Support NeoGAF

[Neoxon]

No one buys consoles for indie games. They're better off slowly repairing third party relationships and fixing their brand image by diversifying their first-party lineup, which will eventually help their consoles become a primary option for the average game consumer again, in a sustainable way (unlike the Wii).

Third parties seem like a lost cause because Nintendo are uncooperative themselves and are stubbornly sticking to their family-friendly console vision at the expense of everything else, which reduces the sales potential of the usual third party fare on Nintendo platforms.

Besides specifically mentioning brand repair, I touched on that point in the second paragraph of my post. It's just that indie games sprinkled into the NX release schedule along with the few third parties that Nintendo can rely on right now will help both versions of the NX maintain a healthy release schedule. And like I said in the previous post, so long as the NX Console is sufficiently powerful, they can convince third parties that they can play ball so that in a generation or two, those third parties will be willing to give Nintendo another shot. It's gonna take a long time for Nintendo to repair their image, and just putting out a few adult-targeted games won't do it (as Bayonetta 2 proved). They need to put out more over the course of a few years, likely a whole generation, for said audience to slowly come back.

 

[blu]

I need to brush up on some of this again. haha. Interesting that ARM dowplayed the VPF on the A8. Was this because NEON became a priority?

Exactly. Though it was a bit miscalculated, pardon the pun.

Will be interesting to see how they implement 3DS BC, if they choose to even. Even though I am sure they are small, adding 4 ARM11s on to an SoC seems inelegant. I believe that Nintendo used an ARM11 to emulate an ARM7 for the 3DS GBA ambassador games (since 3DS only has ARM11/ARM9). Would the A53 have enough power to emulate an ARM11?

I'm not really in the know how nintendo did the emulation of the ambassador games. They surely can play with the clocks, but since there's no per-clock equivalence between ARM11 and A53's AArch32 mode, that would not suffice. So they could downlock the latter to some Right Clock (tm) and from there on, they could do a very thin layer of binary translation, the purposes of which would be to further throttle the execution via sw, until they get the per-clock timing (nearly) right.

Basically, the task of the translation would be to produce something of the sort of:
original_op -> original_op + N * nop

for known sequences where a certain op throughput is sought.

This is all purely hypothetically, of course. But this could produce BC similar (or better) to the level of accuracy of the present BC on xbone.

 

[GhostTrick]

Exactly. Though it was a bit miscalculated, pardon the pun.


I'm not really in the know how nintendo did the emulation of the ambassador games. They surely can play with the clocks, but since there's no per-clock equivalence between ARM11 and A53's AArch32 mode, that would not suffice. So they could downlock the latter to some Right Clock (tm) and from there on, they could do a very thin layer of binary translation, the purposes of which would be to further throttle the execution via sw, until they get the per-clock timing (nearly) right.

Basically, the task of the translation would be to produce something of the sort of:
original_op -> original_op + N * nop

for known sequences where a certain op throughput is sought.

This is all purely hypothetically, of course. But this could produce BC similar (or better) to the level of accuracy of the present BC on xbone.

The question I'm wondering though, if they're indeed planning an ecosystem based around various form factors... will the handheld be BC with Wii U ? Is it even doable ?

 

[Rodin]

The question I'm wondering though, if they're indeed planning an ecosystem based around various form factors... will the handheld be BC with Wii U ? Is it even doable ?

Maybe you will be able to stream Wii U games from the NX home (if it has bc) to the portable or from the Wii U itself, because i definitely see the Wii U streaming tech being used again in the next consoles. Other than that, i guess it's impossible for the handheld.

 

[Roo]

So what happened to that Microsoft buying amd rumor? Lol

It shouldn't affect Nintendo if there's already a deal in place.

 

[gingerbeardman]

If Nintendo find a new Blue Ocean, then all developers will flock in large numbers.

 

[timshundo]

I can see NIntendo wanting to skip backwards compatibility because of the small user base but I can also see them wanting to get those Wii U games in as many hands as possible because there are some quality Wii U games out there. BC would give those games another chance to make it into more hands.

 

[lwilliams3]

Rather you're pleasing big third-party developers or indies, appealing hardware with good development tools would be benefital to all. The Wii U didn't have that, and Nintendo suffered from it in many levels.

