they wanted to rush a gimmick. They didn't even think ahead and realized their hdd storage was barely big enough to hold the operating system.

They still manage to turn a profit by the end of every gen and that's all that really matters

they tend to want to make more affordable consoles on the market and in turn their hardware may not be the most powerful...but they pick up that slack with innovation/gimmicks (whichever side of the fence you are on that one)

fanboys on this forum can mock them because their console is underpowered or that their behind on times with online components (the Wii-U can updated now though, so more features can and will be rolled in as this gen goes on so that's good news at least) but again....at the end of the day, they're making a profit on each system sold plus one game (c'mon...who isn't gonna buy at least ONE game)

so IMO no...they are not foolish...they are just more daring if you ask me and just want to liven this industry up...MS and Sony are gonna do what they're gonna do, we don't need a third system doing to same damn thing and having the same damn multiplats, just let Nintendo be different and explore options

N64 the had the most expensive, crappiest looking games out of every system ever made. It was nothing more than snes with every game using a third person view. The colors were basic, everything looked like it was made out of legos. And the used game market was non existant, while ps1 exploded.

Gamecube came way too late. If you didn't get burned by being an early dreamcast adopter, you already had a ps2, or were a hipster and owned a xbox. No one was buying another $200 system that was over sized, looked like a jack in the box, and had no games at launch. Never did have a mario, and double dash was a failed abortion. Not only did no third party developers support the system, even nintendo abandoned the thing.

If the wii wasn't some sort of miracle success the company would have been liquidated. Even with its success Nintendo barely supported the damn thing. The second most successful system ever and 8 games were made for it. And instead of trying to fix that problem, they rush a bloated, unneeded successor, using dated hardware. All because they wanted to rush a gimmick. They didn't even think ahead and realized their hdd storage was barely big enough to hold the operating system.

joehult

The N64 was awesome :(. Graphics were much better than PS1. Just a bit blurrier. You're being too harsh with that.

I thought the Black GC looked good, but I hardly played it. And I feel a bit bad, because someone bought me one.

Same with the Wii, bought a ton of games but it wasn't for me, hardly played it, don't mind as much because I bought it myself. Still it's not gathering dust anymore, I use it for the Lovefilm movie streaming app (channel).

But the handheld market has always supported Nintendo, so they would have been fine. Also that's one of the reasons the Wii is weak, if it was more costly and it flopped it would have caused severe prob;ems for Nintendo.

I don't plan on buying a Wii U soon. I rushed into the last two Nintendo consoles, this time i'll take my time and see what happens.

They still manage to turn a profit by the end of every gen and that's all that really matters

they tend to want to make more affordable consoles on the market and in turn their hardware may not be the most powerful...but they pick up that slack with innovation/gimmicks (whichever side of the fence you are on that one)

fanboys on this forum can mock them because their console is underpowered or that their behind on times with online components (the Wii-U can updated now though, so more features can and will be rolled in as this gen goes on so that's good news at least) but again....at the end of the day, they're making a profit on each system sold plus one game (c'mon...who isn't gonna buy at least ONE game)

so IMO no...they are not foolish...they are just more daring if you ask me and just want to liven this industry up...MS and Sony are gonna do what they're gonna do, we don't need a third system doing to same damn thing and having the same damn multiplats, just let Nintendo be different and explore options

CDUB316

I'm talking about bringing the single weak component into balance with the rest of the hardware, rather than competing with competition.

Also, they made lots of money with the Wii, but it was the final straw for some of the old school Nintendo fanboys like me. I loved gaming on the SNES and N64.

N64 the had the most expensive, crappiest looking games out of every system ever made. It was nothing more than snes with every game using a third person view. The colors were basic, everything looked like it was made out of legos. And the used game market was non existant, while ps1 exploded.

Gamecube came way too late. If you didn't get burned by being an early dreamcast adopter, you already had a ps2, or were a hipster and owned a xbox. No one was buying another $200 system that was over sized, looked like a jack in the box, and had no games at launch. Never did have a mario, and double dash was a failed abortion. Not only did no third party developers support the system, even nintendo abandoned the thing.

joehult

GameCube had no games at launch? Luigi's Mansion, Pikmin, and Star Wars: Rogue Squadron II - Rogue Leader, much? Never mind the fact that a Mario platformer game DID release (Super Mario Sunshine)? Also noting that third party support was better than N64 in every way DESPITE it faltering?

