When did Nintendo decide to give up on technology?

[WCP]

Ok, hear me out on this one. Back in the day, Nintendo was very interested in having the most badass gaming systems. The Super Nintendo was a technological powerhouse for it's time, and the Nintendo 64 was also a very high-end, technologically advanced system. Yet it seems that after the N64, Nintendo decided to step away from trying to be so technologically advanced with their hardware. The GameCube, while a relatively decent system overall, was quite a bit underpowered compared to the other system that came out the same month, the original Xbox. It was a year after the arrival of the PS2, so you'd think the GameCube would be considerably more powerful than the PS2, but they were pretty close in terms of graphical fidelity.


Then, obviously with the Wii, an even bigger departure from having a technologically advanced system.

What made Nintendo decide to no longer compete in the raw power category? They definitely were top dogs during the 16-bit and 32-bit era's, cartridge format withstanding... Certainly, the lack of graphical fidelity on the Nintendo Wii hasn't really hurt them in any major way, profits wise, but I just think it would be cool for Nintendo to return to their former technological dominance. I just don't think it's ever going to happen again. I'm guessing this is mostly due to the arrival of Sony into the marketplace. Nintendo probably feels that their engineers can't compete head to head with Sony, so they might as well not try to win a battle that would be impossible for them to win, so instead, they go with a low-tech strategy.

[GarrettCRW]

Two words: Game Boy.

That line (and the DS, as well) have been chronically underpowered from the start.

[ubersaurus]

Nintendo sees value in producing systems that are cheaper to make and cheaper to develop for. Part of the reason the Wii has such massive clumps of shovelware are the comparatively lower development costs.

Cube was definitely superior to the PS2 though, let's not kid ourselves and claim that they're that close. I think it's pretty common knowledge that PS2 had the weakest multiplatform versions. But the NES? It was pretty good by 1983 standards, though as I hear it, still relatively underpowered vs. what they could have done. Nintendo just dragged out the lifespan with all the mappers. I get the impression the SNES was pushed pretty hard similarly.

[j_factor]

Nintendo never really went all out on technology. All of their systems have had drawbacks against the competition. They never made anything like the Xbox which was designed simply for all-around power. Likely because the Xbox was sold at a hefty loss, which was against Nintendo's business plan. Compounding that was Nintendo's insistence on sticking to the $200 price point. Considering the difference in cost, Gamecube was damn good at the time.

I think with the Wii they made the calculation that this time around, they really can't compete on power, so let's not even worry about it and try to stand out in other ways.

[G-Boobie]

Glasses-free 3D screen technology seems pretty out there, technology wise.

It should also be pointed out that Nintendo is pretty much the only company making money off every console sold: Microsoft and Sony take a hit on their consoles for the first few years of the unit's lifecycle and make up the difference in licensing fees. That means that even 'failures' like the N64 and Gamecube were profitable right from the get go.

[Spartacus]

I guess as gamers it's only natural for us to look at games and infer from them that one console was better or worse than another. Some of it comes from our biases based on what we've played and admittedly, some comes actual differences in hardware. But deep down, I think all of us know that it's really up to developer's to get the most out the hardware platform. If a developer is just pushing software out the door because of time or budget restraints, it's going to show. People see it and unfairly assume it's the console’s fault. All the console manufactures ask for developer input while in the design stage. What do they need? What would they like to have? Then they start to compromise with what's economically feasible. I'm sure every one of them felt they were making the most rational compromise decisions.

From Dean Takahashi's book "Opening the Xbox", I learned that Microsoft had tried wooing Factor 5 to jump ship from Nintendo and develop the next Rogue Squadron for the Xbox. Factor 5 had been consulted on the development of the Gamecube's hardware and thought Nintendo's engineer's had come up with a clever well thought out solution for processing 3-D images. They felt Microsoft was simply relying on the brute force of the Nvidia coprocessor without much thought about preventing bottlenecks in data flow. Of course, Microsoft thought that Factor 5 was just being unfairly biased towards Nintendo. I've read about other developer's who'd worked with the Gamecube and praised the care and effort that went into it’s architecture to produce an efficient streamlined flow of data.