Maybe you will be able to stream Wii U games from the NX home (if it has bc) to the portable or from the Wii U itself, because i definitely see the Wii U streaming tech being used again in the next consoles. Other than that, i guess it's impossible for the handheld.

Yeah, a portable NX will not be as powerful as the Wii U. Maybe VC games from the Wii U could be possible, though.

 

[Toadthemushroom]

The problem is many Japanese third parties haven't been giving Nintendo much support either. I don't know if this is a west vs east thing. I don't think it's a cultural issue where Nintendo only understands Japanese publishers.

It's true that Capcom has been supportive with Monster Hunter.

But they didn't bring Street Fighter IV, Resident Evil 6, or DMC to the Wii U. They aren't bringing the remasters of Resident Evil remake and RE4 to the Wii U.

Konami doesn't have much interest in Nintendo outside of releasing old games on the Virtual Console.

Square Enix continues to ignore Nintendo's (non-handheld) consoles when it comes to Kingdom Hearts, Star Ocean, or any mainline Final Fantasy games. Square Enix wouldn't even publish "Life is Strange" or the first "Tomb Raider" reboot on the Wii U.

Nintendo and Namco have a good relationship with Pokken and Smash Bros, but even Namco isn't bringing games like Dark Souls to the Wii U. Tales of Berseria is not coming to the Wii U, but it's coming to PS3 and PS4.

Yeah, Nintendo needs to get a new system out due to 3DS's decline in Japan (and worldwide, there's just no growth left in the platform, every year Nintendo fails to meet its own sales expectations).

I'd wager that the main third parties onboard on day one for NX will be: Capcom, Atlus, Level-5, Square Enix and Namco.

Everyone else either is targeting a smaller yet more focused audience elsewhere (Koei Tecmo on PlayStation for example), Sega only releases 3D Classics, or they have restructured themselves in pursuit of short term profits in the mobile market (Konami).

I think Nintendo isn't going to directly chase any third parties known for big budget AAA content like WB Games or EA with NX. It'll support the latest and greatest engines like Unreal 4, of course, but I have a feeling Nintendo will build a platform that's friendy for those publishers and developers who restructured around mobile development. I guess it also depends on how Nintendo and DeNA's network platform turns out.

 

[Neoxon]

Rather you're pleasing big third-party developers or indies, appealing hardware with good development tools would be benefital to all. The Wii U didn't have that, and Nintendo suffered from it in many levels.
Yeah, a portable NX will not be as powerful as the Wii U. Maybe VC games from the Wii U could be possible, though.

As I've said numerous times, hardware alone won't bring third parties back. Nintendo's issues with third party developers run far deeper than just hardware. It'd help, but it alone won't magically fix all of Nintendo's problem.

 

[The Maverick]

Exactly, Nintendo got themselves into this mess. Third parties aren't just gonna welcome Nintendo back with open arms, they have a long road to recovery before third parties will even consider to look their way. And judging by how long Nintendo has given them the cold shoulder, it's gonna take at least a decade to repair the damage Nintendo has done to their third party relations.

And the point of potentially having two systems share an architecture & most of their games is so Nintendo can support the platform mostly on their own with little-to-no software droughts. Sprinkle in some high-profile indie games & games from the few third parties that Nintendo has left (Bandai Namco, Sega, Capcom, Atlus, etc.) & you have a solid release schedule for NX games. If they actually make the NX Console powerful, they can start to prove to the third parties that Nintendo has pushed away that they're willing to play ball. And as time goes on & a generation or two passes since the release of the NX, maybe the others will be willing to give Nintendo a second chance.

I see the sentiment that Nintendo should unify their console and handheld lineups and that it would solve a lot of their ills. I disagree. If their ace in the hole is getting people to play handheld games blown up to the big screen and then thinking that they've solved the issues with their software output, well...it'd be catastrophic. Nobody wants to play mobile games on their tv. And combining their output means nothing if it isn't diverse. AKA if it's still platformers, light hearted adventure titles, and the rare rpg, then there is no point.