Their offerings are value conscious, that's all.

Tbh... yes they are.

I love Ninty just as much as any fanboy, but its really hard to deny that they always make mistakes on every system they make.

Starting with the N64... the system was hard to develop for because of its hardware which is why even if it was a stronger system than the PS1, you sometimes saw severe drawbacks on capability on several games in comparison. The cartridges also were more expensive than the PS1 discs as well which didn't help in developing games.

The GC probably had the least mistakes. It was great for its time, but the only things that killed it were the timing of the PS2, and not having a DVD playback due to the mini disc setup.

The Wii had issues on power for the most part. You can make creative games on it, but the fact of the matter is that the engines during last gen were built with the two other systems in mind.

N64 the had the most expensive, crappiest looking games out of every system ever made. It was nothing more than snes with every game using a third person view. The colors were basic, everything looked like it was made out of legos. And the used game market was non existant, while ps1 exploded.

Gamecube came way too late. If you didn't get burned by being an early dreamcast adopter, you already had a ps2, or were a hipster and owned a xbox. No one was buying another $200 system that was over sized, looked like a jack in the box, and had no games at launch. Never did have a mario, and double dash was a failed abortion. Not only did no third party developers support the system, even nintendo abandoned the thing.

If the wii wasn't some sort of miracle success the company would have been liquidated. Even with its success Nintendo barely supported the damn thing. The second most successful system ever and 8 games were made for it. And instead of trying to fix that problem, they rush a bloated, unneeded successor, using dated hardware. All because they wanted to rush a gimmick. They didn't even think ahead and realized their hdd storage was barely big enough to hold the operating system.

joehult

At least Nintendo isn't as stupid as Sony.

Newhopes

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="HalcyonScarlet"]

Well Sonys good at hardware and MS is good at software and networking. But Nintendo doesn't need to excell just balance out some of the foolish ideas such as one component being the weak point in the chain.

HalcyonScarlet

lol that's also true. But they seem to be good in many areas of hardware. I think MSs goal was just to have a very unified design, RAM, GPU erm... XBL. :P

sony made so many mistakes this gen, and i agree with ronvalencia that the rsx and its lack of unified shader architecture totally stuffed up the ps3.

also for some dumb reason sony only ever offered a premium sku right off the bat. ms offered a budget conscious sku (no hdmi, no optical), then down the track added these features. ps3 has all these expensive features from launch.

wii-u ... im a little disappointed that it has no optical port. but dolby digital 5.1 incurs licensing costs - that's why nintendo did it. but, in my opinion, what they should have done is had possibly a third sku!

basic set, deluxe set, and why not the third option of deluxe+ set (including blu ray playback, optical out port)

or, had a blu ray player as a software package people pay for on the eShop. funny that i'm making these suggestions when i don't need optical nor blu ray playback lol.

This topic does not talk about business it talks about hardware.

I do agree with their business stance. They got it mapped out a bit better than the others which is funny considering their sometimes genius sometimes complete imbecile patterns of thought.

Their hardware definitely DOES have mistakes. There is no other way around it. Many of those mistakes did harm them in the long run, but luckily their business of cheap hardware with a cheap price tends to always do a great job in the end for any product.

N64 the had the most expensive, crappiest looking games out of every system ever made. It was nothing more than snes with every game using a third person view. The colors were basic, everything looked like it was made out of legos. And the used game market was non existant, while ps1 exploded.

Gamecube came way too late. If you didn't get burned by being an early dreamcast adopter, you already had a ps2, or were a hipster and owned a xbox. No one was buying another $200 system that was over sized, looked like a jack in the box, and had no games at launch. Never did have a mario, and double dash was a failed abortion. Not only did no third party developers support the system, even nintendo abandoned the thing.

If the wii wasn't some sort of miracle success the company would have been liquidated. Even with its success Nintendo barely supported the damn thing. The second most successful system ever and 8 games were made for it. And instead of trying to fix that problem, they rush a bloated, unneeded successor, using dated hardware. All because they wanted to rush a gimmick. They didn't even think ahead and realized their hdd storage was barely big enough to hold the operating system.

joehult

Now I know MHz aren't eveything, but the N64 was clocked over 25x higher than the SNES and used a totally different architecture. They really had nothing in common.

