charlequin
Banned
brain_stew said:
What if they wanted to deliver a <$300 console in 2011 that was at minimum comparably powerful to PS3/360 but had a power/size profile closer to the Wii?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nintendo's next generation strategy - why the "Super generation" begins now
- Thread starter Chittagong
- Start date
What if they wanted to deliver a <$300 console in 2011 that was at minimum comparably powerful to PS3/360 but had a power/size profile closer to the Wii?
Fourth Storm
Member
charlequin said:
So Yuji Horii is the sole believer in the Wii's ability to move non-Nintendo software while all the other third parties say the opposite? (I don't agree with them, btw) I suppose so, but this would be the first time the man is at odds with the rest of the community.
charlequin said:
The difference is that the DS has just started to slow down after selling over 125 million units WW. And quality software is still being released on it - keeping it fresh on people's minds and in their pockets despite said saturation point on HW units.
Anyway, I'll be a man and admit I was 99.9% wrong. I was just looking at an overly optimistic scenario for Sony (which is unlike me. :lol ) which sees PS3 having the advantage of a large installed base versus a technologically comparable Super Wii (with no revolutionary feature) released in the next year or so, while normal Wii support whithers and dies.
brain_stew
Member
Oh, and if anyone is wondering if developers could "fund" Wii2 enhancements of common multiplatform titles, I'd say that yes they can. Porting to this sort of system would be as straight forward as it gets, this is literally PC hardware but without the headache of multiple configurations, that means great performance for the smallest possible investment.
On the PC side, even with minimal sales for a lot of blockbusters, enhancements for PC releases is not uncommon at all, a lot of things can be added very cheaply. DX11 tesselation has seen very rapid uptake and having a console that supports it as well will only speed that up. Most master assets are created with much higher resolution textures as well, and including these in the Wii2 version should be simple enough (disk space permitting), then there's plenty of other things like better AA quality, texture filtering, resolution, framerates, higher precision lighting models and maybe even GPU accelerated physics.
On the PC side, even with minimal sales for a lot of blockbusters, enhancements for PC releases is not uncommon at all, a lot of things can be added very cheaply. DX11 tesselation has seen very rapid uptake and having a console that supports it as well will only speed that up. Most master assets are created with much higher resolution textures as well, and including these in the Wii2 version should be simple enough (disk space permitting), then there's plenty of other things like better AA quality, texture filtering, resolution, framerates, higher precision lighting models and maybe even GPU accelerated physics.
Fourth Storm
Member
Vinci said:
Vs may end up appealing to more people than 13. I would think it would cause at least a temporary sales spike, which would help PS3 extend its life. The same logic of "everyone who wants one already has one" could be applied to every system, including Wii. There certainly isn't a ton of original IPs being released these days.
FoneBone said:
That's because that is what they did. Yes, we can understand the backdrop of what happened; that they were caught off-guard by its success, that they had heavily invested in HD development, and all manner of other things. But what they did was plaster its shelves with shovelware that poisoned the console's audience against them. They created a market environment that was hostile towards them.
Could Nintendo have helped? Of course. I blame them for this as well. But to say they didn't 'shit on the market leader' would be rewriting history.
Fourth Storm
Member
brain_stew said:
Very interesting. Would it be able to emulate Wii? And how well? Dolphin-esque HD?
Fourth Storm
Member
Vinci said:
The same way any major software release extends a system's life. Look at Donkey Kong Country on the SNES for an unusually strong example. My point is in comparison to Wii, granted third party releases dry up and Nintendo shifts focus after the release of Zelda to 3DS and Wii2 development.
brain_stew
Member
Fourth Storm said:
We have GAFers using very similar hardware to emulate the Wii in HD with an emulator developed in a few guys' spare time without any access to hardware documentation. So yes.
Fourth Storm
Member
schuelma said:
At least it appears they are turning things around now. Iwata claimed last fall that they were making a stronger effort to reach out, and it seems the Dragon Quest 9 ad campaign, Goldeneye, the Disney Epic Mickey emphasis, and all the 3DS support are the result of that.
I think the other thing to keep in mind is that third parties see 360/PS3 userbase as one unit. They had also already created (or licensed) many of the tools needed to make impressive games before the realization that Wii was huge and not just a fad hit home. In contrast, to build a decent Wii engine is more technologically difficult and would take more time and money compared to building on what they have on the HD twins.
charlequin said:
seems like an artificial constraint for very little benefit.
Wii2's aesthetics will be Japan centric, so I expect it to be small(er) than the other contemporary consoles on the market. Further, I think getting the console profile smaller would probably raise cost if they're simply taking off the shelf type components, tweaking it and plopping it into their next machine.
They could get away with it with Wii because it's basically GCslim with overclocked GPU and CPU and some extra ram.
Regardless, I don't think power is going to be the big cost limiter for them. If what brain_stew is saying is true in terms of what they could get off the shelf from AMD is true, It's all the extras they would have to include that will tax their hardware budget.
1) will it have BR? 2) HDD size (will it go iPad route with a large capacity flash instead of HDD?) 3) extra features
Fourth Storm
Member
MMaRsu said:
Why not? Even with their weakest upgrade to date, it was a bit more powerful than the previous generation. If Nintendo want to display in HD (and they do), they'll need something at last as powerful as the 360/PS3.
charlequin said:
Do you think Nintendo really care about the power draw of their system? It's not like they're in the refrigerator business. My inkling is they only highlighted that aspect of Wii so they could at least tout one technological advantage over the competition (and also, because they GCN architecture made it easy to achieve). Still, with their heralded WiiConnect24 feature turned on, it drew even more total power daily than the HD twins, to the point that my GPU got fried! :lol
Wazzim said:
Just for clarification's sake, I was speaking of the Japanese market primarily. But yeah, I'm done arguing that point. I admit it would take a miracle of Pokemon proportions.
H_Prestige
Banned
MMaRsu said:
Make no mistake. Nintendo doesn't actually give a shit about some stupid graphics race like Sony/MS, but we're talking about a 2011/2012 console here, vs 2005/2006 consoles. It would be pretty hard, if not impossible, for Wii HD to be weaker than those two even if they went with the cheapest stuff possible.
charlequin
Banned
Fourth Storm said:
I actually think that probably most people working at Japanese third parties would agree that the Wii can move Dragon Quests just fine. It's quite a unique series and the factors that play into it are completely irrelevant to the vast majority of other games in existence. There isn't even a Western game that's really an equivalent.
Fourth Storm said:
No way.
It does apply to every system. Generally the bump for any later game in the same franchise or even genre as a major hit is dramatically reduced and the older a system gets, the less any piece of software can really affect its sales.
Fourth Storm said:
To a certain degree, power draw's a good stand-in for heat production, noisiness, and reliability. I do believe Nintendo will continue to prioritize those things to some degree over graphical capability, yes.
Fourth Storm
Member
Damn you, Charlequin, let this thread fade way. I admit, it was a poorly thought out statement. I must've exhausted my mental functions on the midterm I took earlier this week. :lol
Vinci said:
1ST BOLD...