The fact that their software output isn't diverse means they will never cultivate an environment in which third parties can succeed. Couple that with the potential that they might ignore the wants of other publishers and drop another machine that nobody asked for, they would be in danger. They need to get this right. What you suggest isn't it.

 

[disap.ed]

Now, once again, if they go w/ ARM on the console, they will have to restart the Virtual Console from scratch. I can imagine that this would greatly agitate core Nintendo fans, who are still waiting for the Wii U VC to even catch up w/ Wii's (it's never gonna happen).

The last investor question that Iwata ever fielded was regarding VC and why aren't all the games up at once. I believe such a scenario is on their radar, and carrying over Wii U and 3DS BC for this next generation is effectively the only way to not move in reverse. As I said before, afaik (hope) the 3DS and Wii U OS designs are such that a sand box would not be required. People would have literally no idea if a VC game ran on PPC or ARM. In the future, Nintendo could either continue to license PPC, w/ the cores getting even smaller as nodes advance. Or, at the very least, this next gen buys them some time to fully convert their emulators to ARM.

I actually think that is THE reason why the WiiU VC is so lackluster, they will build a framework for the new architecture that they can use for the years to come through all devices.

 

[lwilliams3]

I see the sentiment that Nintendo should unify their console and handheld lineups and that it would solve a lot of their ills. I disagree. If their ace in the hole is getting people to play handheld games blown up to the big screen and then thinking that they've solved the issues with their software output, well...it'd be catastrophic. Nobody wants to play mobile games on their tv. And combining their output means nothing if it isn't diverse. AKA if it's still platformers, light hearted adventure titles, and the rare rpg, then there is no point.

The fact that their software output isn't diverse means they will never cultivate an environment in which third parties can succeed. Couple that with the potential that they might ignore the wants of other publishers and drop another machine that nobody asked for, they would be in danger. They need to get this right. What you suggest isn't it.

There is more to that. If they integrate their portable and console systems, it will take a lot less time and resources to make games with IPs that are for several of their platforms, like Mario Kart 7 & 8 or Smash Bros. That can free up their development teams faster, and they can use the extra time to start up on new games or even new IPs to expand and diversify their line up.

 

[blu]

The question I'm wondering though, if they're indeed planning an ecosystem based around various form factors... will the handheld be BC with Wii U ? Is it even doable ?

Well, it's largely a matter of how much wiiU software relied on precise clock cycles vis-a-vis external timers / sync mechanisms. The problem is, when you write for a fixed platform you might end up clock-cycles sensitive even when you did not deliberately design your software this way - you could just have plain old bugs (think CPU/CPU concurrency issues, CPU/GPU concurrency issues, CPU/storage concurrency issues, etc) which remained hidden until a clock changed somewhere in the system. Which, BTW, is why the only bulletproof BC is what nintendo have been doing - you take the (most) programmable parts of the system and you put them in a per-clock compatibility mode. This approach takes transistors.

Now, if your sw followed a discipline of using high-level sync APIs and then you tested your code on as many clock configurations as possible (AKA the PC approach), then you can rely on approaches like binary translation to do the job. Alternatively, you can write a sw model, namely an interpreter of the original machine, precise to the clock, and depending how precise that model is, enjoy full emulation. That approach poses certain computational overheads, as noticed by many emu users.

Which takes us to our situation. Since the host CPU would neither have an 'Espresso mode', nor have a huge performance advantage (or any, for that matter) the only option would be binary translation of Well Behaved (tm) wiiU software. Basically, we can expect BC 'compatibility lists' and all that jazz.

 

[Neoxon]

I see the sentiment that Nintendo should unify their console and handheld lineups and that it would solve a lot of their ills. I disagree. If their ace in the hole is getting people to play handheld games blown up to the big screen and then thinking that they've solved the issues with their software output, well...it'd be catastrophic. Nobody wants to play mobile games on their tv. And combining their output means nothing if it isn't diverse. AKA if it's still platformers, light hearted adventure titles, and the rare rpg, then there is no point.

The fact that their software output isn't diverse means they will never cultivate an environment in which third parties can succeed. Couple that with the potential that they might ignore the wants of other publishers and drop another machine that nobody asked for, they would be in danger. They need to get this right. What you suggest isn't it.

