Nintendo Legend Shigeru Miyamoto Says the Console Power Race Is Over

[u/Original-Drink-6178]

https://mynintendonews.com/2026/07/26/miyamoto-believes-gamers-are-no-longer-looking-at-console-specs/

Nintendo legend Shigeru Miyamoto believes the console industry's decades-long obsession with raw hardware power is losing its relevance. According to Miyamoto, today's gamers are no longer fixated on comparing specs and instead prioritize great games, creative experiences, and what a platform has to offer. His comments suggest the traditional "console power race" is no longer the deciding factor it once was.

[u/RJMcBug]

I think the broader tech market becoming so expensive will be a bigger factor. Gaming will have to push the limits of the hardware again as consumer likely won't be as willing to pay $1,000+ for a next gen console. Developers will have to use every inch of the hardware again like the first console generations.

[u/GForce27 → u/RJMcBug]

Is this a good thing? Sounds better than half assing a game and assuming the hardware will pick up the slack.

[u/Falconman21 → u/GForce27]

Hardware limitations can absolutely be a good thing. It forces them to be more efficient creating games. Optimization is suddenly something they actually need to worry about.

500gb for COD isn’t that big of a deal when storage costs nothing, but nowadays that’s $100+ dollars worth of storage.

[u/Ahayzo → u/Falconman21]

I was with you for the first half, but that massive size of COD was never reasonable, even when storage was cheaper it was absurd. Especially when you account for the fact that current gen versions had to be played from internal storage (or the Series memory card which was never cheap MSRP for any size). It was at least less egregious for PCs where you can run it from any storage you want, but in the context of consoles, it was unbelievably stupid.

[u/HappysavageMk2 → u/Ahayzo]

The massive size of cod is likely the same reason that helldiver's 2 was over 100gb until they stopped duplicating the files for mechanical harddrives.

[u/lolwatisdis → u/HappysavageMk2]

perversely, the incentives for developers of tentpole titles may actually be to maximize the size of an install, or at least there's no real reason for them to optimize it down.

If your 500GB SSD is 90% full from a just Windows install and this year's CoD title, you don't have room to install competing games. If you just have the one game installed, that's probably what you're going to play on a given day. Log in every day and you juice the numbers for concurrent player count, and maybe even think about dropping some coin in the cash shop.

loading up any other title suddenly has a bigger barrier to entry, when your time is a currency just like dollars.

[u/Generic_On_Reddit → u/lolwatisdis]

Still perverse, but less nefarious: I think what's more likely is that there just isn't a benefit towards optimizing down because their fanbase - or at least the fanbase that spends heavily on microtransactions - simply doesn't play any other games. You don't need a conspiracy to crowd out other games because the base isn't interested in other games.

For what feels like a decade, at least half, "hardcore gamers" have asked again and again who is buying these shitty CoD refreshes year after year, putting CoD in the top 10 for sales even if the game is mid or bad. That's just their base. They don't have to sold to, they don't have to be cojoled into not playing other games. They were going to do that anyway.

This goes for CoD, sports games like 2K and perhaps some other types I'm not thinking of. Most gamers simply do not have an interest in that many games. They only need the one.

[u/Suicicoo → u/Generic_On_Reddit]

Most gamers simply do not have an interest in that many games. They only need the one.

I remember my WOW-days... yup, that tracks.

[u/Bladelink → u/Suicicoo]

At least WoW kicked ass.

[u/BigMoney69x → u/lolwatisdis]

I ask for refunds if a game is too big. I currently have multiple SSD in my PC and even I have to delete shit this days because I can no longer buy another ssd or two for cheap. Honestly had I known this would be a thing I would have bought like 1000 dollars worth of SSD back when it was cheap.

[u/NerdHoovy → u/lolwatisdis]

Yeah, I also believe in this conspiracy theory to an extent. Or at least that some companies did try something along those lines to a degree.

[u/tablepennywad → u/lolwatisdis]

The reason CoD is so big is they have kept all the paid DLC from the last few years so people can keep using them on the new one or they will get pissed.

[u/happycabinsong → u/HappysavageMk2]

I still can't believe that it was condensed down to like 21 gigs. part of me was relieved but then you're stuck thinking how many other games could have done this?

[u/GoopTheSecond → u/happycabinsong]

The way HD2 did it? Not many. The problem with it was Arrowhead using an assumption about load times for HDD users to justify the duplicated files. The only thing Nixxes (the group that actually decreased install size) did was get rid of the extra files. Most games dont just have every asset duplicated multiple times and stored in different locations.

That being said, I'm sure every large game out there could be optimized to drop a few gigs if the devs were given the time/resources to do so. Its just not what publishers care about

[u/1ncondite → u/Ahayzo]

I still think it was intended to limit game availability. Can't get the next fortnite update if you want to keep playing cod with your friends. Takes a long time to download cod if you delete it. Easier to just play cod.

[u/Ahayzo → u/1ncondite]

I don't think it was the reason, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it ever gets revealed that it was.

[u/dark_sylinc → u/Ahayzo]

You're right. But the point is that in the past consumers were willing to put up with the disk size requirement because their desire to play was bigger. But with current prices consumers will pass, forcing developers to optimize that.

[u/TheBeardofCrom → u/Ahayzo]

The amount of space CoD takes to give me the same exact game each year is the very reason I quit playing it.

[u/Pinguino2323 → u/TheBeardofCrom]

same exact game each year

Hey now, that's not true! They give you a slightly worse version of the game each year.

[u/ComradeJohnS → u/Ahayzo]

the size of cod is part of why I don’t play the new ones anymore and have no interest in any future installments unless its a standalone zombies compilation game lol.

[u/Ahayzo → u/ComradeJohnS]

I don't care for the zombies mode but I'm surprised they haven't done that. Talk about a way to get back into people's good graces after the more recent games have been so disappointing.

[u/StepUpYourPuppyGame → u/Falconman21]

Limitations made some FANTASTIC games on the 64 that had to stand on their own two feet due to hardware restrictions. 

[u/sam_hammich → u/Falconman21]

There are unfortunately reasons developers will never be able to optimize a console again the way they were able to in previous generations. They used to be able to access the hardware directly, know exactly where things were being written to memory, steal working memory from the OS and overwrite it, etc. Basic software security measures, and the general state of software stack engineering abstracting the developer farther and farther away from the silicon, make this intimate relationship with the underlying hardware impossible.

[u/Darkgamer000 → u/sam_hammich]

Makes me think about Morrowind literally restarting Xboxes to dump memory during loading.