Sony & Microsoft's efforts with motion controls don't need to be cut off at the knee's. I know it's not popular around to think this but I don't think Kinect or Move have a chance in hell at wooing new audiences in to the degree that the Wii has *let alone* will they steal away Wii owners. They are late, expensive, add-on, half-assed reactions to the Wii...Nintendo really doesn't need to react back, counter-attack or do a "preemptive strike" because of Kinect or Move. I'm not saying Nintendo should be idle, but what most are suggesting is that Nintendo HAS to bring out a fully HD, fully online 3RD party powered Wii successor ASAP. Nintendo didn't need any of the aforementioned things to make the Wii what it is before, so why would they need to now?
In a way, they sorta are striking back at the competition though...with a portable no less. A portable with better power/visuals, (the promise of) better online and better 3RD party support. Wii owners have been crying for proper support: an original RE, a SF IV port, Ninja Gaiden anything, throw us some kind of MGS bone and now we're getting it, just now on 3DS! And it strikes at X360 & PS3 because the "hook" (3D) can't be done on those systems, while staying separate/different enough than Wii without interfering with it's "hook" (full motion controls).
2ND BOLD...
I really wasn't suggesting that a theoretical 2011/2012 Wii successor would be deliberately underpowered, I just don't think there will be a successor in that time frame at all.
3RD BOLD...
Nintendo has a stranglehold on the portable side, especially with Sony's failing to uproot them. The console side though, even after all Wii has done (granted the gap in power between it and the competing platforms is a problem) no one in "the industry" takes it seriously. I do think Wii's successor will get better support, but not to the degree of what 3DS is getting and will get and continue to get. Nintendo home consoles, even in the NES days, there's been this stigma against supporting them with seriousness...with their portables however, they always seem to get some kind of serious support. I know people here hate the anti-Nintendo conspiracy theory or whatever, but it is very true that some within "the industry" have more of a bias for or against certain companies. With the Wii's successor (especially under this theoretical "preemptive" premise) I think it would get some token support upfront, but there would be some new prefabricated excuse within "the industry" that would be used as a crutch not to support it in favor of the competition. The competition can thusly breath a sigh of relief as they now can follow Nintendo's lead into next generation with more powerful machines and the market share is reset to zero.
My thoughts are that Nintendo will continue on with the current Wii as-is for some time:
-help current Wii gamers graduate to more types of games beyond entry-level or bridge-type games (call them "core" games, call it "swimming upstream", work in the retro revival to bring back lapsed gamers, etc.)
-find new ways to bring in even newer audiences (Vitality Sensor/Wii Relax, new types of games/peripherals, price drops, Player's Choice pricing, etc.)
-further break down the "core VS casual" barriers "the industry" has brainwashed people into believing is there
-wait out Kinect & Move and watch the competition squirm as they fail bring in what they call "casuals" (read: retards) to revitalize their systems with these add-on's
-as the competition alienates the "core" more so by focusing on Kinect & Move, offer them a new refuge with deep exclusive experiences that are neither core nor casual in the form of: Zelda: SS, The Last Story, DQ X and the 3DS for the more prudent
-wait to do any talking of Wii's successor until after the competition talks of their successor's instead...this could take a while due to them needed to make good on their investment this generation, or...
-watch the competition (and it's investor's) not know what to do next except go for the old bigger/better/faster routine as they talk of their NEXT generation
-watch "the industry" of old self-destruct and implode as the chasing of Hollywood further raises prices and more publishers either fold in, get gobbled up or must merge to stay alive
-as the competition talks of their NEXT generational evolution, hype up yet another NEW revolution as Wii's successor instead
-then offer something (around the same time as the competition) that is more powerful yes, but more importantly: DIFFERENT
Most of the above can be done without the need of a Wii successor anytime soon, in fact...the longer they wait, the more they widen the gap, the more they make "the industry" more irrelevant, the more they make the competition sweat. They have more time to destroy old myths that Nintendo is: "only for kids" or "only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo platforms" or that they're "just a fad" or whatever other myth comes about...namely the "core VS casual" myths. To add, they give the 3DS it's spotlight time to shine, they bring in more expanded audiences, they satisfy the current Wii audiences with a longer lifespan than any generation before (something that should be much appreciated in current/future economy) and they find time to cook up the next big thing!
DrGAKMAN said:
It has nothing to do with believing Kinect and Move are threats to the Wii. I don't believe they are either. What they are, however, is a clear sign that Microsoft and Sony are either unable or unwilling to start next generation anytime soon. So no, I'm not saying Nintendo needs to do this - I'm saying that there is some definite strategic advantage to doing it. The response to the 3DS is a clear indication of what such a move might accomplish: Anyone who took Sony seriously in the handheld space no longer does; old guards of Sony's era and support have already pledged support for Nintendo's system. There is a huge amount of interest in the machine from 3rd parties that barely gave the Wii, or will ever give the Wii, the time of day. And that's bad. Sure, Nintendo can sell out software till the end of time; the Wii can continue to sell - but it's doing that without any real 3rd party support. There's still more room for growth in Nintendo's console market and there's little chance of it happening as effectively with this hardware, whereas a new system has a good chance of not only getting the lionshare of support but would catch Sony and MS without a counter for at least two years.
Again: I'm not saying this is necessary; what I'm saying is that this would be vicious and immensely destructive to both MS and Sony.
If you have the choice to make your competition sweat or cut its throat, the latter would likely be a better maneuver. That's all I'm saying.
Who cares? This is business. Yes, they can spend potentially beneficial time in order to say the equivalent of 'we told you so,' but that's hardly productive. These companies you're talking about? They are inequipped to create software for the audience Nintendo is targeting. We can spout off as much as we want about how they're stupid or near-sighted or whatever, but this is what they are built to do - to market to traditional gaming audience with very particular types of products. No amount of belittling is going to change their perspective or their skills sets. It's a fundamental difference in how they work. What Nintendo has shown is what it is capable of when it operates from its core strengths as a company; to mock or chastise companies trying to do the same is fruitless. They'd had four years to figure out how Nintendo does what it does - they still haven't. And I don't believe it's from a lack of trying anymore; it's because they simply can't.
You're assuming they don't already have their 'next big thing' in development here. I'm assuming they do.
A Twisty Fluken
Member
I agree with everything you're saying, and I'm actually coming around on this. If they have their next-gen hook, it does seem like Sony and MS are flashing yellow right now and to not deliver the roundhouse kick if you've got it close enough is a missed opportunity.Vinci said:
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Wow surprised that I haven't posted in this thread before. It really is my "type" of thread.
Anyway here are my views:
- Nintendo is obviously trying to trap their competitors and so far it is working perfectly
On the handheld side Nintendo, out of nowhere, announced the successor to the best selling gaming hardware of all-time. It did everything that you wouldn't expect it to do. It was technically advanced and well designed, brought in strong support for a variety of third parties (most notably the core demographic in which SONY tried focusing on), added a (most likely) revolutionary new feature. This caught SONY off guard so much that they weren't even able to make a move this E3. So all of the attention and mindshare was focused purely on Nintendo's handheld. The effects most likely to happen go without saying.
On the console side. Well nothing's certain until it happens, but I would be surprised if Nintendo didn't follow in the same footsteps with the Wii's successor. This E3 showed that both Microsoft and SONY were focusing on extending the life on their current platforms instead of replacing them. This is mainly because they hope that they can cut into the market Nintendo has created by offering "bigger better" systems that can not only do everything that the Wii can do, but have good graphics as well. If in the next 12 months Nintendo announces a system that has improved motion controls, Project Offset-like graphics, have reached out to core third parties, and continue on with a revolutionary new feature (they already mentioned 3D for consoles as well) then we very well may seem a similar effect. The only things I'm not so sure of is how will they go by the 3D and if they will introduce something else to the table? Will the console be like iMac and be built into the screen (highly unlikely)? A projector of some kind? Something we don't know? Who knows, besides Nintendo?
