I think the same about basically every new smartphone at this point. Since when have we had real innovation there?

I never really thought about their succession of consoles, but to me, seeing them listed like that feels surprisingly additive.

Like, the N64 had analog sticks, and the Gameboy was portable… And people liked both of those, so they released the GameCube, which had analog sticks and a handle, so you could take it to your friend’s house. They followed up with the DS’ touchscreen and the Wii’s motion controls, and when people liked those too, they bundled all of that into the Switch: it has analog sticks, a touchscreen, and motion controls; it’s a handheld and a very portable plug-in console.

But, as they’ve done that, they’ve always pushed the limits of what they could do. As it stands, there’s not much that can be added to the Switch, so they’re releasing an improved version - like they did with the Gameboys Color, Advance, and SP. Essentially, the limiting factor isn’t Nintendo’s ability to innovate, but rather the technology available to them.

Give it a few years for other aspects of technology to advance, and I’m sure they’ll start pushing the envelope again. They’ll probably wait until they can pack an entire console into a VR headset without a bulky battery pack, then release it with something wacky like a charging dock with a built-in projector, or something crazy like that.

i wrote out a whole big thing and then my phone ate it so here’s the sparknotes: game design, both hardware and software, is a dialogue, with ideas bouncing back and forth between companies. none of your examples exist in a vacuum or were “never before seen,” nintendo just tend to be the ones who strike gold when they try something. with SEGA out of the game and sony and microsoft focusing solely on horsepower, the hardware dialogue has mostly stopped. it took a while to be noticable because consoles start developement way before they’re released, so it’s only catching up with us now. with new (sort of) entrants into gaming hardware like steam and retro handheld manufacturers entering the fray, things will likely get interesting again- but just like how we’re only feeling the drought now, it’ll take a while for existing hardware to catch up with the dialogue

I don’t upgrade my phone for fun, I upgrade when thirstier software and stuffed storage slow it down to unreasonable rates. Similarly, I’m still on a first gen Xbox One from 2015 and it keeps getting noticeably slower, though mostly from newer games being more demanding rather than storage. As devs are directed to focus on more volume and novelty of content without concern for efficiency because “power is cheap”, this isn’t going away. So over time, yes, more power is more better. It’s not the only improvement, but it’s required.

As for future innovations? Nintendo being dead? Look at your list, then look at the list of all Nintendo gaming consoles. You’ve listed about 1/3 of what they made since 1990. Not every console gets to be a revolution. Sometimes they’re just an improvement. Gameboy Color added mild color and smaller size to the Gameboy. While the disc system was not initially well received, the GameCube system and cohort of games was peak for many. The Wii U didn’t do anything special that I can remember. The Switch Lite took away Switch features but is loved more as a Gameboy BigBoy. There’s the NES and SNES home consoles that were leaps and bounds more powerful than prior options.

As for your main point, there’s really no telling what the next innovation will be. Look at the N64. You’re missing the other huge update: 3D modeling. And, to an extent, it had a unique quality of the time with “round” models. Insert joke about Lara Croft ps1 boobs here… Or just a joke about how Nintendo’s joysticks are actually awful with deadzones and drift. Looking at your point for the Switch, I’d say Nintendo didn’t even drive that feature of being hybrid. It couldn’t have happened without the general electronics industry creating sufficient batteries. Actually, similar point for your DS accolade: Nintendo didn’t create the touch screen, they implemented it. The point is innovation is not predictable. It’s often borderline unimaginable because it takes a combination of invention, implementation, and adoption. Maybe they’ll make VR work for the masses. Maybe they’ll figure out convincing pseudo-holograms like the Star Wars chess board. Maybe it’ll be an even smaller console. Maybe it’ll capitalize on mobility and travel. Who knows? I don’t have a crystal ball.

To call Nintendo dead for one cycle of status quo is short-sighted, in my opinion.

I thought about this and imo I give them a pass. It’s just the successor to the switch, it is just called the switch 2. Why would we expect it to offer or be anything different than what it already is? Honestly, I wonder how much time they spent trying to decide if they should even go the new console route or just call it a pro edition.

I think the next console release will tell a lot more regarding this. More than ever, the next console releases will really need to bring something new to the table since, at this point, there’s very little difference between getting a nice PC or a console outside exclusives. I think those lines will continue to blur so consoles absolutely need to start evolving into something more or possibly lose more people to PC rigs.