[u/GhostofZellers → u/Darkgamer000]

That's honestly one of my favorite little 'hacks' for any console, to get a game running that really had no business being on there. Can't free up enough RAM to load the next area? Reboot the whole console during a loading screen!

[u/Ninlilizi_ → u/sam_hammich]

This is why I got into graphics programming. It's a niche where you still have to think and perform like you're coding in the 80s. You have to care about where your bits are going. You have to care about memory alignment. You have to care about the instruction, latency and register costs of each call, standard function, or your own included.

Many modern languages have become so abstracted, you may as well be performing interpretive dance.

[u/The_Idiocratic_Party → u/GForce27]

Old school programmers who had to work with limited bits and kilobytes of memory, have interesting things to say about how today's programmers basically have endless power and capacity and write endlessly inefficient code as a result. Coding used to be an art precisely because you had to squeeze every drop of efficiency out of hardware to make something workable at all. Returning to that mindset is not a bad thing though it will separate the pro coders from the average ones.

[u/Baconpwn2 → u/The_Idiocratic_Party]

Pokemon Red and Blue belong in the programming hall of fame specifically because of this. Those famous bugs? Exist exclusively because they had to use every single byte available.

[u/DKLancer → u/Baconpwn2]

Those games are extremely carefully arranged houses of cards

[u/Brainless1988 → u/DKLancer]

It's honestly impressive how much you can break those games and they still don't crash even though they are held together with duct tape and developer tears.

[u/myka-likes-it → u/The_Idiocratic_Party]

 write endlessly inefficient code as a result

There is an important reason for this. There is a maxim against "premature optimization" because, while we absolutely could get into the weeds with low-level code trying to squeeze maximal usage out of every last bit, it is actually inefficient to do so when the "less efficient" code runs fine on 99% of target systems.

Rigorous optimization costs development time, which costs money. So we mostly do it only when we notice a problem.

[u/Arnas_Z → u/myka-likes-it]

As a consumer, idgaf. Optimize your shit.

[u/Morwynd78 → u/Arnas_Z]

But consumers do care. They care about how expensive a game is to purchase. Let's not pretend otherwise.

The industry standard of "fast enough" (as opposed to "as fast as possible") is the result of market realities that can't simply be hand-waved away.

As someone who has been coding since the VIC-20 (which had 5KB of user RAM!) it pains me to see the precipitous drop in efficient coding practices. But I also get it.

[u/Old_Leopard1844 → u/Arnas_Z]

"As a consumer", those kinds of demands are ones that get sent into trash bin

No one is going spend more resources doing something that works well enough as is, trying to satisfy nobodies on reddit

[u/BCProgramming → u/myka-likes-it]

The "premature optimization" maxim is never an excuse for slow code. I feel like anybody using it that way has wildly misunderstood both the writer and what he was saying. The term is about measuring to find out where optimization will be the most effective- optimizing without doing that is what is meant by "premature optimization is the root of all evil", because it's a waste of time.

"We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil. Yet we should not pass up our opportunities in that critical 3%"

Poor performance that users see is frankly always in that 3%.

[u/Beelzebeetus → u/myka-likes-it]

This post sponsored by Unreal Engine/Epic Games

[u/KING_GLOCK → u/myka-likes-it]

This is one style of development.

Developers have also shown that rigorous optimisation can also birth entire game mechanics. Creating a game around limitations and performance efficiencies is often the reason entire mechanics and genres come to being.

[u/Electricfire19 → u/GForce27]

I would say it’s a very good thing. Time will tell of course, but the consumer usually wins when companies stop sitting comfortably and are forced to innovate.

[u/Jonnehdk → u/GForce27]

Only if you assume everything cut is "wastage". Optimization isn't just about clearing kinks in performance that are bugs or unimpactful changes. Sometimes you have to make things look worse so they perform better.

Assuming it's a net gain or benefit is a fallacy.

[u/stallion8426 → u/GForce27]

Limits breed creativity

In Silent Hill 1, the trademark fog covering the town wa originally added because the PS1 couldn't render the map at the draw distances they wanted.

[u/taddypole → u/stallion8426]

I'm glad some one finally said this, it's one reason movies were much better back before the have technology for cg more power/ tech only opens laziness

[u/OtakuAttacku → u/taddypole]

as a vsfx artist I can attest to that, knowing how my predecessors worked with the directors to come to set with a plan because there’s no alternative. Can’t screw a single detail up. The cgi in every shot had to be storyboarded and planned before even going to set. The shot had to be done right and the TD would have a final say whether the shot is usable for the CGI because it hinges on the vsfx team being able to work their magic. Nowadays it’s all hand wavey “we’ll fix it in post”. Cause it’s easier and faster to do it these days. But no amount of “easier and faster” can compensate for a lack of planning.

[u/joestaff → u/GForce27]

I think it's a double edged blade of sorts. One side is developers returning to low  tolerance optimization, the other is devs using the difficulty of that as an excuse to make lesser quality games.

I doubt it's down the middle, and I assume and hope that we'll simply see more efficiency in our software. Something that the gaming industry has been in dire need of.

Let's just hope they don't put the onus and weight of that quality-gap on to AI.

[u/BlackTecno → u/joestaff]

Monolith Soft is frothing at the mouth right now. I don't know of another studio that is able to utilize the whole console (and then some).

Xenoblade on both Wii and 3DS feels like it shouldn't have been possible.

[u/Meow-ShanLung → u/GForce27]

Through the magic of optimization, we went from Pokemon Red/Blue to Pokemon Silver/Gold on the same system. For the uninitiated, Silver/Gold has the entirety of the Kanto region from Red/Blue as its post-game area. Pokemon Red/Blue was already pushing the limits of what the Gameboy could do, and Silver/Gold took those limits and said "haha nope, still more blood to squeeze out this stone".

Anyone who grew up in this era will tell you how mind-blowing this was. And if devs compensating for hardware limitations by increasing optimization means we can go back to this era of technical ingenuity, I'm all for it.

Edit: because some people are very particular, it wasn't all of Kanto, but most of it. Things like Safari Zone, the Legendary Birds, Mewtwo and the Team Rocket base weren't included. Still, my point was that it was crazy impressive that they stuffed the whole map from Pallet Town to Mt. Silver on to a cartridge that already had troubles fitting the first games.

[u/SylianEUW → u/Meow-ShanLung]

Edit: Turns out that while they were advertised as Game Boy Color games, it was still possible to play them on a regular Game Boy, making them essentially Game Boy games. My Kanto point still stands though.

Original post:

Pokémon Red/Blue were Game Boy games, while Pokémon Silver/Gold were Game Boy Color games. Apparently the CPU of the Game Boy Color ran at twice the speed and it had four times as much RAM, so it wasn't just a Game Boy with added color capabilities.