- Being as different from the competition as possible has it's benefits
People obviously appreciate "firsts". Despite there technically being far superior MP3 players, most people still buy the iPod. Despite there technically being better search engines, most people still use Google. This is why everybody knows that despite the Playstation 3 and possibly (but unlikely) the Xbox 360 motion control and console bundles technically being better than the Wii. But guess what? Nobody cares because it was the Wii that started the whole thing. This is why these systems will hardly make a dent in the Wii and why the Wii's successor won't be effected by when Microsoft and SONY copy whatever Nintendo has in plan next. For a quick example do you really think anybody would give a crap if SONY released a PSP2 that had the same 3D technology as the 3DS and had notably better graphics then the 3DS? Of course not. And this is why Nintendo is likely to launch their next console earlier then the others so that they can disrupt them and leave them playing catch up.
- A near complete market take over
As others have said think of the gaming market as a pyramid. On the very bottom you have a very casual crowd that plays games like solitaire and Farmville, while on the very top you have Flight Simulators and Eve Online players. This generation Nintendo focused on grabbing as much of the bottom half of the pyramid as possible while Microsoft and SONY focused on getting the top. If Nintendo launched a new console they'll automatically have their bottom half player base transfer to their console. And if Nintendo then decides to get support from the lower part of the top half (I.E. Modern Warfare, Final Fantasy) right off the bat, then gradually more people from the upper parts of the top half will migrate (Where Square-Enix goes Atlus, Gust, and NIS are likely to follow, where Modern Warfare goes all the other console shooters are likely to follow). It's quite simple and genius really. I mean now that Nintendo has most of the casual and core console market, what markets are Microsoft and SONY going to turn to?
Everything else is blank to me, but I'd just like to give my perspective of what I think Nintendo's core strategy is.
Anyway here are my views:
- Nintendo is obviously trying to trap their competitors and so far it is working perfectly
On the handheld side Nintendo, out of nowhere, announced the successor to the best selling gaming hardware of all-time. It did everything that you wouldn't expect it to do. It was technically advanced and well designed, brought in strong support for a variety of third parties (most notably the core demographic in which SONY tried focusing on), added a (most likely) revolutionary new feature. This caught SONY off guard so much that they weren't even able to make a move this E3. So all of the attention and mindshare was focused purely on Nintendo's handheld. The effects most likely to happen go without saying.
On the console side. Well nothing's certain until it happens, but I would be surprised if Nintendo didn't follow in the same footsteps with the Wii's successor. This E3 showed that both Microsoft and SONY were focusing on extending the life on their current platforms instead of replacing them. This is mainly because they hope that they can cut into the market Nintendo has created by offering "bigger better" systems that can not only do everything that the Wii can do, but have good graphics as well. If in the next 12 months Nintendo announces a system that has improved motion controls, Project Offset-like graphics, have reached out to core third parties, and continue on with a revolutionary new feature (they already mentioned 3D for consoles as well) then we very well may seem a similar effect. The only things I'm not so sure of is how will they go by the 3D and if they will introduce something else to the table? Will the console be like iMac and be built into the screen (highly unlikely)? A projector of some kind? Something we don't know? Who knows, besides Nintendo?
- Being as different from the competition as possible has it's benefits
People obviously appreciate "firsts". Despite there technically being far superior MP3 players, most people still buy the iPod. Despite there technically being better search engines, most people still use Google. This is why everybody knows that despite the Playstation 3 and possibly (but unlikely) the Xbox 360 motion control and console bundles technically being better than the Wii. But guess what? Nobody cares because it was the Wii that started the whole thing. This is why these systems will hardly make a dent in the Wii and why the Wii's successor won't be effected by when Microsoft and SONY copy whatever Nintendo has in plan next. For a quick example do you really think anybody would give a crap if SONY released a PSP2 that had the same 3D technology as the 3DS and had notably better graphics then the 3DS? Of course not. And this is why Nintendo is likely to launch their next console earlier then the others so that they can disrupt them and leave them playing catch up.
- A near complete market take over
As others have said think of the gaming market as a pyramid. On the very bottom you have a very casual crowd that plays games like solitaire and Farmville, while on the very top you have Flight Simulators and Eve Online players. This generation Nintendo focused on grabbing as much of the bottom half of the pyramid as possible while Microsoft and SONY focused on getting the top. If Nintendo launched a new console they'll automatically have their bottom half player base transfer to their console. And if Nintendo then decides to get support from the lower part of the top half (I.E. Modern Warfare, Final Fantasy) right off the bat, then gradually more people from the upper parts of the top half will migrate (Where Square-Enix goes Atlus, Gust, and NIS are likely to follow, where Modern Warfare goes all the other console shooters are likely to follow). It's quite simple and genius really. I mean now that Nintendo has most of the casual and core console market, what markets are Microsoft and SONY going to turn to?
Everything else is blank to me, but I'd just like to give my perspective of what I think Nintendo's core strategy is.
Vinci said:
More so I think (especially in Microsoft's case) they have investor's who're getting tired of money being poured into this project while the gap is still widening in Wii's favor. The competition has to make a return on this generation's investment and that isn't done by starting over on a next generation sure. They aren't rushing to next-gen, just like I don't think Nintendo (who's making strides in their goals of making money and creating new customers) is either.
My previous post addresses that with a counter. With Nintendo moving to a next generation before the competition, the competition now can tell investor's "now we can go ahead too". Nintendo is starting over, the Wii problem is is over, our current cycle is over, we can start a new, even playing fields, let's one-up Nintendo like we used to before this cursed fluke generation...and "the industry" would fall in line with that and Nintendo loses' the Wii advantage.
I know the argument that sooner is better because it allows the momentum of the current Wii to carry over into the next Wii. There's merit in that just as much as there's merit in my counter that Nintendo doing so basically gives the competition breathing room by allowing them a "do over" into next generation.
But further, by waiting Kinect/Move out, Nintendo is letting Microsoft/Sony shoot themselves in the foot. Why move to next-gen "preemptively" forcing them to follow with justification, when you can wait it out a tiny bit more to the point where their "Wii-killer" add-on's give no growth and they desperately panic into next-gen without justification (except to want to start all over) instead? By letting them talk about it & move first, Nintendo can ride the Wii growth/profits along much longer while making their efforts look desperate & paniced.
At least you use the word "might"...I addressed this too in the previous post by saying that even after the Wii, "the industry" still rather takes their portables efforts more seriously than their home console efforts.
Notice the timing though. 3DS probably could've come out sooner, maybe even around the time of PSPgo...but by waiting it out, Nintendo does a couple of things. Namely getting the development advanced enough, costs down enough and support up enough sure, but they also allowed Sony to further make PSP irrelevant by letting PSPgo fail on it's own without any direct reaction to it. Applying that to Wii's status against the competition, sure they could go ahead with a successor soon, but by waiting it out for a bit they make them even less relevant and make Wii more validated (all while continue growth and profits).
Yes it's bad that that a new unproven Nintendo portable is getting more serious support than their current proven home console will ever get. But it's about timing again, Nintendo waited for Sony to go for expensive cumbersome 3D in order to disrupt their CONSOLE further with a PORTABLE with more competent 3D.