Every other Nintendo console shakes things up pretty massively, the next one is mostly a horsepower upgrade with no major innovation

NES / SNES (home console gaming in general)

N64 / GameCube (viable 3D graphics)

Wii / Wii U (much different control. I have to admit I never really touched the Wii U but it follows the pattern of missing the major hype)

Switch / Switch 2 (mixing an honest console with honest portability)

The Switch was just the Wii U refined into something consumers actually wanted, rather than an innovation on its own.

I’d argue that Nintendo has always been pretty similar in terms of the amount of innovation they bring to their segment barring perhaps the quality of the Wii motion controls when launched and compared against similar attempts both by Nintendo and their competitors prior.

The Famicom / NES and the subsequent Super Famicom / SNES / N64 were just iterations on the same home console market for which Nintendo was far from the first to launch. The GameCube and the Wii shared a lot of DNA, with the motion controls really being the innovation. The Wii U, Switch, and Switch 2 seem to be a lineage of refinement as well.

In handhelds, they went from monochrome, to backlit monochrome, to backlit color, to two displays and some touch controls. You could argue that the 3D effect of the 3DS was innovative, but the allure of the feature died as soon as the industry realized the demand wasn’t there to keep developing it. Hardly as revolutionary as other competitors products, but more in touch with what their consumers wanted than their competitors, hence the market lasted longer for Nintendo than Sony with the PSP and Vita.

Ironically, the things Nintendo has done at the base system level that truly attempted to innovate have mostly been failures. The Virtual Boy was way ahead of its time, but the form factor was half baked and the eyestrain was horrendous. The Wii U was a success in that Nintendo learned what about the console was worth iterating on, but otherwise it was an abject failure as well because it didn’t offer enough to differentiate itself from the Wii.

For innovation to occur, there needs to be a predicating breakthrough in technology around which these companies can build a product. We’re in an age of rapid miniaturization and simultaneous increased power of integrated systems. It feels like more power = better, but this trajectory is going to yield new potential applications of technology in form factors that haven’t been fully explored yet. It’s just cyclical, and things take time to develop.

Plus - everything is slower when consumers demonstrate they’re satisfied with what the company is selling them. No need to dramatically change course when the current model is satisfying customers. The confluence of a new technology landscape and a dip in consumer enthusiasm for existing offerings is the typical spot for a hardware developer to innovate.

I’m still waiting on this Nintendo Revolution 18 years later.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=zX2smM87r14

I’ll reserve judgement until I have one, but here’s my $.02:

The Wii U was wildly innovative and a giant flop. In the end, it was a big clumsy prototype for the switch IMO. The switch was the perfect evolution of some of the ideas the U had, like bringing the stationary console into your hands rather than just a tiny pocket console.

The GameCube didn’t do anything really that wildly innovative after the n64, it just had discs and a more comfy controller.

The Wii was pretty fresh, but in the end, relied a bit too heavily on gimmicks, the key parts of which I think were successfully captured by future motion controllers like the joycons.

The DS was super cool, and I love mine, but most games ended up primarily using a single screen, and the other screen just kinda sat there or acted as a map. Switch has a larger touchscreen which makes up for loss of stylus in a lot of ways.

The 3DS was cool for a minute too, but the effect was eye strain inducing and had limited value IMO.

I think it’s great to come up with something totally new now and then, but changing for change’s sake probably isn’t good, and axing a form factor that has been so wildly successful sounds risky.

Nintendo has always operated on a tick-tock pattern (gameboy -> pocket -> color -> advance -> ds -> ds lite & 3ds). Plenty of evolutions between form changes.

Phones, computers, tablets, and now consoles are all reaching their inevitable optimized form- large screens with good I/O. While boring to look at, at the end of the day it’s about the experience of using the device, not how wacky the console looks/works.

I don’t doubt that Nintendo will have more wild ideas in future systems, but I personally dont want a dual screen switch with an attached printer and a VR headset- I want a bulletproof hand held that does what it does very well and provides value. The entire switch concept is so well executed and seamless- don’t take that away! Make it better- battery, heat, graphics power, ergonomics, charge speed, Bluetooth, build quality, etc. make all those things as good as they can be. The switch 2 looks like it improves on many of those things without taking anything away, so I’m pumped to get my hands on one!

I think you’re blowing things out of proportion. None of the handhelds after the Gameboy were innovative. The GameCube didn’t bring anything new. The Wii U was just a beefed-up Wii.

So every other console has been the previous generation, but better.

The handheld PC space has been quite exciting.

Naa the Chinese/worldwide market has some awesome little devices. Nintendo is just what we know. Most of the innovation is happening in the software space and the form factor.

There’s a metric ton of devices that are completely open nowadays. Postmaster has made it easy to get say balatro working on quite a few devices. And the devices can be as quirky as they want.