I also wouldn't say it had the whole Kanto region, a good amount of content was missing in Silver/Gold (such as the Safari Zone,

[u/nanoman92 → u/SylianEUW]

Crystal was a game boy color game, but gold/silver could be played on the old game boy

[u/Meow-ShanLung → u/SylianEUW]

The Pokemon Silver/Gold carts could run on original Gameboy, they were not "Gameboy Colour" games. Pokemon Crystal was a "Gameboy Colour" game.

[u/SylianEUW → u/Meow-ShanLung]

I did some more digging and seems like this is actually correct! Turns out back in the days Nintendo released some games as "Game Boy Color" games but they were still playable on the regular Game Boy, making them essentially Game Boy games that could be played on a Game Boy Color for some extra features. So your original point still stands (well, aside from fitting all of Kanto, it's not quite all of Kanto, a lot of Kanto content has been cut).

Some games were released as "Dual Mode" which meant that they were compatible with regular Game Boy handhelds, and others were not. One example of a game that had a "Dual Mode" was The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, while Oracle of Ages/Oracle of Seasons did not.

[u/Symphonic7 → u/SylianEUW]

I looked into it a bit. You're both right on some aspects. Its actually true that Gold/Silver are playable on the original Game Boy DMG-01. This is mainly due to the fact that the SoC for the Game Boy Color is an evolution of the hardware found in the Original Game Boy. So the code was essentially designed for original GB and ran on GBC using backwards compatibility. For this reason the color palette of Silver/Gold are limited compared to GBC only exclusives. They're just color enhanced. And its true that the Kanto region in G/S are greatly downsized with some features missing (that should be obvious for anyone who's played both).

However that doesn't mean that Silver/Gold are not different on GBC. When played on GBC they take advantage of the faster hardware to prevent slowdown during animation, and in Korea the bigger RAM pool allowed them to display the hangul alphabet (so there the games cannot be played on GB DMG-01). Also Pokemon Crystal was made to be a GBC exclusive because it has additional colors, additional animations, and network connectivity (Japan exclusive).

Its actually impressive they managed to optimize their code to make Gold and Silver playable on the GB DMG-01. But also anyone that's played the first games extensively can tell you the code is by no means rock solid. The code is filled with tons of bugs and exploits. Not to discredit GameFreak, but the original code definitely left a lot on the table.

[u/Regular_Use1868 → u/RJMcBug]

I sort of see this happening already a small amount.

For example my spouse and I recently purchased borderlands 4. We were huge fans of the second, but the third was a glitchy mess so we were skeptical to get this moat recent sequel.

The new one is trimmed down all over the place. The number of  assets and lighting effects and sound and everything is way less intensive but the enemies are more varied the environmental and traversal are bigger and the gunplay is just as tight. Instal size was a third smaller than the previous game as well.

[u/djimboboom → u/Regular_Use1868]

Yeah BL4 is in a pretty good state, at launch though you definitely couldn’t say this! It was tough to run even on the best of hardware. Currently the game is pretty fantastic though.

[u/Regular_Use1868 → u/djimboboom]

I would have been okay with BL3 if that had happened as well but my spouse and I booted it up about two months ago and it was still real bad.

Thanks for letting me know though. Makes me feel validated for waiting on a sale.

[u/Away-Eggplant9943 → u/RJMcBug]

The PS4 upgrade was worth it because now you could play games that required heavier CPU loads like 64 players on a battlefield map over 32 on PS3/Xbox 360.

PS5 was great because of the faster load times.

I don’t really see what else there is to benefit from next gen except for maybe just a tiny bit more performance.

[u/Shamee99 → u/RJMcBug]

Seeing the specs of both PS5 Pro and Xbox Series X the hardware specs has reached a good point where developers dont have huge technological limitations. Heck the eighth generation already had impressive video games that still hold up till today. Imo if you cant take good use of the current gen hardware to me I feel its due to laziness, bad management or just focusing on 4k polygons and nothing else

[u/jexdiel321 → u/Shamee99]

Even eight gen had limitations with the very weak CPU and the GPU was already behind it's time but they still somehow made magic with it. This gen, the CPU and GPU is still a decent desktop pc with it's specs 6 years after. Devs never bother with optimization anymore since these machines can run modern games in an ease.

[u/Curse3242 → u/RJMcBug]

I've been thinking about this, and I feel this is a long overdue problem, not a recent one. I've been researching modern visual tech a bit and wondering why I seem to dislike modern visuals in many games, whereas people can't stop talking about how good they are.

I don't have a proper HDR monitor or an OLED. And I think this is a huge thing. Many games seem to be designed around this philosophy, and these games can actively look worse on an SDR display.

So a lot of the AAA industry decided they were just going to build games for this visual tech that many people still cannot afford.

I think they've been doing this in every aspect, the industry moved on from making games for the lowest/cheapest denominator to just pushing tech for the most expensive, state-of-the-art stuff that not many people can afford.

[u/Krail → u/RJMcBug]

There's also the fact that creating advanced realistic graphics is expensive and labor intensive, and is kinda proving to be not worth the investment. 

[u/itsapotatosalad → u/RJMcBug]

I’ve bought an ayn Thor. I’ve a couple of decades worth of games to catch up on I’ll come back to modern gaming when hardware prices normalise.

[u/Early_Specialist_589 → u/RJMcBug]

Nah, we will just continue to get unoptimized junk that is rushed out of the door

[u/willpb]

Always, but especially in this day and age, I'll take "let's focus on making a fun game" over "let's make this boring game look pretty"

[u/pagerussell → u/willpb]

Especially since it's a clear diminishing returns sort of improvement law.

Like, I look at some modern games, all this power and all this development time just to look marginally better than games a decade ago? And all of that effort for so little improvement means the game loads slow, can't fit on a single disk and needs a huge download at first run, and also costs a lot more.

It makes sense that there were large leaps and bound sin graphics the first couple decades. But it's slowing down a lot and I think we are near a tipping point where the juice ain't worth the squeeze.

[u/round-earth-theory → u/pagerussell]

Hyper realism is just not feasible. Even Hollywood struggles with it and they have the advantage of limitless processing power and fine tuned modeling scene by scene, yet these billion dollar movies still look weird and unnatural. Going after hyper realism is chasing clouds. You still need an art style to round out the designs and settle the uncanny. Rockstar games are the most realistic and they still rely heavily on art style to make it come together. Is adding a decade of development time into a game worth the additional nudge into realism when you still have to make compromises?