So wait, the Gamecube came out way too late, but the Xbox, which came out 3 days earlier was fine?

The Gamecube was tiny, what on earth are you talking about? The only smaller system of that gen was the PS2 Slim. Now the Xbox, that was huge.

Luigi's Mansion, Rouge Squadron

Uhh... What was Sunshine then? What was wrong with double dash?

The Wii U isn't dated at all. Sure, it could be more powerful, but it's pretty modern.

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"][QUOTE="HalcyonScarlet"]

Well if developers want to do more but can't because of a limitation, isn't that a problem?

klonoa?

So if a dev wants to make bigger games on the GC but storage is an issue. They want better graphics on the Wii, the GPU is a problem. They want more advanced physics engines in their games, but the Wii U CPU could be a problem.

"Nintendo/Sega for SP" But you're limiting yourself, there are so many amazing developers out there. If anything it wouldn't be wrong to say 3rd parties have far and away made the best games this gen, not on the Wii obviously, but a lot of 3rd parties haven't known how best to use the Wii remote.

[QUOTE="HalcyonScarlet"]

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]games r good who cares bout the hardwareJigglyWiggly_

Well if developers want to do more but can't because of a limitation, isn't that a problem?

No, they're smart with it. The razor blade strategy is a dumb strategy with consoles because you have no guarantee your console will have good sales for software. Look at the Vita. Selling badly and software is selling badly. Look at SEGA during the late 90's. Just because you think selling hardware at a loss in order to make profit on software is a good idea it isn't because it has so many variables. Yes, I know Nintendo is currently selling the Wii U at a loss (and which Wii U system this is isn't currently known) but it sounds like it is a very tiny loss. Not like the stupid, completely backwards Sony/MS losses of $50 or more per unit. How about Sony/MS act like every other company in the world, sell their consoles at a decent profit and gamers stop whining about companies being "greedy" just because they have a business to run? This isn't a charity. If Sony made $20-$40 off every Playstation system sold then they'd have more money to fund projects, not lay off employees, etc. Of course this would mean consoles would need to be $299 or $399 at a profit and everyone in the internet gaming community would cry like babies if the next Xbox/PS4 have like 2-3GBs RAM and not crazy cutting edge hardware. To be fair, Microsoft did a pretty good job maintaining profits from Xbox hardware this gen but I still don't think anyone should launch a console at a large loss per unit.bonesawisready5

The Wii U doesn't even have an optical audio out like PS3 and 360 and people are saying it's a "next gen" system. The WiiU already sucks and things are only going to get worse for it as time goes on and developers abandon they system entirely.

I hope sheep really love Mario and Zelda because that's all they're gonna have...

When it comes to consoles, nintendo fails bigtime. but they cant rely on handhelds anymore considering the 3DS is lagging behind the DS, also nintendo is meant to be something different, they appeal to a different audience to sony and microsoft.. well sony

We all know microsoft is going for the casual audience now.

Meeeper282

[QUOTE="Meeeper282"]

When it comes to consoles, nintendo fails bigtime. but they cant rely on handhelds anymore considering the 3DS is lagging behind the DS, also nintendo is meant to be something different, they appeal to a different audience to sony and microsoft.. well sony

We all know microsoft is going for the casual audience now.

HalcyonScarlet

I thought the 3DS was picking up steam after a slow start.

The Wii U doesn't even have an optical audio out like PS3 and 360 and people are saying it's a "next gen" system. The WiiU already sucks and things are only going to get worse for it as time goes on and developers abandon they system entirely.

I hope sheep really love Mario and Zelda because that's all they're gonna have...

trollop_scat

Wii U follows current laptop PCs i.e. my laptop doesn't have a TOSLINK connection, only HDMI and Display Port.

Nah, they just deliberately suck at it

Same goes for MicroSony...

PS1 - The loading times were plainfully slow, not to mention the 2D graphics being clearly inferior to the Saturn.

PS2 - It lacked anti-aliasing, which the Dreamcast and even N64 already had, not to mention an inferior online service compared to the Dreamcast.

Xbox - The Pentium III architecture was very inefficient compared to the more advanced PowerPC architecture used by the GameCube.

Xbox 360 - The 'Red Ring of Death', the paid online service which its rivals offer for free, and the lack of an internet browser which even the Wii offered.

PS3 - The limited RSX GPU is a bottleneck that pretty much renders most of that Cell power pointless.