Not sure if the title makes sense, but here goes.
Console makers like Nintendo have become known for relying on gimmicks to sell their consoles, for better and worse. The Wii was a raging success for its appeal to the casual market and for its novel motion controls, while the Wii U's gimmick (that being the gamepad) did nothing to prevent the system from being a commercial failure, for instance. And Nintendo has stuck to that design philosophy for the Switch, which will unquestionably go on to be one of their greatest successes.
On the other hand, you have a company like Sony, who's never been one to stretch beyond their comfort zone, but have largely enjoyed consistent success by making quality consoles that play the games they (and other companies) make for them. It's a simple appeal, but one that many gamers are satisfied with. The only notable exception to this being the PS Vita, which was treated rather horribly by Sony's marketing and decision to rely on an overpriced memory storage format.
Between these two styles of console design, I'd say I personally lean towards the design philosophy that produces consoles of consistent quality without any unnecessary gimmicks or additions. Even Nintendo had its phases such as during the GameCube generation where they made a console that was gimmick free while offering strong technical performance in an affordable package. I've just never been one for consoles trying to do things that could very well be divisive or unpredictable with the final result rather than sticking to what will always work.
How about you? Where do you stand on Nintendo-style innovation vs a more consistent approach to console design? Which do you prefer to see from the companies you follow or consider yourself a regular consumer of?
Console makers like Nintendo have become known for relying on gimmicks to sell their consoles, for better and worse. The Wii was a raging success for its appeal to the casual market and for its novel motion controls, while the Wii U's gimmick (that being the gamepad) did nothing to prevent the system from being a commercial failure, for instance. And Nintendo has stuck to that design philosophy for the Switch, which will unquestionably go on to be one of their greatest successes.
On the other hand, you have a company like Sony, who's never been one to stretch beyond their comfort zone, but have largely enjoyed consistent success by making quality consoles that play the games they (and other companies) make for them. It's a simple appeal, but one that many gamers are satisfied with. The only notable exception to this being the PS Vita, which was treated rather horribly by Sony's marketing and decision to rely on an overpriced memory storage format.
Between these two styles of console design, I'd say I personally lean towards the design philosophy that produces consoles of consistent quality without any unnecessary gimmicks or additions. Even Nintendo had its phases such as during the GameCube generation where they made a console that was gimmick free while offering strong technical performance in an affordable package. I've just never been one for consoles trying to do things that could very well be divisive or unpredictable with the final result rather than sticking to what will always work.
How about you? Where do you stand on Nintendo-style innovation vs a more consistent approach to console design? Which do you prefer to see from the companies you follow or consider yourself a regular consumer of?