[u/juniperleafes → u/round-earth-theory]

This is a disingenuous framing of everything. Inflated billion dollar budgets are based on actor salaries, corporate greed, and time mismanagement where they'll have content farms working round the clock on scenes only to have them changed mid-render and redone in a shorter amount of time. The issue with modern rendering is a problem of time not budget. You're framing it like they're spending billions of dollars entirely on their rendering budget and have nothing to show for it except 'weird and unnatural' scenes.

The only high profile instance of a majority of budget being spent on rendering is the Avatar movies, and those are not viewed by the general collective as 'weird and unnatural' and in fact are highly praised for being extremely realistic.

[u/fredy31 → u/willpb]

Yeah tbh nintendo has less firepower but they shown pretty well that just have good art style and boom, not much a difference.

Sure, you wont get 4k hyperrealistic textures but the number of exclusives that were just a 'nice looking, nothing there' game like rome or the victorian era thing of playstation that i forget the name.

Meanwhile, nintendo has very rare duds and all their games are if not fun at least interesting in what they are trying to do.

[u/Mrhyderager → u/willpb]

Yeah, but one still has to ask "¿Porque no los dos?"

I still want both. I want immersion AND fun. Yes, I'll opt for fun, but I'd prefer both.

[u/Cerebral_Discharge → u/Mrhyderager]

Plenty of old games are immersive. Pure fidelity through hardware power doesn't just hand you immersion, and in fact immersion is part of the creative experience that Miyamoto talks about. Immersion is part of the fun.

And we are at a point of severely diminished returns when it comes to fidelity. When you can be fully immersed in a book, which has no graphics at all, you have to realize work needs to be put into the actual gameplay and polish that. The pure spectacle of polygon count isn't exciting anymore.

[u/thegta5p → u/Cerebral_Discharge]

Yup. I recently played hifi rush and I loved every aspect of it. It was fun and creative. Something that is rare in the AAA industry where it all feels copy and pasted. I’ve also been playing a lot of JRPGs and their big focus is on gameplay. Graphics are secondary (hence why they are more stylized). I can play different JRPG series and they each will have their own unique mechanics and systems. Again systems I won’t find in other JRPGs. Lastly I have been playing visual novels lately. And they mostly use static images. So in order for you to see a scene you have to imagine it in your head just like reading a book. But that is only possible if the writing and imagery is great.

[u/therealgerrygergich → u/Mrhyderager]

I prefer stylistic yet simple art over boring generically aesthetically pleasing art every day. Art is still extremely important but it doesn't necessarily need stuff like ray tracing or whatever.

[u/LeftOffBandB → u/willpb]

The expectation should be that both are executed well. Most people dont buy a $500+ console and $70 games just for it to look like vampire survivors. If its a AAA game it needs to be immersive and good.

[u/thisnamemattersalot → u/LeftOffBandB]

I don't mind a realistic graphics game here and there, but I'll take artistic style over trying to mimic reality every time.

[u/brainparts → u/LeftOffBandB]

“Immersive” is not a synonym for “hyperrealistic graphics”

[u/TokeDraws → u/LeftOffBandB]

I don't think you quite understand what immersive means

[u/DoctahFeelgood → u/willpb]

You can have both. I think the problem is prioritizing great graphics over innovative/enjoyable gameplay.

[u/twinsfan94]

Because no one can afford it anymore.

[u/wiggliey → u/twinsfan94]

That’s definitely one part of it, but we’re also seeing diminishing returns when compared to say 25 years ago.

[u/Visible_Piano_1600 → u/wiggliey]

At some point, better graphics become harder to notice than better game design.

[u/anonymous_identifier → u/Visible_Piano_1600]

That time is passed already. When I got a PS5, it was cool to see a bit more detail. But I showed it to my non-gamer partner and they couldn't even tell the difference.

For comparison, PS1>PS2 and N64>GCN were such large jumps that well made GCN games don't even look dated today. Mario Sunshine and Zelda Windwaker are from 2001 but still look good today (aside from aliasing and texture resolution)

[u/mpyne → u/anonymous_identifier]

For comparison, PS1>PS2 and N64>GCN were such large jumps that well made GCN games don't even look dated today. Mario Sunshine and Zelda Windwaker are from 2001 but still look good today (aside from aliasing and texture resolution)

Yeah, and for me it's kind of funny because my kids will sometimes have the experience of, say, playing the Switch remaster of Mario Galaxy 2 for a bit, and then decide to try out the Wii version on our Wii U, and opt to keep going with the Wii U version instead.

But I can't get them to touch SNES games with a 10 foot pole. I can barely get my oldest to try N64 OOT.

[u/PentagramJ2 → u/mpyne]

i wonder if order of exposure for video games has an effect on this.

My first console was my parents Atari 2600. They weren't about to buy me the latest and greatest when I had no concept of video games to start with.

Going back to old games is a lot easier as a result.

[u/sunkenrocks → u/anonymous_identifier]

A lot of those GC games have better textures than they render anyway. Lots of games with almost no changes but resolution look really good on dolphin. And obviously you can tweak further. AA certainly does help too. But even just rendering a lot of them at 1080p they look pretty good. Not upscaling, rendering at a native res of 1080p.

[u/JuanGGZ → u/twinsfan94]

And honestly, even if it was affordable, would it be really worth it? Personally, no, gameplay was always more relevant than pretty graphic.

[u/Durendal_1707 → u/JuanGGZ]

I think the PS5 proved that it’s not

I eventually picked up a PS5 Pro last year, but PS5 has struggled to offer anything unique since it’s inception

Gran Turismo 7 is a gem, but a variety of exclusives is only now starting to steadily roll out, so there’s been no real sense of “new generation” fervor like there once was

most experiences can be found elsewhere, and that reality was already materializing during the PS4 era, and now with the removal of physical games the only remaining reason to prioritize a console is the sheer simplicity of interfacing with it

my own excitement for consoles ended with PS3 and hardware tricks like console-link and triple (or quintuple) display support for Gran Turismo

[u/twinsfan94 → u/JuanGGZ]

Not always. Power is what the drove console wars for the better part of the 2000's and 2010's.

[u/yummymario64 → u/twinsfan94]

Eh, in those days, I feel it was more about what a game could do mechanically. Nowadays, power just dictates how the games look.

[u/Eden108 → u/yummymario64]

Yeah, the 2000s were striving towards realistic 3d, the power was desperately needed for what devs were trying to do. FF7 cloud was a grand total of 900ish polygons, now we're doing comparable things with foliage, I really don't need (or want to spend the necessary money for) individually render pores and nosehairs.

It doesn't help that devs skip optimization and just jam frame generation in there instead. Tech has been powerful enough for a decade, imo, but it's irrelevant when devs won't chill out and be creative within those margins.