The idea is that if you have a game that works on both the console & handheld, the game would scale its performance to accommodate the power of the system it's being played on. If it's on the console, it'll run at 1080p/60fps. If it's on the handheld, it'll run at 720p/60fps. Keep in mind that those are just rough estimates of what to expect. Think of it like a PC game played on two different computers with different power levels.

There is more to that. If they integrate their portable and console systems, it will take a lot less time and resources to make games with IPs that are for several of their platforms, like Mario Kart 7 & 8 or Smash Bros. That can free up their development teams faster, and they can use the extra time to start up on new games or even new IPs to expand and diversify their line up.

This, too. Rather than making 2 Mario Karts & 2 Smash Bros. games, they can make 1 Mario Kart, 1 Smash Bros. game, an F-Zero game, & a Kid Icarus: Uprising sequel. Again, these are just examples of what is possible with Nintendo's supposed "two systems, one architecture, one OS" approach.

 

[Fourth Storm]

Well, it's largely a matter of how much wiiU software relied on precise clock cycles vis-a-vis external timers / sync mechanisms. The problem is, when you write for a fixed platform you might end up clock-cycles sensitive even when you did not deliberately design your software this way - you could just have plain old bugs (think CPU/CPU concurrency issues, CPU/GPU concurrency issues, CPU/storage concurrency issues, etc) which remained hidden until a clock changed somewhere in the system. Which, BTW, is why the only bulletproof BC is what nintendo have been doing - you take the (most) programmable parts of the system and you put them in a per-clock compatibility mode. This approach takes transistors.

Now, if your sw followed a discipline of using high-level sync APIs and then you tested your code on as many clock configurations as possible (AKA the PC approach), then you can rely on approaches like binary translation to do the job. Alternatively, you can write a sw model, namely an interpreter of the original machine, precise to the clock, and depending how precise that model is, enjoy full emulation. That approach poses certain computational overheads, as noticed by many emu users.

Which takes us to our situation. Since the host CPU would neither have an 'Espresso mode', nor have a huge performance advantage (or any, for that matter) the only option would be binary translation of Well Behaved (tm) wiiU software. Basically, we can expect BC 'compatibility lists' and all that jazz.

What about on the home console? You think they can put Espresso on 28nm bulk as a secondary hardware block? Something something OpenPOWER and all that jazz?

 

[The Maverick]

There is more to that. If they integrate their portable and console systems, it will take a lot less time and resources to make games with IPs that are for several of their platforms, like Mario Kart 7 & 8 or Smash Bros. That can free up their development teams faster, and they can use the extra time to start up on new games or even new IPs to expand and diversify their line up.

I suppose this makes sense. I just really doubt the games will scale well enough to only make one Mario Kart or Smash. But assets will be easier to transfer, and development will be quicker, that's true. Sounds not too far off from the hybrid dream that a lot of people have.

 

[Neoxon]

I suppose this makes sense. I just really doubt the games will scale well enough to only make one Mario Kart or Smash. But assets will be easier to transfer, and development will be quicker, that's true. Sounds not too far off from the hybrid dream that a lot of people have.

The difference is that there won't be just one system, but rather two that share most of there games. Though I'd expect there to be exceptions, like Pokémon likely being locked to the handheld, and the likes of Zelda & Xenoblade being too big for the handheld (hence the likes of Zelda & Xenoblade likely being console-only).

 

[LegendofLex]

I see the sentiment that Nintendo should unify their console and handheld lineups and that it would solve a lot of their ills. I disagree. If their ace in the hole is getting people to play handheld games blown up to the big screen and then thinking that they've solved the issues with their software output, well...it'd be catastrophic. Nobody wants to play mobile games on their tv.

The general sentiment behind Nintendo unifying the lineups is more about two things:

1) Nintendo doesn't have to develop two different versions of every major franchise entry from scratch to suit two platforms with unique hardware architectures. Both form factors - handheld and console - could both play the same Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and Pokemon games. This means that we won't get a lot of the development redundancies across platforms like we saw with Mario 3D Land/World, Mario Kart 7/8, and the two Smash versions - those games will be playable on everything, without Nintendo needing to ramp up development teams or spend 2+ extra development years making a second version.