If Nintendo moves first, and too soon, they not only give the competition room to follow and start over, but they also give them a heads-up on what their next big thing is so that they can have it (as well as more powerful machines) out-of-the-box too.
This theory of a preemptive Super Wii HD 2 coming soon is always painted in a fashion that the competition will just sit there and let it go uncontested for such a devastating amount of time. No, if Nintendo moves first without timing it right then Sony & Microsoft are still relevant and everyone gets a "do over" which means anything goes.
What's more vicious is that the talk of the town and the bell of the ball isn't a home console or motion controls or even the almighty Wii user base anymore, it's 3DS! And this portable can do what even powerful consoles can't do: 3D!
I'd say let them make themselves less relevant, let them kill themselves off & let the bottom fall out "the industry" and THEN more in for the kill.
Will there even be a PSP2? Will there even be a next X-BOX or will Microsoft investors recede the project to gaming hybrid PC's instead? And if Nintendo plays the timing right...will there even be a PS4?
I didn't mean to say it in a way where it's Nintendo humbling "the industry" and showing it the error of it's ways or even rubbing their noses in it. It's more or less letting the old values just die on their own by waiting them out and letting them make themselves irrelevant in the end.
What's more interesting than ANY talk of strategy or the how's and when's is the WHAT! What will be the next disruption, the new revolution, the next "hook" to reel more people into gaming???
I'm not assuming they don't have the next big thing(s)....I'm sure Nintendo has many idea's for a number of different ways they can change gaming again. Letting those ideas mature internally to the point that they did with the DS and the Wiimote and now 3D is what my theory of "waiting" would further insure.
My thoughts still stand...Nintendo will not talk about their NEW revolution until after the competition have no choice but to talk about their NEXT generation.
Eteric Rice
Member
Well they need to hurry up, pretty soon we're going to be down to like 4 big games a year.
None of them being third party.
None of them being third party.
Congrats all around, very interesting thread.
I don't believe that there are a lot of PS360 owners wanting to buy a console where they can play the same games improved (1080p, 60FPS, AA...). Yes, pixel counting and screen comparisons are very usual, but that's just console wars. MW2 is the bestselling game on the HD twins and it's sub-HD.
On the other hand, there are a lot of new Wii owners that aren't going to buy Super Wii at launch. I know they aren't supposed to, but without Nintendo support, Wii is going to die painfully fast. So they are going to feel underserved.
In order to launch Super Wii in 2011, Nintendo would need some exclusive third party support and Microsoft is not going to allow anything big. Or something new like DS, Wii or 3DS. And Microsoft and Sony are going to do anything to copy it and outdate the Super Wii.
Sony could extend the PS3 life if they can achieve the transition to Move. This way they can offer something different in the next chapter of their franchises.
So it might be better to launch the Super Wii in 2012. Then third parties are going to build their games around the next gen consoles instead of improved versions. And if Sony tries to copy and outdate the Super Wii it won't have the same effect without Microsoft by their side.
I think this is the weak point to launch the Super Wii in 2011.MrNyarlathotep said:
I don't believe that there are a lot of PS360 owners wanting to buy a console where they can play the same games improved (1080p, 60FPS, AA...). Yes, pixel counting and screen comparisons are very usual, but that's just console wars. MW2 is the bestselling game on the HD twins and it's sub-HD.
On the other hand, there are a lot of new Wii owners that aren't going to buy Super Wii at launch. I know they aren't supposed to, but without Nintendo support, Wii is going to die painfully fast. So they are going to feel underserved.
In order to launch Super Wii in 2011, Nintendo would need some exclusive third party support and Microsoft is not going to allow anything big. Or something new like DS, Wii or 3DS. And Microsoft and Sony are going to do anything to copy it and outdate the Super Wii.
I'm not sure about that. If Kinect isn't a big success, Microsoft will launch the next Xbox in 2012. Look at the software cycle, we are starting to get the sequel to the sequel in the same hardware. What is Epic going to do in Gears 4 that hasn't done before?Vinci said:
Sony could extend the PS3 life if they can achieve the transition to Move. This way they can offer something different in the next chapter of their franchises.
So it might be better to launch the Super Wii in 2012. Then third parties are going to build their games around the next gen consoles instead of improved versions. And if Sony tries to copy and outdate the Super Wii it won't have the same effect without Microsoft by their side.
Pureauthor
Member
Indyana said:
I don't think any perceived lack of innovation in the Gears series depends on the power of the console it's going to be developed for. For a game like Gears, new tech isn't going to matter much.
DrGAKMAN said:
MS is already minus 6 billion or so in this industry since entering it. If that isn't enough to make investors order the company to bail out, it's not going to increase so significantly in the next couple of years to do so. Kinect and its launch is not going to cost them nearly as much as having to rush out a next-generation system would.
The response to the 3DS, however, proves you wrong. I don't work for Sony, but there is no chance whatsoever that Sony saw how people responded to that system and felt relieved. Even some of PSP's strongest supporters on this forum and in the industry basically broke individual bottles of champagne on its shell. It's the king. Christened in advance as the PS2 was. The PSP experiment, even after 60 million unit sales, is over in this arena. Could there conceivably be a way for Sony to launch a PSP2 against the 3DS? People have been pondering that since the 3DS's unveil, and if I remember correctly no one has proposed anything beyond "here's an idea that isn't quite so shitty." But really, it's not happening.
Nobody cares about this except forum warriors though. The public isn't looking at what's occurring in this industry and thinking, "Wow, MS and Sony really look desperate." You either market something they want or you don't; there are no details, no strategy beyond what's marketed towards them. A headstart made MS the biggest recipient of 3rd party support; so long as Nintendo doesn't actively try to botch the Wii's successor, there's no reason - outside of anti-Nintendo sentiment - for developers to ignore the system. Anyone who does - well, they're screwed for another generation. Oh well.
That's because they don't like the Wii. It's underpowered for the sorts of titles they like to make and are good at. Nintendo earns nothing by beating a dead horse. Bungie isn't suddenly going to make a 2D platformer. In fact, no 3rd party is going to change direction at this point - the outcome of each system's library and audience has been decided. Even if MS and Sony completely shoot themselves in the feet with Kinect and Move, it isn't going to create some exodus of developer support from their platforms. Again: If it was going to happen with the Wii, it would have already - no one is this deadset on losing money.
These two things operate differently. Yes, MS and Sony are irrelevant to the mainstream audience right now; in fact, no one outside of Nintendo has shown any perception in how to create marketable titles for them. But they are not, in any way, less relevant for 3rd parties than they were at the beginning of this generation. Where 3rd parties go, a decently large sized audience goes. This is one of Nintendo's biggest hurdles still remaining - and nothing is going to be done about this generation. As for the Wii's validation: Really, what does it matter? Nintendo has proven their point to everyone. Nintendo was right, they were wrong. It's not a matter of being right, it's about making more and more money. Yes, they could ride this gen out for as long as possible and milk the Wii for everything it's got in it; or they could start next-gen on-time (yes, on-time - not early; it's only early for the other two) and try to create a console that would do the same as the 3DS.
Yes, that worked out brilliantly. But it does nothing to help their console.