The PS2, Gamecube and Xbox all had games that were unflattering to that particular console. But if you look hard enough and try to be totally unbiased, you'll realize that all three also had games that really proved what they were capable of. In my opinion, based on what I've seen, their capabilities were not THAT far apart. I’ve been impressed with games on all three. So I don't think Nintendo jumped off the technology curve with the Gamecube at all.

Undoubtedly, the Wii isn't a PS3 or Xbox 360. It just can't do some of the things they can. But it does everything it was intended to do very well. It was designed to be low cost, profitable, easy to use and appealing to casual gamers. It did all of those things better than anyone could have predicted. Just because it went a different direction, doesn't mean it's technologically inferior. It's technology is perfect for what it was intended to do.

I think Nintendo has the experience and resources to develop whatever type of system it cares to do. As a user of Nintendo products, I've always been able to pick up on the care and attention they put into their products. I may not always like the direction they are going with their product, but I would NEVER say it's poorly designed.

These differences in direction and design benefit us as consumers because we now have more choices than ever before. Something we all want and can appreciate.

By the way, Dean’s book also goes into why Microsoft got into the game console manufacturing business into the first place. You don’t think Microsoft really gives a damn about gamers, do you? No, Microsoft cares deeply about PC’s and more importantly, which operating system they run on. That’s how THEY make billions. When Sony was shooting it mouth off about how powerful it’s processors were and about it’s online capability, Microsoft worried that maybe people would use the PS2 for something other than playing games. What if they used it to surf the net, send email, hell, even do word processing. It seems ridiculous to those of us who have a PS2 and know it’s online capabilities are sort of craptacular, but Microsoft knew that Sony did not use Windows software and had consistently rebuffed all of Microsoft’s attempts to foist Microsoft software on their platforms. So Microsoft felt an imperative to get itself into this market, to prevent Sony domination, and to ensure that it’s software was in the game, so to speak. In short, they were in it to bring down Sony and you have to admit, they’ve done a good job of it.

When Microsoft was negotiating with Nintendo to buy Nintendo, I think Nintendo picked up on Microsoft’s angst about perceived threats to it’s software via online capability. Perhaps that’s why Nintendo has deftly maneuvered itself to stay clearly out of the path of Microsoft’s juggernaut by making its online capability –uhmm gimped?

By the way, Nintendo told Microsoft “Why should we sell? We’re making money!”

[joshnickerson]

By the way, Nintendo told Microsoft “Why should we sell? We’re making money!”

Even when Nintendo was in "last place" in the console wars of the previous generation, they still made money hand over fist.

I'll agree with j_factor that Nintendo has really never played the technology game (the sole exception maybe the Nintendo 64, and we all know the lessons they learned from that), instead relying on what I've heard referred to as "withered technology", or building their systems with older parts that were just good enough, then producing fantastic results from the so called limitations. You can go back as far as the Game & Watch to find examples of that.

[InboRenge]

When? Day one

http://blog.samkahn.net/?p=82

[norkusa]

When? Day one

http://blog.samkahn.net/?p=82

Yeah, low-tech was always Nintendo's strategy. It has been a while since I last read it, but in the Game Over book by David Sheff, he writes about how Nintendo almost made the NES a 16-bit machine. They made the decision to go with 8-bit instead to cut costs and sell more consoles.

[Swamperon]

[QUOTE=InboRenge;1792704]When? Day one

And it certainly has worked very well for them. Despite naysayers declaring their end is nigh for the past 20 years.

And you can bet if they did go belly-up, Sony/Microsoft would shell out megabucks to get their games to be exclusives.

[Peonpiate]

I agree Nintendo has taken a different approach to their system's power since the Gamecube. They are going purely for ease of development and profit now. But even with the SNES and N64 there were obvious drawbacks all in the name of money [but nowhere near as severe that we see in the WII].

The SNES cpu for example was lackluster at best...3.6mhz even at that time was dog slow. There were rumors that Nintendo originally intended to have a 10mhz 68000 cpu in the SNES but scrapped that idea due to the increased cost. If they went with the 10mhz cpu the SNES would have been alot better than it was [which is saying alot since it was/is a awesome console].

