[s2g]

> You wouldn’t buy Nintendo and order them to make a console more powerful than the XBox One X. That’s not what they do.

Except Nintendo could do that and be fine. Probably not, but if the third party is strong.

This is more like telling them to start shoving out a mario game twice a year.

[zeusk]

> Except Nintendo could do that and be fine.

I believe otherwise. Most of Nintendo's marketing and appeal is based around gameplay and nostalgia; not graphical prowess.

A Nintendo more powerful than one X would cost more since Microsoft amortizes some of the cost over Live services and in-store purchases whereas Nintendo focuses on 1st party games with no recurring revenue. Price elasticity is perhaps most visible in the console arena where consumers are extremely sensitive to upfront costs.

[MBCook]

Right. If they did that they wouldn’t be Nintendo.

Sure they could get all the multi-platform AAA games, but then they would just be another MS. There wouldn’t be anything to distinguish them.

Except their terrible online services.

Their games would have to get better (graphically) to fit on the console as best-of-breed, which would dramatically increase their development cost. So we wouldn’t see the wonderful variety and depth of first party releases from them anymore.

And as history has shown both Microsoft and Sony have HUGE budgets and can afford to lose a few generations to stay in the game. Nintendo can’t.

David go from special player on this side who’s doing great to a nobody. Does anyone really think a lot of parents are going to spend $600 to buy their kids the next Mario game?