Agreed, certainly to an extent, but as I argued previously this (choosing x86) is a result of few things like ~
- they could cater to a larger audience
- the performance lead was substantial to the nearest viable competitor i.e. ARM
- the library of games (on PC) is the largest, most profitable which can then profit from a common platform i.e. x86
1: They already catered to a large audience, to the toon of a collective ~250 million users. Switching to x86 may have alienated a handful that can't carry over their previous library at all (not even their digital purchases!).
2: For off the shelf parts, which ties back down to cost. A custom made chip could have (I'd argue would have) performed better. Instead, they lobbed it using price as the crutch.
3. That means absolutely nothing since a greater portion of games on PC for years still won't see console versions (RTS/MOBAs/MMOs). I'd argue consoles have a stronger library than PC. Years gaming, my console library dwarfed my PC library. That is what made consoles special to me. I started noticing with Gen7 that a lot of the games were now seeing PC versions. Which started to slowly drift me away from consoles.
As for your argument about Wii, I doubt that the software (game) sales were greater than that of PS3 or Xbox 360. That'd reinforce the point that people pay for premium content, i.e. better looking games, & as such the likes of Sonic, Mario can never command a premium like Halo does.
I'd say Nintendo has some brand power:
Mario Kart 8 releases - Wii U sees a boom in sales.
Melee releases - Wii U sees a boom in sales.
Nintendo has more system selling mascots than MSFT and Sony combined. That doesn't mean Wii U (or Wii, or Nintendo) is selling more consoles. Genre plays a big factor into the number of sales as much as content. But when a Mario game can double almost triple Hardware sales by itself, you can't make the claim that Mario can never command a premium like Halo does.
Nintendo has the stigma of it being the "little kids" console which it does nothing to shake off. Nintendo has it's own audience and Sony/MSFT would KILL to even get a touch at that. Don't forget Pokemon, believe it or not, it has a higher attach ratio than Halo.
But the issue for Nintendo was it's software was too poor. Devs didn't bring big games to the Wii (and now Wii U) citing hardware restrictions and Nintendo's own content policies, and don't forget Nintendo's poor attempt at a online network. Woof. What's your 12 digit Friend Code, by the way?
Not sure I follow, I'd assumed that console (viz PS4) games were ported to PC or vice versa, this current gen, but handheld games are developed separately (using the same game engine?) So unless we're talking about Super Mario, Sonic the hedgehog or other classic games, I don't see how handhelds would be the lowest denominator?
Some hand held games only have the back end developed separately, a few are ported and tweaked down. For example, a lot of the PSP catalog was PS1 ports. And a lot of the PS Vita titles are PS2/PS3 ports.
And now there is the port scene from Hand Held to Console/PC. Such as Castlevania, Assassin's Creed, the GoW collection.
Lastly with cheap(er) consoles they can sell a lot more units in developing nations which was not possible last gen. This being a vital factor as more consoles are gonna be sold outside the realm of developed nations, certainly in the not so distant future, & so it's sensible to make'em as cheap as possible, though a cut (or two) above the handhelds.
This is always a touchy subject because depending on which side fanboy you talk to, these markets don't matter. Example "Xbox360 is selling poorly in the UAE/South America" "LOL those countries don't matter only USA/UK." Meanwhile the PS3 took 2nd spot from X360 because of these smaller territories. And now PS4 has like a 4:1 lead outside of the US/UK to Xbone but to these people these regions still don't matter.
On the issue of price, of course the lower the cost, the bigger the audience, but that has never been the purpose of technology (or luxury items) from my perpsective. Developing nations are not gonna blow a good portion of their income on getting a PS4 (even if it cost $100) because chances are the PS3 next to it cost $20-30, has 3x-4x the games, easier to find used, and etc. These markets will flourish into a new generation so far into that gen's age that the commonly touted "those markets don't matter" has some bearing when sales break down:
USA/UK - 48%
EU - 32%
Rest of the world - 20%
[Numbers are just examples, but might be close to real).
Like the gens before this one, you focus on the fat cats that will carry you through your boring first year library, the "me's" of the hobby that just have to buy the new consoles day of launch. Trust me, there are enough of people like me to the tune of 2.2 Million PS4+XBones sold on day one! When you cut the price enough you'll get the lions share of the population and by then your console will be profitable (barring you don't shoot yourself in the foot *cough-cough* Blu-Ray *cough* RRoD*), you know the way it was when PS1 launched, and PS2. Consoles they held their worth for a at least half of their life span. These consoles are already obsolete.
). I spend a good portion of my disposable income in my hobby, which is gaming. At no point did I say my opinion is THE ONLY opinion or that I should be catered to. People trying to dismiss opinions because "you're not an engineer" or "you don't own stock" or whatever is rather trite. Feel free to share your opinions/thoughts (especially on a forum - t'is the purpose). These companies don't need my specific dollar, but when a vocal majority are slamming your choices, it's hard to take those defending the choices odd. Are you a consumer or stock holder? As a consume their choices sucked. As a stock holder, be a while before I see the return on those choices, and MSFT frankly just axe that division it's costing us (stock holders) yachts.
Facebook
Twitter