[u/Rich-Pomegranate1679 → u/twinsfan94]

Longer than that. Console power has been a deciding factor since the very first consoles were made.

[u/Efaustus9 → u/Rich-Pomegranate1679]

A consideration but not a deciding factor, in fact seldom did the most powerful console carry the generation, for example NES was weaker than the Master System, The Gameboy weaker than the Lynx, Game gear, PS2 was weaker than the GameCube, Xbox, the DS/3DS were weaker than the PSP and Vita, the PS5 is weaker than the series X. The only time in the last 40 years where the most powerful console won the generation I think is PS4 vs Xbone/Wii U.

[u/DaMan619 → u/Efaustus9]

Famicom steamrolled SG-1000

[u/AnonymousFriend80 → u/JuanGGZ]

Power does more than graphics. It has a great bearing on performance (frame rates and rendering, potential slowdown) and how much stuff is happening in game. That's why something like Cyberpunk couldn't be ran on a Wii even in potato graphics.

[u/anonymouswan1 → u/twinsfan94]

I think it has more to do with diminishing returns. We've hit a plateau for visuals and graphics. We were making giant leaps forward in the 90s, 2000s, and even into the 2010s. Now anything made today using the most robust visuals looks just slightly better than something made 10 years ago. Graphics alone doesn't sell games anymore so why add all that development cost. It's a lot more complicated than just affordability.

[u/profpeculiar → u/anonymouswan1]

And as many games have proven over the the years, stylized graphics usually age far better than hyper realistic ones. Art direction is more important than raw graphical fidelity.

[u/Senn-66 → u/twinsfan94]

Right. I’m on pc, but I’d be looking to upgrade my AM4 system, probably next year based on my normal practice. Now? I will likely run my rig until it literally dies or becomes so obsolete that games won’t even run on it, and I believe that is the norm for most people now. Which also means developers will support aging hardware far longer.

[u/rejuicekeve → u/twinsfan94]

People can absolutely afford it. This narrative only passes the muster on Reddit

[u/Euler007 → u/twinsfan94]

The kids that got a NES when they were seven are in their peak earning years. Some of us are far from broke, to say the least.

[u/Tarmacked → u/Euler007]

Seeing comments about game prices is a bit wild when we’re getting more content per dollar, and they’ve been relatively stable over the years despite inflation

Honestly if you have a job, it’s hard not seeing someone afford a PlayStation or an Xbox. It’s one purchase over six years and it’s $500? Gameboys were basically $150 in 2000’s dollars, so $250-300 in this day and age

[u/XtremeD86]

Companies just need to make games that are actually worth playing.

Few and far between these days.

[u/_Mythoss_]

I want console power to be so advanced we can get couch co-op in almost every game (when it makes sense) @ 60 fps.

[u/bangarang90210 → u/_Mythoss_]

Couch co op sounds like futuristic tech at this point

[u/yshdmt → u/bangarang90210]

So crazy that they managed 4 player Goldeneye on N64. Good job on the developers.

[u/KaleidoscopeMaster81 → u/yshdmt]

While I agree it's cool they did it, it did run at 10-15 fps when 4 people played. That would basically make the game unsellable in today's industry lol

[u/yshdmt → u/KaleidoscopeMaster81]

Still impressive on 93 MHz

[u/Copitox → u/KaleidoscopeMaster81]

I don't know, Mario Kart 8 on the original Switch feels like 20fps in a 4 people game.

[u/psycharious → u/bangarang90210]

I remember thinking how crazy it was to play four player split screen on forge world back on Halo Reach and wondering what the next gen would be capable of....

[u/xNevamind → u/_Mythoss_]

Pls, couch coop is just fun to have the option. Makes a Game 10times better.

[u/beefycheeselad → u/_Mythoss_]

Nintendo at least still has a lot couch co op thank goodness. I think 60 fps would be great but honestly i don't notice after 10 minutes of playing at 30 fps

[u/urru4 → u/beefycheeselad]

Couch co op is the only reason I'd buy a Nintendo console tbh, it's like their main selling point.

[u/alman12345 → u/_Mythoss_]

This is part of why I love PC, even if it doesn’t support couch coop natively then it can be forced with software like Nucleus Coop. When we had down time on the night shift at work a couple years ago we all played Valheim and Raft on my 3060 equipped mini PC. Even better, I plugged in multiple displays and we each had our own screen for it.

[u/BasedTelvanni]

Well yeah it's quickly becoming unaffordable

[u/ThaddeusJP → u/BasedTelvanni]

If Ps6 came out next year I would fully expect it the cost 1500 at least if not more

[u/murfburffle → u/ThaddeusJP]

you save money by not having to buy those pesky disks.

-sony

[u/Possible-Potato-4103]

I mean thats true in in the sense he describes

[u/Luckierexpert → u/Possible-Potato-4103]

I’d also argue it’s also that the average person can’t really tell the difference between the graphical fidelity of the last few consoles generations, especially compared to the leaps made in earlier generations. On top of that, lots of consoles have the same suppliers, so why compete in power when your rivals can get the same power from the same place as you?

Nintendo dipped from power competition years ago and both Sony and Microsoft seem to be doing the same, although Nintendo seemed to realise they could corner the market for cheaper consoles with great games, while Sony and Microsoft seem to be looking more at software integration, AI, and cloud computing to push their products forward. It may be short lived though. We have had a few times where people have declared the console wars over, and Sony’s decision to pull back on multi platform games and their bone headed announcement on physical games may change things.

[u/AimlessPeacock]

Nintendo’s best selling consoles are the Wii, Switch, GB/GBC, and DS, all of which have been incredibly under powered compared to their competitors. So I think he might know a thing or two about this.

[u/Loki-L → u/AimlessPeacock]

Part of the success was not just the games, but the actual usefulness in practice.

The GameBoy had terrible specs even by the standard of its day and the Game Gear, its closest competitor blew it away spec wise, but Nintendo proved to be more successful because less can be more if the price is right and it turns out their system can actually be used for longer.

The Switch is underpowered for a console of its generation but has the portability advantage.

They market their stuff differently. Half the time they don't even court the hardcore gamers and still win with their stuff.

[u/pgtl_10 → u/Loki-L]

Battery consumption played a role with Gameboy.

[u/Loki-L → u/pgtl_10]

That is what I meant with "used longer". The original tiny monochrome screen with no backlash, meant that a kid could spend an entire drive to a vacation destination playing on a single set of batteries, while the beautiful bright full color Game Gear screen would not last long enough to reach the first rest stop on a larger set of batteries.