It's about software. Sony and MS are not Nintendo. They cannot compete with Nintendo adequately for the mainstream audience, especially not now. It doesn't matter if they have the 'next big thing' cause the Wii's big thing didn't work by itself; it worked because Nintendo made software that sold it to everyone. You're talking like those people who think motion controls on their own was what made the difference and ignoring what makes Nintendo special.
It took MS and Sony four years to respond with motion controls. Four years. These companies are slow.
The 'old values' are not going to die. Malstrom is wrong. People like these games. They like them. Why would you want values that millions of people love to die when they don't have to? Why would Nintendo want those values to die when they can usurp them whilst monopolizing the ones they uniquely possess?
Grampa Simpson
Banned
Wii only really has Nintendo support. A SuperWii will have new games from Nintendo, of course, but a lot of Nintendo's offerings could still play on both. For just the sake of it, look in the dolphin thread. Lots of Nintendo's games look great rendered at higher resolutions.Indyana said:
All the arguing about this matters not. Nintendo is going to do what they're going to do and my point still remains:
Nintendo will *not* talk of their NEW revolution until the competition talks of their NEXT generation.
By waiting it out a lil' the Kinect & Move failures will put pressure on Sony (and more so Microsoft) to jump to the next generation in more of a panic. The talking could be as soon as 2011...I'm not against the dating of when it would happen...I'm just saying Nintendo will wait in line with the competition on purpose. It's not in an effort to say "we're right, you're wrong" or trying to prove anything...it's to give Microsoft and Sony no other choice but to try to start over to compete and THEN steal that thunder with talk of their own.
The competition will talk of integrating Kinect & Move out-of-the-box along with "new stuff" (which is just PR BS 'cos they only know how to emulate, not innovate) and of course they'll talk about the power (while more likely looking to spend less by doing a Wii-like refresh). Then, this gives Nintendo the green light to (publicly) talk about their new revolution...they know how to hype even better than the big boys and I think the nearing 100M WW Wii owners (around this time) will be aching for more and ready to line-up...and 3RD parties will be watching carefully too.
Yes, the 3DS was sudden and likely just shut out any Sony counter with how quickly it's coming. But notice how Nintendo waited until AFTER the PSP became more irrelevant first. They may do the same with the Wii's successor...but I'm open to think that it could be a lil' different dependent upon what the next big thing is, the world economy in the coming years, how prepared the competition is (or isn't) to actually compete and Nintendo's overall strategy. I still ponder if 3DS would be enough for Nintendo to just go portable only, or if the next home console would be a "home version" of the 3DS, or if the Wii's successor would ever come, keep the current Wii out there as-is to bring in new users then graduate them to the 3DS later on, and if a Wii successor does come what would be it's "hook", would it be something so different that it doesn't even have Wii backwords compatibility (I know, I sound crazy right, but think of the piracy) or would it add value in emulating Wii games in HD? It's a lot to ponder...
That's why I was so stuck on the hybrid console/portable (or a universal format that played in both their portable and home systems) idea because I really couldn't think of anything more doable/game changing. I don't think Iwata was serious abut a Wii 3D due to how long it'll take 3D to go beyond 30% penetration and 3D is the 3DS's "hook" thus the Wii's successor needs a different "hook". Holographic projection? I just really don't know...
Nintendo will *not* talk of their NEW revolution until the competition talks of their NEXT generation.
By waiting it out a lil' the Kinect & Move failures will put pressure on Sony (and more so Microsoft) to jump to the next generation in more of a panic. The talking could be as soon as 2011...I'm not against the dating of when it would happen...I'm just saying Nintendo will wait in line with the competition on purpose. It's not in an effort to say "we're right, you're wrong" or trying to prove anything...it's to give Microsoft and Sony no other choice but to try to start over to compete and THEN steal that thunder with talk of their own.
The competition will talk of integrating Kinect & Move out-of-the-box along with "new stuff" (which is just PR BS 'cos they only know how to emulate, not innovate) and of course they'll talk about the power (while more likely looking to spend less by doing a Wii-like refresh). Then, this gives Nintendo the green light to (publicly) talk about their new revolution...they know how to hype even better than the big boys and I think the nearing 100M WW Wii owners (around this time) will be aching for more and ready to line-up...and 3RD parties will be watching carefully too.
Yes, the 3DS was sudden and likely just shut out any Sony counter with how quickly it's coming. But notice how Nintendo waited until AFTER the PSP became more irrelevant first. They may do the same with the Wii's successor...but I'm open to think that it could be a lil' different dependent upon what the next big thing is, the world economy in the coming years, how prepared the competition is (or isn't) to actually compete and Nintendo's overall strategy. I still ponder if 3DS would be enough for Nintendo to just go portable only, or if the next home console would be a "home version" of the 3DS, or if the Wii's successor would ever come, keep the current Wii out there as-is to bring in new users then graduate them to the 3DS later on, and if a Wii successor does come what would be it's "hook", would it be something so different that it doesn't even have Wii backwords compatibility (I know, I sound crazy right, but think of the piracy) or would it add value in emulating Wii games in HD? It's a lot to ponder...
That's why I was so stuck on the hybrid console/portable (or a universal format that played in both their portable and home systems) idea because I really couldn't think of anything more doable/game changing. I don't think Iwata was serious abut a Wii 3D due to how long it'll take 3D to go beyond 30% penetration and 3D is the 3DS's "hook" thus the Wii's successor needs a different "hook". Holographic projection? I just really don't know...
My bad, I explained poorly.Pureauthor said:
It isn't about the innovation that will allow the next generation. It's about not having the feeling that you are playing the same game again. New generations open new design posibilities but they help to freshen old mechanics too.
I don't know, that seems more like a Wii HD than a new generation. While it might help to not annoy some customers, it will lessen the impact of the Super Wii. And Nintendo doesn't usually support previous console after the launch of its successor.BMF said:
Anyway, that's beyond the point I was trying to make. Let's assume you are right. Who is going to buy a Super Wii in 2011? A lot of Wii owners won't. A lot of PS360 owners won't without exclusive third party support or something new. Microsoft won't allow the former and Sony and Microsoft will try to copy and outdate the Super Wii with their next machines.
P.S: I hardly ever write because I'm too slow, but I know Dolphin and I agree it has gorgeous effects on a lot of games.
DrGAKMAN said:
Sony isn't using 3D to sell PS3s. They're using PS3 to sell 3DTVs. 3DTVs will need 3D content to sell, and Sony is in a unique position as both an electronics manufacturer and content producer to produce 3D content for early adopters until the market expands and other content producers come on board.
The PS3 needed Blu-ray to be successful because SCE made such a huge investment incorporating a Blu-ray drive in the PS3. But unlike Blu-ray, SCE's investment in 3D is very small. The hardware was already there anyway, the only cost to SCE is a firmware update and slightly higher software development costs. The PS3 doesn't suddenly become a less appealing platform if a consumer isn't interested in purchasing a 3DTV at this time.
Old traditional values:
-must appease to the way things have always been done before (generational cycles)
-must try to outdo the competition with the bigger/better/faster way
-must gain full support of game makers/industry
The game has changed though, Nintendo's values aren't to make the best damn systems ever with the best support ever (though I'm sure they wouldn't mind). Their values are to make a product that's good enough for existing customers and different enough to make new customers. The traditional way of getting support is to buy the game makers off, bribe them if you will...and not even for original exclusive content, but sometimes just for mere ports or timed exclusives? Eventually it gets to the point where the only thing that (traditionally) seems to get a company ahead is to start a next generation with a new system so as to force competitors to start over.
