I think things would’ve worked out differently if Nintendo hadn’t messed up the naming of the Wii U. We probably would’ve had a line up like this:

• Wii
• Wii Pro (Wii U)
• Wii Portable (Switch)

They’re at that crossroad again with the Switch name. What do you think the Switch successor should be called? Keep the Switch name or nah?

      • probablyaCat@kbin.social
        1·
        1 year ago

        This worked out really poorly for them with the WiiU. I doubt they will do it again. So many people (including me) thought the WiiU was either an addon for the Wii or a connected upgrade thing. Personally, I thought it was something like the that genesis 32x thing.

  • zkfcfbzr@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Maybe more important: What should they change about the Switch?

    The last console they released that didn’t essentially re-invent the entire console was, what, the SNES? Everything since has drastically changed the controller, plus the core console mechanics in a few cases.

    Do we think they’ll do something very different again, or are they ready to settle into a less change-focused mindset?

    • probablyaCat@kbin.social
      3·
      1 year ago

      TLDR: I’d bet my pinky toe that they iterate on the switch.

      I mean the reason that things didn’t change much from NES to SNES is NES was successful. But in the SNES era, they got a ton of competition and there were no typical conventions for games. Then with the N64, they were jumping into the 3d world and that required some extra changes and Nintendo had some stable competition. Gamecube started having some of the newer conventions but kind of failed (thus why not make big changes?). So the Wii took a different route and made something very different and didn’t get into the tflops race that the other consoles were doing. Wii was successful so why not iterate? Well bad advertising, naming, etc caused the WiiU to flop.

      But at the same time, GB -> GBP -> GBC -> GBA all of which were backwards compatible. That is stability from 1989 to 2001. Then GBA -> DS had backwards compat, DS ->3DS same thing. And basically all of those handhelds were successful. So they combined those markets. Something more high end than a 3DS (which for people like me that didn’t have one and didn’t realize the quality of graphics on that thing, it’s kind of huge to see what the switch offered as a handheld), but still portable. Something that can play modern games, but still be mobile.

      So given their history, I imagine they have to iterate on the next console. Especially since they basically combined their handheld and console into one thing. And given that they will want to get people off of the switch, they need to give them a reason. They almost certainly aren’t going to make something more powerful than a PS5 or Series X, so why would I get a stationary console that is less good and will have far less games? But give me another handheld console that can play even better games than TOTK and can maybe even play pokemon violet well… no we are talking. And honestly, people look at their console stuff out of context so often and think that Nintendo just tries crazy stuff. But really, they have just tried and failed at times, but had the money to keep on going. And also success in another area when something failed.

      • zkfcfbzr@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        I’m not entirely sure I agree the Wii U was an iteration on the Wii. Name aside, they played very differently from one another. I think Switch is closer to being an iteration on Wii U than Wii U on Wii.

        That said - the rest of your points are pretty good. They basically had no choice but to make drastic changes on the N64, and the giant change from the GameCube to the Wii was a change in strategy as a reaction to failure. Plus the points about the handhelds.

        I’m cautiously optimistic the next console will just be a better Switch, but I definitely wouldn’t bet my pinky toe on it just yet.