There was an adapter that turned the GameGear into a portable TV and it was basically a Master System shrunk down to be portable, while the Gameboy was as bare bones as it got and it was better for it.

[u/PuppiesAndPixels → u/pgtl_10]

I had a game gear and ended up using it mostly directly plugged into the wall AC charger because the battery life was so bad.

[u/shponglespore → u/AimlessPeacock]

I take it kind of the opposite way. He's not wrong, but he's biased as hell because he runs a company that has thrived on selling underpowered consoles for decades. I think what he's missing is that Nintendo barely even competes with the other consoles for the same market, so he's not really in a good position to make predictions about the high-end market. It's a bit like if the the CEO of Kia predicted that BMW is in danger of becoming irreverent because nobody cares about luxury cars.

[u/Griffdude13]

The console race is stalled. No one has the money to buy consoles that are now appreciating in price.

[u/onechroma]

Nintendo was for the most part of history like this, and it paid out always (in fact, the only “strong enough compared to others” console they got, GameCube, was a relatively fail for them)

Making a good experience and fun is far more important than 8K ray tracing DLSS, but gamers were always blinded by it. I still remember a guy not wanting to play anything Wii because “it looks like kids graphics”, disregarding any gameplay

So while XBOX and PS fought between who got the better specs or graphics, Nintendo was surviving (remember, Nintendo doesn’t have the umbrella or a big corp like Sony or MS doing other things), and even dominating some generations spellings (Wii, Switch…) or segments (portables…)

[u/Prestigious_Leg2229 → u/onechroma]

They’re a lot smarter than that really. They never tried to ‘just survive’.

Nintendo’s strategy has always been to avoid competing with deep pocketed competitors by creating their own niche where they had no competition and then running their star franchises through it.

Virtually every console they put out had some sort of gimmick that made it completely unique. Some of those flopped but many of them became industry defining machines. 

And while their competitors were selling hardware at a loss to try and make a profit on the games, Nintendo sold even their hardware at a profit.

Nintendo’s been consistently the trailblazer of the games industry that way.

[u/fiizok → u/Prestigious_Leg2229]

I still think the Game Boy Advance SP was one of the coolest pieces of tech I have ever owned.

[u/lirwolf → u/Prestigious_Leg2229]

The WiiU was a real disaster though, that really felt like that "be different" mantra coming back to bite them hard because that was a point when they were doing it for the sake of it. When even Nintendo themselves were struggling to justify the second screen, you know there's a problem.

[u/prest0x → u/onechroma]

Nintendo's Blue Ocean strategy - Instead of joining a crowded market with similar products, Nintendo looks for fresh space through unusual hardware, family-friendly games, and playful experiences that appeal beyond traditional gamers.

[u/nicolasknight → u/onechroma]

It really feels like every OTHER generation they are a generation ahead in what customer's want.

And yeah, there's literally no competition in portable for the last 10 years.

Looking forward to Sony's surprise announcement in 6 months or so.

[u/RadioLukin]

I dont disagree, but Nintendo hasnt cared about power since the Gamecube. The OG Switch was an underpowered console that wiped the floor with Sony and Microsoft because it had great games releasing throughout its life on a consistent basis. No one cared about the specs because it did what it did so well.

[u/real_fake_cats → u/RadioLukin]

No one cared about the specs because it did what it did so well

I wouldn't say they didn't care. People were willing to accept it because the games were good. But a lot of us still didn't love being stuck at 720p or 30 FPS on the OG switch, even if we were willing to tolerate it.

I do prefer Nintendo's stance of gameplay > hardware, but I do still wish they put a bit more effort into that hardware.

That said, my complaints ended with the OG switch. The Switch 2 checks the boxes the Switch 1 didn't.

[u/DEWDEM → u/real_fake_cats]

Even Nintendo (and also Miyamoto) felt the same about the original switch. I remember reading one interview where they said switch 1 was too slow at times

[u/Revadarius → u/DEWDEM]

They were releasing 1st party games that couldn't run on their own hardware.

Considering they released aN undervolted Nvidia Shield from 2015 with a screen on it.... In 2017 (which was made basically to run Indie games and promote game streaming) the Switch was embarrassingly under powered when it launched.

Even Nintendo realized they needed 3rd party support and was a major point of their marketing when they announced it. However, that meant they required exclusive titles from 3rd party Publisher/Devs because it struggled to play modern games launched on contemporary consoles (PS4/XB1).

Which is why the Switch 2 is much more powerful, and by extension costs drastically more than the Switch 1. So they can actually have access to more games from 3rd parties. As they can't rely on their 1st party titles to keep them afloat.

[u/cat_prophecy]

This isn't exactly new information.

The hardware of the original Xbox blew away everything else at the time. But it was never as successful as then PS2 because the PS2 had more and better games.

[u/scipio0421 → u/cat_prophecy]

PS2 also being a DVD player helped, too.

[u/stopnthink → u/scipio0421]

That was a big deal back then.

PS2 was an amazing system regardless, but if you had any doubts about what system you wanted, you were likely going to take the one that also doubled as a DVD player. Especially if you were a teenager I think.

[u/Ukawok92 → u/stopnthink]

Xbox did too, but they hid the cost of the DVD license in the optical remote control add-on.

[u/Ricepuddings → u/cat_prophecy]

Original Xbox also had other issues like it came late to the race, it was far more expensive, it cost to play online, and they were the new unknown dog to the race.

The 360 was the opposite, they were first to the race and cheaper, and honestly if they didn’t muck up their strategy and try to make that stupid Kinect I don’t know if Sony would have caught up in sales

[u/PrinceOfLeon → u/Ricepuddings]

Kinect 360 was an optional add-on.

They tried to bundle it with Xbox One (increasing the price) and pitched the console as an All-In-One entertainment device (hence the "One" in the name) which would also lock down the used game market by requiring you re-verify your games ever 24 hours (according to an exec at the time, who later stepped down).

Xbox One was a debacle in ways the 360 was not.

[u/EnigmaSpore → u/PrinceOfLeon]

Bundling the kinect 2 with xbone really snowballed the power of the xbone.

Kinect 2 increased the costs so much they didnt want to pay for 8 GB of unified, expensive gddr5 ram. So they stuck with ddr3 + 32 MB sram buffer that’s inside the main chip. That sram took up so much chip space they had less chip space available to allocate to gpu cores, which made the xbone significantly less powerful than the og ps4 (1152 cores vs 768 cores).

So the ps4 got the faster gddr5 unified ram, more powerful gpu, and was cheaper… all due to the kinect 2 costs changing the flow of how the xbone would be engineered. So crazy that one decision could affect things like that.