New Nintendo values:
-makes old traditional values obsolete/irrelevant and re-shapes them into the new values
-no need to outdo the competition, just offer something new/different than them making them irrelevant
-support matters, but not if its traditional support garnered in the traditional ways
What's Nintendo's goal with DS & Wii? To "beat" or outsell the competition on all fronts...no. It's to make new customers for the sake of business, not competition. Their goal has always been clearly stated to get more people to get into gaming. You can't do this by constantly starting over. You cant do this by focusing on demographics even. The support garnered for this proposal compared to the competition seems paltry to traditional views, but in some cases its genuine support that the game makers wanted to give as opposed to being paid/forced into making. Timing from traditional values is based on moves the competition makes. Timing for the new values (somewhat) ignores competition more in favor of the next big thing.
The arguments against the new values
#1- Nintendo is losing support so they must release a new system to regain it
Did Nintendo even have serious support on the Wii (or arguably the majority of support for their home consoles since the SNES)? Comparing the support given to Nintendo and its competition is obviously one-sided, but this is in part due to industry bias against Nintendo and/or its new values. A new system doesnt fix that it may get more token support up front in the form of traditional ports, but there will always be some new excuse for the current industry (as it is) to give better support to the opposition instead. A new system (badly timed) might also be harmful to support since the PS3 + X360 user base is still more established and this Super Wii has to start from 0% market share. You may say that development would then be X360/PS3/Wii2, but I dont think Sony/Microsoft would let that go on unopposed for too long this would be a situation where they would shine since they could just release bigger/better/faster hardware that copies whatever revolutionary feature Wii2 would have. Not that I really want to start list wars or anything, but I do think that the support (both from Nintendo and its 3RD parties) for the Wii in the next 2 years is still very strong in some ways, stronger than theyve gotten thus far with more serious I want to make this game FOR Wii efforts with games that are less under the casual (lie) and more under core (call it going upstream) real game. I think games like Epic Mickey, Goldeneye, DQ X & The Last Story really show some deep serious support in the coming months/years.
#2- The DS is a pattern for Wii, 3DS is coming now, so the next Wii should also come
Yesnno yes it is a pattern for the marriage of innovative software/hardware integration, but no because they are still two different markets and cycles are different. If DS was a full pattern for Wii hardware-wise, wed have a Wii HD already. Portables have a more flexible hardware cycle as DS, PSP & iPod/Phone all have had several revisions its more acceptable. Also, Nintendo portables have always been taken more seriously than their consoles so to say a 3DS-like show of support would automatically come to a quick approaching Wii successor is assuming too much (especially since the old traditional values still have not completely fallen). All these arguments against waiting dont take into account that by waiting, the timing will be better as the traditional values become less and less relevant. See PSP, Nintendo couldve announced 3DS sooner to thwart PSP (or a potential PSP2), but (thanks to waiting until after the platform is no longer relevant) they let PSP thwart itself. Nintendo timed it perfect there may not even be a PSP2 now.
#3- Its a prime time to move since the competition are stuck with the current generation
Yesnno yes theyre stuck with needing to make good on their investments, but no because the moment Nintendo starts blabbing about a new home console it gives them breathing room to do the same, probably followed by a collective huge sigh of relief that things would be going back to normal with the traditional values. Nintendo needs to wait until the competition fails to do what they do (make innovative software together with new interfaces) and let consumers see that Sony & Microsoft are not really game companies at heart. By waiting, the bottom falls out of the Hollywoodish games industry and well see that the only thing Sony & Microsoft can offer is another expensive painful transition to another old traditional next generation. Then the market would be ready for something new and not just knock-offs (Kinect/Move). THEN true support would be ready to line up for the next big thing, the new revolution Nintendo is preparing. And theyll all be looking to Nintendo to do it. By waiting just a bit more, people inside and outside of the industry will see the true value of the new way a longer lifespan for your system, always something fun, always something new, cheaper development and cheaper games, more variety and less stagnation. By waiting Nintendo lets the competition further destroy itself in a desperate panic to do the only thing they know how: make it bigger/better/faster, in a world economy that wants simpler/cheaper/funner games.
My view still stands
Microsoft will continue the 3RD console curse by trying to rush out a new system (too soon) after they fail to expand the audience (or extend the life) of their current system.
Sony has a bit more to give PS3, but they too will have to look to PS4 to start over soon after Microsoft.
Nintendo will not talk about their NEW revolution until after the competition seal their own coffins with talk of another OLD generational cycle.
-must appease to the way things have always been done before (generational cycles)
-must try to outdo the competition with the bigger/better/faster way
-must gain full support of game makers/industry
The game has changed though, Nintendo's values aren't to make the best damn systems ever with the best support ever (though I'm sure they wouldn't mind). Their values are to make a product that's good enough for existing customers and different enough to make new customers. The traditional way of getting support is to buy the game makers off, bribe them if you will...and not even for original exclusive content, but sometimes just for mere ports or timed exclusives? Eventually it gets to the point where the only thing that (traditionally) seems to get a company ahead is to start a next generation with a new system so as to force competitors to start over.
New Nintendo values:
-makes old traditional values obsolete/irrelevant and re-shapes them into the new values
-no need to outdo the competition, just offer something new/different than them making them irrelevant
-support matters, but not if its traditional support garnered in the traditional ways
What's Nintendo's goal with DS & Wii? To "beat" or outsell the competition on all fronts...no. It's to make new customers for the sake of business, not competition. Their goal has always been clearly stated to get more people to get into gaming. You can't do this by constantly starting over. You cant do this by focusing on demographics even. The support garnered for this proposal compared to the competition seems paltry to traditional views, but in some cases its genuine support that the game makers wanted to give as opposed to being paid/forced into making. Timing from traditional values is based on moves the competition makes. Timing for the new values (somewhat) ignores competition more in favor of the next big thing.
The arguments against the new values
#1- Nintendo is losing support so they must release a new system to regain it
Did Nintendo even have serious support on the Wii (or arguably the majority of support for their home consoles since the SNES)? Comparing the support given to Nintendo and its competition is obviously one-sided, but this is in part due to industry bias against Nintendo and/or its new values. A new system doesnt fix that it may get more token support up front in the form of traditional ports, but there will always be some new excuse for the current industry (as it is) to give better support to the opposition instead. A new system (badly timed) might also be harmful to support since the PS3 + X360 user base is still more established and this Super Wii has to start from 0% market share. You may say that development would then be X360/PS3/Wii2, but I dont think Sony/Microsoft would let that go on unopposed for too long this would be a situation where they would shine since they could just release bigger/better/faster hardware that copies whatever revolutionary feature Wii2 would have. Not that I really want to start list wars or anything, but I do think that the support (both from Nintendo and its 3RD parties) for the Wii in the next 2 years is still very strong in some ways, stronger than theyve gotten thus far with more serious I want to make this game FOR Wii efforts with games that are less under the casual (lie) and more under core (call it going upstream) real game. I think games like Epic Mickey, Goldeneye, DQ X & The Last Story really show some deep serious support in the coming months/years.