N64, this one is obvious. A 2x speed CD drive added on $100 to the cost of a system back then, 4x would be $150'ish. N64 launched at $249 so it would have been $349-$400 with a CD drive or Nintendo would have to eat losses on hardware to keep it at $249.

There is the load time argument about CDs sure, and the piracy angle...But no matter how you look at it CDs would have benefited the system immensely if Nintendo wasnt cheap. Third parties likely would not have abandoned Nintendo if they didnt force them to stick with cartridges purely for Nintendo's bottomline.

Gamecube is the odd man out. That system had virtually no drawbacks imo, it only lacked 3rd party support since Nintendo lost some prestige with the N64. But technology wise it was better than PS2 and competitive to the Xbox. Of course the WII is basically a repackaged Gamecube so its not even worth comparing a Wii to a 360 or PS3...

[Swamperon]

They are going purely for ease of development and profit now.

And that's a bad thing? Compared to the alternative? That's worked out really well for the Playstation 3.

[sheath]

And that's a bad thing? Compared to the alternative? That's worked out really well for the Playstation 3.

Special optimizations cater to the system's core strengths. The systems that are purely low level optimized/focused have tended to fail (32X, Saturn, Jaguar and more) but not always (See Playstation 2 especially).

Positive Brand recognition, Marketing, licensing contracts, and media support seems to be the largest determining factor for the mass market success of a console.

[Peonpiate]

And that's a bad thing? Compared to the alternative? That's worked out really well for the Playstation 3.

Never said it was bad, he asked a question about why the WII is a repackaged Gamecube and thats the answer. Nintendo gambled and won, and that paid off for them in spades. And even if the WII bombed they would not be bleeding money like Sony is with the PS3, the WII is cheap tech. Overall they made a great decision business wise.

[Collector_Gaming]

actually if you haven't noticed Nintendo has been following a strategy they been holding together since day one

They release family fun games for the most part...

we always called them kiddie for doing so but look at this

they may not be the top seller every time but most nintendo games do pretty damn good cause they cater to everyone.
and their systems are fairly cheap to make and sell cheap so people wanting a system but don't have tons of cash will buy this for its afford-ability

This is why Game Boy dominated every time

we look back at the dawn of Game Boy and Game Gear days

We looked at Game Boy who was black and green simple graphics for the most part
Game Gear who was Full color and supporting graphics that almost run up with its Genesis console.

Gameboys were cheaper to make.. there for were cheaper to market then the game gears

game gear games generally were games you had to get fully involved in
while game boy games such as its major hit Tetris was a game you could play for 15 minutes. have fun and turn it off and be done with it. Good stuff to play on long trips in the back seat while your siblings annoy the hell out of you
and its this exact same method that nintendo has followed ever since.

thats not saying the other consoles or their games suck... its just not as broadly beloved as the games nintendo brings to the table.

[WCP]

N64 launched at $249 so it would have been $349-$400 with a CD drive or Nintendo would have to eat losses on hardware to keep it at $249.

I might be mistaken, but I could have sworn that I payed $199.99 for my N64, and I bought it on launch day. Off course, I paid more than $199 that day, because I also bought Mario 64.

[j_factor]

N64 was $199 at launch. It was originally announced as $249, but they changed it to be more competitive with Playstation and Saturn, which were selling for $199 at that time.

[Icarus Moonsight]

When everyone else gave up on innovation.

[duffmanth]

Nintendo has always maintained a pretty affordable price point for their consoles over the years, and they've done that by keeping their systems fairly simple and not on the leading edge of technology. There systems have always been game consoles, nothing more and nothing less. They've never tried to compete with Sony and MS by trying to make their systems these do it all consoles that Sony and MS have released. I guess this strategy has both benefited and hindered Nintendo at the same time. It's helped keep their systems the cheapest on the market, but it's also left them well behind in areas like graphics, online gaming, and HD.

This approach seems to be working for them with the Wii for the time being, but somewhere along the line they're gonna have to step things up and enter into the HD and online world that gaming has become.

[WanganRunner]

This comes down to a simple business criteria of Nintendo's.

They ALWAYS make money on hardware sales. They will not sell hardware at a loss.


Sony and M$ will gladly take losses on hardware, and thus they will always sell more powerful systems, given that the amount of money people will pay is pretty much fixed at any given time.