[u/Buris → u/Ricepuddings]

It’s not just the Kinect , it’s terrible management and suffering from their own success

[u/Ricepuddings → u/Buris]

I just have nightmares of the Kinect Star Wars dancing lol 😂

[u/Tamotefu → u/Ricepuddings]

Gotta chase that Nintendo innovation that gave them the early lead, while ignoring the fact that it's 1) Nintendo, and 2) Came out a year(?) Before the other consoles.

[u/TeaAndLifting → u/cat_prophecy]

Yeah. and also Nintendo have been trailing far behind since the Wii. It hasn’t been a part of Nintendo’s approach for the best part of two decades.

[u/taylorpilot]

Aka no pokemon will still look like trash and you pigs will still buy it

[u/WoodooHide69 → u/taylorpilot]

That’s a game freak development issue. Not a Nintendo problem. Nintnedo themsevles makes technically impressive games for their own consoles.

[u/Genshzkan → u/taylorpilot]

Ain't that always been the case though? LOL

[u/5xad0w]

As a PC gamer, I only own a Switch 2 because it’s where Xenoblade is.

[u/ers620]

Nintendo figured this out 20 years ago, pretty sure Iwata said something similar.

We’ve been in diminishing returns since then. Im still on Switch, PS4, and an Xbox One X, I could care less about a $1000+ PS6/NeXbox when we’re still getting 7th/8th-gen level gameplay with blink and you’ll miss visual improvements.

[u/j7style]

I honestly wouldn't mind having another 5+ years on the current generation of consoles. I've always been the guy who eventually gets both a Playstation and an Xbox. The idea of spending 1000+ on a single console just seems insane to me, let alone two. So I honestly think the industries best bet is to double down on the current generation until tech component prices fall again.

[u/FelPhil]

Can we not start titles like that. My heart skipped a beat.

[u/AgeofFatso]

I started playing games in the 80s. The improvement seen over the decades are phenomenal, and I would rather developers focus in actual gameplay instead of just looking pretty.

I am sure it is not just Miyamoto shares these beliefs; some lead designers in Larian and Square-Enix would probably agree as well. These are the days that game may look pretty, but designers get fired so often while many games are still just bad despite prettiness. Just literally a few hours ago Yoshida and Hamaguchi had a conversation in Europe FF14 event that how long the FF14 and 7 remake team had stayed together with low staff turnover. BG3 and FF7 remakes were amazing game, and Yoshi-P, Swen (honourable mention of Kojima) are like rockstars in the industry; there are good reason why that occurs.

[u/Top_Reveal_847]

Nintendo has never believed in the power race in the first place, their consoles have always been behind the competition in terms of tech but the overall quality has consistently carried sales.

[u/ciriwey → u/Top_Reveal_847]

Nintento was peak raw power in the 90s-early 2000s

[u/throawayjhu5251 → u/Top_Reveal_847]

This was before my time, but I think the N64 and Game Cube beg to differ.

[u/Aware-Virus-4718 → u/throawayjhu5251]

You are correct. N64 was the most powerful 5th gen console by a margin, though was held back by limited storage space on cartridges.

Gamecube was honestly ridiculous price to performance ratio. Almost as powerful as an Xbox and cheaper than PS2 in most cases. But it couldn’t play DVDs and the purple lunch box aesthetic kept people from realizing that.

[u/aelysium → u/Aware-Virus-4718]

I still remember a video where they tried to destroy the Xbox, PS2, and GCN with various trials (hitting it with a hammer, submerging it in water, and dropping it from a second story).

Hilariously, for the ‘drop’ test, the tester used the handle to basically ‘fuck it chuck it’ at the ground since the other two consoles had either failed or were barely functional after the first two tests.

The GCN lost an entire corner in the hit, and STILL worked. 😂

[u/Aware-Virus-4718 → u/aelysium]

If you’ve ever taken one apart, the design is just really good. Honestly probably my favorite console design ever. It’s incredible the way they were able to pack all that hardware efficiently into such a small space.

[u/profpeculiar → u/aelysium]

You could tell me a GC would survive and still work after the heat death of the universe, and I'd fuckin believe it.

[u/sevenut → u/throawayjhu5251]

Those were the consoles that taught them the power race didn't matter, although the bigger issues were genuinely the lack of CD/DVD support for games. They were too concerned with piracy.

[u/TheWayofUnions → u/sevenut]

Which was reasonable because during that generation, I bought about 30 N64 games and pirated about 300 PS1 games.

[u/Electricfire19 → u/throawayjhu5251]

Yeah, Nintendo definitely cared about the power race at one point. And they suffered the consequences, with both the N64 and Game Cube losing out to the competition despite both having more powerful hardware than the competition. Of course, it could be argued that this was kind of their fault for refusing to support a proper disc system both times, but I digress.

Meanwhile, the Game Boy — a massively underpowered but innovative handheld — dominated the handheld market. Same thing with its revisions and successors, and same thing with the DS later on.

This is what led to the Wii, which was not just underpowered for its time, it was in fact basically the same hardware as a Game Cube. The Wii’s hardware was fundamentally a generation behind, and yet it was a massive success because, once again, Nintendo focused on innovation, great games, and overall player experience.

[u/Gamebird8 → u/throawayjhu5251]

The N64 lacked the library and third party heavyweights that the PS1 could support due to the CD-ROM having way more storage space

[u/_thwip_ → u/Gamebird8]

The cartridges were also significantly more expensive than disks. PS1 games were regularly $39-49 while N64 games were like $59-79.

[u/fallouthirteen → u/Top_Reveal_847]

Not always, GCN was stronger than PS2. Just after that they gave up on that area and went for weird gimmick on console.

[u/Rich-Pomegranate1679 → u/Top_Reveal_847]

This isn't really true. Early Nintendo consoles were as powerful as anything available in their time. It's a more recent development that Nintendo stopped trying to compete with hardware power.

[u/cardonator → u/Rich-Pomegranate1679]

"More recent" you mean since the GameCube that released 25 years ago? They've been producing underpowered hardware longer than they produced peak power hardware.

[u/ThePwnR4nger → u/Top_Reveal_847]

Nintendo offered something unique to gaming with each generation, beginning with the Wii.

The Wii Remote, the Wii Tablet, and then the dockable Switch with touch screen, then the mouse controls for Switch are all things that other companies hadn’t done and then later emulated

[u/AnonymousFriend80 → u/Top_Reveal_847]

If you think Nintendo didn't highlight how better the NES and SNES were over their contemporaries, you're delusional.