#2- The DS is a pattern for Wii, 3DS is coming now, so the next Wii should also come
Yesnno yes it is a pattern for the marriage of innovative software/hardware integration, but no because they are still two different markets and cycles are different. If DS was a full pattern for Wii hardware-wise, wed have a Wii HD already. Portables have a more flexible hardware cycle as DS, PSP & iPod/Phone all have had several revisions its more acceptable. Also, Nintendo portables have always been taken more seriously than their consoles so to say a 3DS-like show of support would automatically come to a quick approaching Wii successor is assuming too much (especially since the old traditional values still have not completely fallen). All these arguments against waiting dont take into account that by waiting, the timing will be better as the traditional values become less and less relevant. See PSP, Nintendo couldve announced 3DS sooner to thwart PSP (or a potential PSP2), but (thanks to waiting until after the platform is no longer relevant) they let PSP thwart itself. Nintendo timed it perfect there may not even be a PSP2 now.
#3- Its a prime time to move since the competition are stuck with the current generation
Yesnno yes theyre stuck with needing to make good on their investments, but no because the moment Nintendo starts blabbing about a new home console it gives them breathing room to do the same, probably followed by a collective huge sigh of relief that things would be going back to normal with the traditional values. Nintendo needs to wait until the competition fails to do what they do (make innovative software together with new interfaces) and let consumers see that Sony & Microsoft are not really game companies at heart. By waiting, the bottom falls out of the Hollywoodish games industry and well see that the only thing Sony & Microsoft can offer is another expensive painful transition to another old traditional next generation. Then the market would be ready for something new and not just knock-offs (Kinect/Move). THEN true support would be ready to line up for the next big thing, the new revolution Nintendo is preparing. And theyll all be looking to Nintendo to do it. By waiting just a bit more, people inside and outside of the industry will see the true value of the new way a longer lifespan for your system, always something fun, always something new, cheaper development and cheaper games, more variety and less stagnation. By waiting Nintendo lets the competition further destroy itself in a desperate panic to do the only thing they know how: make it bigger/better/faster, in a world economy that wants simpler/cheaper/funner games.
My view still stands
Microsoft will continue the 3RD console curse by trying to rush out a new system (too soon) after they fail to expand the audience (or extend the life) of their current system.
Sony has a bit more to give PS3, but they too will have to look to PS4 to start over soon after Microsoft.
Nintendo will not talk about their NEW revolution until after the competition seal their own coffins with talk of another OLD generational cycle.
lowlylowlycook
Member
Flying_Phoenix said:
You're to young to have used Alta Vista, I guess?
Just gonna throw my views in on this one, since everyone seems to be doing it.
What we're seeing from Nintendo right now isn't necessarily some genius business tactic meant to win over core gamers again; in my opinion, the thought process behind this thing is really no different than that of the DS. Granted, it's had that effect, and it's definitely sent off some alarms at Sony HQ, but I think, at the heart of it, this thing is a product of the same thinking as the Wii and DS - that is, what can we do to open up new gameplay possibilities? What can we do to further the game experience?
I don't think it's a matter of "how are we going to crush Sony into the dirt?". Look at the sales of PSP/PS3 compared to DS/Wii - they've already squashed Sony. At this point, a PSP2 launch for Sony will have to come post-3DS, and long after any remaining buzz for the PSP has faded. (This could be either a blessing or a curse, as I've said in other threads. Nintendo showing it's hand leaves Sony open to position it's product better, but I think it's safe to say that Sony won't be able to compete with the 3DS head-on.)
I admit, I think they definitely looked at some of the recent trends in gaming when they designed the thing - the control scheme being so similar to the PSP is, I think, probably a product of the success of the MH franchise on that platform, at least in part. But I think Nintendo is less concerned than ever with exactly what they're competition are doing, and more focused on expanding (and retaining) they're customer-base.
If I had to guess what they next ten years were going to look like, I'd say that we'll probably see Nintendo become synonymous with what most of us look at as "console gaming". Sony and MS may have the "core" market, but Nintendo will continue to expand their appeal, while relying on it's traditional franchises to keep gamers coming back. MS and Sony will probably adopt alternate models; MS, especially, I could see moving towards a higher level of integration with the PC through XBL and digital distribution. Sony will continue to be the multimedia, "It only does everything" guy, but I'm not sure it'll be able to regain the dominance it held during the PS2 era, at this point. Of the three, I think that MS stands the highest chance of dropping out or seeing big change in their business model; it will depend on the Kineckt. If it bombs, I think MS will be thinking long and hard about whether it's worth going into a 3rd generation without having made a profit.
As for the handheld market, we'll see Apple factoring in in a bigger way than ever before, with more and more gaming features popping up in the iPhone/iPad. Still, they're model will remain the same; cheap little games, mixed in with the occasional more expansive thing. Nintendo (and Sony, if they even launch another portable) will dabble in their own version of this approach, but it won't be as successful, for the same reasons it wouldn't be/isn't today. I think we've already seen some sort of push in the Apple direction with the 3DS movies, but it seems poorly handled, and destined to fail in the same manner as the UMD. If Nintendo wants to tackle Apple (which wouldn't be wise, but Nintendo has shown a disregard to conventional wisdom, lately, that has worked pretty well for them), it won't be with the 3DS, but with a successor of some sort that leaves behind the "DS" part of it's heritage (the "revolution" generation, as the OP put it).
If I was Nintendo, I'd be very worried about Apple. With the Wii and DS, Nintendo has once again positioned itself as the "leader", the "innovator" of the games market. But even the biggest fanboy, I think, knows better than to trust Nintendo than to do it perfectly; in other words, Nintendo doesn't always follow through with the "killing blow" that I think many of us hope/fear they will on the competition. Apple, on the other hand, is totally ruthless, and pays an unmatched (in any market) amount of attention to positioning and marketing its products. Right now, the success of gaming on the iOS is almost like a happy accident; but it's become so large, that I think we're going to see a much more aggressive and planned-out push for games on the platform. Apple won't necessarily eat Nintendo's traditional market - the core - but it stands to capture the casual market, and any other potential customers, before Nintendo really has the chance.
This is a cool thread, by the way. Would read again.
What we're seeing from Nintendo right now isn't necessarily some genius business tactic meant to win over core gamers again; in my opinion, the thought process behind this thing is really no different than that of the DS. Granted, it's had that effect, and it's definitely sent off some alarms at Sony HQ, but I think, at the heart of it, this thing is a product of the same thinking as the Wii and DS - that is, what can we do to open up new gameplay possibilities? What can we do to further the game experience?
I don't think it's a matter of "how are we going to crush Sony into the dirt?". Look at the sales of PSP/PS3 compared to DS/Wii - they've already squashed Sony. At this point, a PSP2 launch for Sony will have to come post-3DS, and long after any remaining buzz for the PSP has faded. (This could be either a blessing or a curse, as I've said in other threads. Nintendo showing it's hand leaves Sony open to position it's product better, but I think it's safe to say that Sony won't be able to compete with the 3DS head-on.)
I admit, I think they definitely looked at some of the recent trends in gaming when they designed the thing - the control scheme being so similar to the PSP is, I think, probably a product of the success of the MH franchise on that platform, at least in part. But I think Nintendo is less concerned than ever with exactly what they're competition are doing, and more focused on expanding (and retaining) they're customer-base.