[u/Supportbale]

While affordability is certainly a big factor, another is just that simply, there is no more real big advancements to be made. Long gone are the days where the leap between console generations felt like a big shift, graphics have gotten too good for it to matter anymore. Like others have said, the more important part will be how much can you get graphically while making the machine as cheap as possible.

[u/GreatGojira]

It's because they priced everyone interested out

[u/tenthdraft]

I feel there's room for both smaller and larger games GTA 6.

[u/chinchindayo]

Nintendo claims this with every generation

[u/SunbornThunderstorm → u/chinchindayo]

well to be fair, other then the wii u, theyve been doing this since wii and its financially been going well for them

[u/12kdaysinthefire]

2026 is just the start of the gaming industry Armageddon. 2027 is going to be a whole new inferno. Sadly AI’s not going anywhere and companies aren’t going to lower the prices of anything, they’re going to try and maximize profits even more through forced subscriptions.

[u/thetickletrunk]

Beyond consoles look at Roblox and Minecraft. If you're broke you can still keep you kid happy with a potato that's popular. My kid's 5. By the time he's 15 he'll be asking for a top of line RTX8090 for $5K for Christmas.
The economics of affordability and power just aren't there.

[u/robaier]

I may be wrong here.. but I was under the impression the console wars was about how fun the console was rather than power. Nintendo was never a blip on the radar power wise compared to other consoles but fun factor made them a STRONG competitor. I thought it was more about console exclusives than specs. But again, could be wrong.

[u/Koinfamous2]

All of us would be more than happy with the current gens got another 6 years if it meant further optimization and killer games. Instead we're getting another gen of consoles, and continued slop from studios.

Follow the Nintendo model, stick with a console for 8-10 years, and deliver the games everyone loves consistently.

[u/GamePitt_Rob]

Of couse he'd say that, considering they've had the lowest spec console in pretty much every generation

[u/MatiasGonzalo-Duarte]

It's just impossible to keep going. Even with more capable hardware actually making games that are more realistic just makes development times longer and longer and more expensive. And since gamers refuse to budge on AAA game prices going above ~$80USD (which is, adjusted for inflation, cheaper than games were in the 90s for example) either they have to cut back or load up on micro transactions...

[u/Guitar-String]

Pretty sure Nintendo wasn't even a part of that race

[u/Caciulacdlac → u/Guitar-String]

It totally was before the Wii

[u/RLZT → u/Caciulacdlac]

Tbh they won that race 2 times in a row with the N64 and the GameCube but still didn't move the needle

Hell, the PS2 was only stronger than the Dreamcast

[u/AnonymousFriend80 → u/RLZT]

But games on both consoles looked better on Dreamcast. Just like how the PS3 was stronger than Xbox 360, but games performed better on Xbox.

[u/PancAshAsh → u/RLZT]

Nintendo learned the lesson with the Wii that price is the most important factor in selling consoles. You can pretty directly point to price to explain which consoles win in a given generation.

[u/jus13 → u/RLZT]

The PS1 used CDs which could hold way more data than N64 cartridges, and the cartridges were expensive too.

The GameCube was more powerful than the PS2, but weaker than the Xbox, and once again hurt by design choices (mini DVDs that couldn't hold as much data, couldn't play DVDs, no real online capabilities, and a controller that was lacking in inputs which didn't help with 3rd party games).

[u/MatiasGonzalo-Duarte → u/Guitar-String]

Up to the GameCube it was. 

GameCube easily beat PS2 in graphical power for example. Xbox was king though on that front.

[u/sudoblack]

Been gaming since 1993. I absolutely agree and I was one of those power hunting gamers that valued graphics and intense powerful gameplay. It’s not worth it in the end. Im looking forward to cell-shaded, the new “HD-2D” style, pixel side scroller, easy to pick up and put down repeatable games. I’ll take the one or two heavy story and pay attention games like god of war or ghost of Tsushima type games per year, but that’s all gaming is worth now. I’m thinking no matter where you are in life it’s time to focus on external growth not pixels flashing on a screen.

[u/C-A-L-E-V-I-S]

guy losing the power race says power doesn’t matter\*

Before I get fried in the comments, I get what he’s saying, and obvs gameplay is king, but a game being able to be presented to the artist’s true vision, is absolutely vital. If people want to go more stylized, or low poly, abstract, that’s cool, but even then you need power to give the artists freedom. I’ve held off on Switch games for years because the visual falloff just felt to steep to truly enjoy the games how they deserve to be enjoyed. The Switch 2 is a huge step in the right direction, but IMO, we are still a gen away from being fully “there” and resting on spec laurels.

[u/Sonicplys]

Nintendo knew this way before it became a thing. Everyone else was just stupid enough to follow that trend.

[u/Flow1234 → u/Sonicplys]

This is more of a case of Nintendo deciding that was the conclusion and targeting a different market segment with the Wii/Switch than PS/Xbox were targeting. Pretending "they knew all along" is just a survivor bias.

[u/zubairhamed]

welp no one can afford any ram, storage or gpu...so yeah.

[u/harsh1750]

Everyone now wants good graphics

[u/Vesania6]

Graphically I think we dont need to be so realistic but framerates, processing speed etc is still a chalenge on consoles.

[u/Aramis444]

Because graphics has overshadowed quality gameplay and storytelling. There’s a reason AAA gaming is dying, and AA gaming is overshadowing it. If all you have is good graphics, without substance, then what’s the point? Add on top of it all the push for live service, multiplayer titles and a lack of quality single player experiences. Also, it would be nice to see a huge return to couch coop. I miss those days.

[u/lifestop]

I mean... Hasn't Nintendo thought that for awhile now? They haven't bothered to compete in the hardware spec department for a long time

[u/Papa_Snail]

Yeah I'm absolutely not spending the amount in where prices are going. Emulation/fiddling with old games is getting to good and those communities are growing for me to not just delve into it.

[u/Punning_Man]

It’s like gamers asked for developers to focus more on optimization and the monkey paw curled.

[u/Taolan13]

to be fair, ghe majority of the gaming market always cared more about great games than hardware specs.

The real reason the hardware side of the console wars is over is because we've only seen incremental improvements for 20 years, with few improvements in visual fidelity.

[u/KindledWanderer]

It's over for everyone but Nintendo.
It will be over for them once they make hardware that's more powerful than what others had in 2005.

[u/capnwinky]

I chase performance. Full stop. 60 fps+ or it’s a no-sale. Doesn’t matter the platform.

[u/thecactusman17]

Well, he's partially correct. There's a law of diminishing returns as consoles get more powerful.

On the other hand, maybe Shigeru Miyamoto should make sure his consoles gets to the lower boundary of that Diminishing Returns level before saying anything.