If I had to guess what they next ten years were going to look like, I'd say that we'll probably see Nintendo become synonymous with what most of us look at as "console gaming". Sony and MS may have the "core" market, but Nintendo will continue to expand their appeal, while relying on it's traditional franchises to keep gamers coming back. MS and Sony will probably adopt alternate models; MS, especially, I could see moving towards a higher level of integration with the PC through XBL and digital distribution. Sony will continue to be the multimedia, "It only does everything" guy, but I'm not sure it'll be able to regain the dominance it held during the PS2 era, at this point. Of the three, I think that MS stands the highest chance of dropping out or seeing big change in their business model; it will depend on the Kineckt. If it bombs, I think MS will be thinking long and hard about whether it's worth going into a 3rd generation without having made a profit.
As for the handheld market, we'll see Apple factoring in in a bigger way than ever before, with more and more gaming features popping up in the iPhone/iPad. Still, they're model will remain the same; cheap little games, mixed in with the occasional more expansive thing. Nintendo (and Sony, if they even launch another portable) will dabble in their own version of this approach, but it won't be as successful, for the same reasons it wouldn't be/isn't today. I think we've already seen some sort of push in the Apple direction with the 3DS movies, but it seems poorly handled, and destined to fail in the same manner as the UMD. If Nintendo wants to tackle Apple (which wouldn't be wise, but Nintendo has shown a disregard to conventional wisdom, lately, that has worked pretty well for them), it won't be with the 3DS, but with a successor of some sort that leaves behind the "DS" part of it's heritage (the "revolution" generation, as the OP put it).
If I was Nintendo, I'd be very worried about Apple. With the Wii and DS, Nintendo has once again positioned itself as the "leader", the "innovator" of the games market. But even the biggest fanboy, I think, knows better than to trust Nintendo than to do it perfectly; in other words, Nintendo doesn't always follow through with the "killing blow" that I think many of us hope/fear they will on the competition. Apple, on the other hand, is totally ruthless, and pays an unmatched (in any market) amount of attention to positioning and marketing its products. Right now, the success of gaming on the iOS is almost like a happy accident; but it's become so large, that I think we're going to see a much more aggressive and planned-out push for games on the platform. Apple won't necessarily eat Nintendo's traditional market - the core - but it stands to capture the casual market, and any other potential customers, before Nintendo really has the chance.
This is a cool thread, by the way. Would read again.
Here is my view.. Nintendo went out on a limb with the 3DS.. imo it's incredibly risky venture and I can't seeing this gaming device selling to anyone other than hardcore.. UNLESS it drops in price.. and I'm talking in HALF..
I do however believe Nintendo recognizes gamers don't mind spending more on hardware etc.. this again is more in line of the hardcore gamer but 3DS has a decent shot of selling well but I honestly can't EVER seeing it sell like the DS.. I actually think Nintendo believes the original DS will continue to thrive.
The Wii HD II whatever the hell you want to call it... well something EPIC is going to happen again. The motion controls Wii motion plus is awesome and will be standard but this whole sensory function is yet again going to absolutely SHOCK and AWE the crowd once it's true identity is show and that's not going to happen until 2012 E3. There is NO WAY in HELL Nintendo is letting this one out of the bag until very close to release.. we all see what Sony and MS did... didn't we?? Oh yes, we did..
Sensory will allow you to control actions completely by brain activity/thought.. we don't exactly know how deep this is going to get but I can definitely see the ability to perform a LOT of actions all without the use of buttons etc.. You will definitely still see controllers with actions mapped but this is going to be so abstract it will yet again create new ideas on how to immerse the user in new ways. This is Nintendo's #1 philosophy.. Call it whatever Ocean you want but this is what Nintendo does best and it's how they completely separated themselves from their competitors.
I for one am very excited to see their next innovation..
p.s. Nintendo's biggest competitor is losing the current market to the likes of "oh look, .99 cent games on my iphone etc.." That scares them more than MS and Sony combined"
I do however believe Nintendo recognizes gamers don't mind spending more on hardware etc.. this again is more in line of the hardcore gamer but 3DS has a decent shot of selling well but I honestly can't EVER seeing it sell like the DS.. I actually think Nintendo believes the original DS will continue to thrive.
The Wii HD II whatever the hell you want to call it... well something EPIC is going to happen again. The motion controls Wii motion plus is awesome and will be standard but this whole sensory function is yet again going to absolutely SHOCK and AWE the crowd once it's true identity is show and that's not going to happen until 2012 E3. There is NO WAY in HELL Nintendo is letting this one out of the bag until very close to release.. we all see what Sony and MS did... didn't we?? Oh yes, we did..
Sensory will allow you to control actions completely by brain activity/thought.. we don't exactly know how deep this is going to get but I can definitely see the ability to perform a LOT of actions all without the use of buttons etc.. You will definitely still see controllers with actions mapped but this is going to be so abstract it will yet again create new ideas on how to immerse the user in new ways. This is Nintendo's #1 philosophy.. Call it whatever Ocean you want but this is what Nintendo does best and it's how they completely separated themselves from their competitors.
I for one am very excited to see their next innovation..
p.s. Nintendo's biggest competitor is losing the current market to the likes of "oh look, .99 cent games on my iphone etc.." That scares them more than MS and Sony combined"
Pennywise83
Banned
I think this topic is still pretty actual 
Lupin the Third
Member
I think this topic is still pretty actual
Although the OP is extremely outdated and wasn't exactly spot-on in its predictions (heck, *I* thought we were in for a "Super" gen myself until the Project Café leaks rolled in)
For me, its the opposite. The OP is right except about the graphics. Nintendo don't invest enough to have a machine that make the others 2 looks outdated.
He knows how to predict better than a lot of analysts of this industry. Kudos to him.
Quite a bump.
I think the OP got Nintendo's strategy a bit wrong. Nintendo's goal with Wii was not to move into a blue ocean; that would just be trading one market for another. Nintendo's goal was expansion. What they really wanted to do was to lure in "casual" gamers and get them to graduate to core games. While Wii Sports was amazing in drawing in the blue ocean, it was ill-equipped to convert people. Although Nintendo put out "bridge" titles like Mario Kart to try and ease people towards the core side of the gamer spectrum, most casuals stuck with Wii Sports and moved on to smart phones.
Nintendo's strategy with WiiU appears to be a retooled version of their Wii strategy. Instead of a new IP sports game to showcase the console, they have opted to create a casual-friendly game collection that uses several of their established IPs. My guess is that they hope that NintendoLand itself will act as the lure for casuals and as a bridge to core gaming. Casual plays the Zelda game in NintendoLand, WiiU Zelda comes out, casual recognizes the IP from NintendoLand and buys it. Whether or not that will work out remains to be seen.
I think the OP got Nintendo's strategy a bit wrong. Nintendo's goal with Wii was not to move into a blue ocean; that would just be trading one market for another. Nintendo's goal was expansion. What they really wanted to do was to lure in "casual" gamers and get them to graduate to core games. While Wii Sports was amazing in drawing in the blue ocean, it was ill-equipped to convert people. Although Nintendo put out "bridge" titles like Mario Kart to try and ease people towards the core side of the gamer spectrum, most casuals stuck with Wii Sports and moved on to smart phones.
Nintendo's strategy with WiiU appears to be a retooled version of their Wii strategy. Instead of a new IP sports game to showcase the console, they have opted to create a casual-friendly game collection that uses several of their established IPs. My guess is that they hope that NintendoLand itself will act as the lure for casuals and as a bridge to core gaming. Casual plays the Zelda game in NintendoLand, WiiU Zelda comes out, casual recognizes the IP from NintendoLand and buys it. Whether or not that will work out remains to be seen.