This could theoretically lead to more variety in the lineup - EAD Tokyo could make a 3D Mario, then a new IP, instead of bouncing between 3D Mario games on multiple platforms - but it could also lead to simply more games and more even advancements from each franchise on every platform in a generation by cutting down the development time and allowing them to improve the experience in a linear fashion on everything.

2) People don't have to buy two different pieces of Nintendo hardware to play more than half of Nintendo's software output. The vast majority of games will be on all form factors, so Nintendo's install base won't be fractured and people can invest in whatever devices suit their budgets and play habits, not based on which one happens to have the better library at the time.

I don't think anyone expects that people will play "mobile games" on their TVs. It's more about people expecting to be able to play most or all of their games on any of their gaming devices. Nintendo has specifically said they're looking to the way people use software across multiple iOS/Android devices for their model for the future.

 

[ArchedThunder]

The difference is that there won't be just one system, but rather two that share most of there games. Though I'd expect there to be exceptions, like Pokémon likely being locked to the handheld, and the likes of Zelda & Xenoblade being too big for the handheld (hence the likes of Zelda & Xenoblade likely being console-only).

Not 100% related to the discussion, but I'd just like to put out my thoughts on the Pokemon thing. GameFreak has been pretty open to not wanting to make a console Pokemon adventure, but they also acknowledge the demand for one. I feel like if it cost almost nothing we could likely see Pokemon games release on both the handheld and the console (It wouldn't be like one version exclusive to handheld and one to console, but instead both versions released on both platforms), with the console version being low effort (essentially just make it a higher res and maybe slap on some AA or something). The console versions would still be fully compatible with the handheld versions, you just would be missing some features that would require it be on a handheld. It would shut some people up and ultimately be some "free" sales for them.

 

[The Maverick]

The difference is that there won't be just one system, but rather two that share most of there games. Though I'd expect there to be exceptions, like Pokémon likely being locked to the handheld, and the likes of Zelda & Xenoblade being too big for the handheld (hence the likes of Zelda & Xenoblade likely being console-only).

The general sentiment behind Nintendo unifying the lineups is more about two things:

1) Nintendo doesn't have to develop two different versions of every major franchise entry from scratch to suit two platforms with unique hardware architectures. Both form factors - handheld and console - could both play the same Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and Pokemon games. This means that we won't get a lot of the development redundancies across platforms like we saw with Mario 3D Land/World, Mario Kart 7/8, and the two Smash versions - those games will be playable on everything, without Nintendo needing to ramp up development teams or spend 2+ extra development years making a second version.

This could theoretically lead to more variety in the lineup - EAD Tokyo could make a 3D Mario, then a new IP, instead of bouncing between 3D Mario games on multiple platforms - but it could also lead to simply more games and more even advancements from each franchise on every platform in a generation by cutting down the development time and allowing them to improve the experience in a linear fashion on everything.

2) People don't have to buy two different pieces of Nintendo hardware to play more than half of Nintendo's software output. The vast majority of games will be on all form factors, so Nintendo's install base won't be fractured and people can invest in whatever devices suit their budgets and play habits, not based on which one happens to have the better library at the time.

I don't think anyone expects that people will play "mobile games" on their TVs. It's more about people expecting to be able to play most or all of their games on any of their gaming devices. Nintendo has specifically said they're looking to the way people use software across multiple iOS/Android devices for their model for the future.

This makes much more sense when it's explained like this. Thank you.

 

[Toadthemushroom]

I see the sentiment that Nintendo should unify their console and handheld lineups and that it would solve a lot of their ills. I disagree. If their ace in the hole is getting people to play handheld games blown up to the big screen and then thinking that they've solved the issues with their software output, well...it'd be catastrophic. Nobody wants to play mobile games on their tv. And combining their output means nothing if it isn't diverse. AKA if it's still platformers, light hearted adventure titles, and the rare rpg, then there is no point.

The fact that their software output isn't diverse means they will never cultivate an environment in which third parties can succeed. Couple that with the potential that they might ignore the wants of other publishers and drop another machine that nobody asked for, they would be in danger. They need to get this right. What you suggest isn't it.

It didn't hurt the iPad, which had its differentiator being 1) better visuals and 2) much larger real estate for both touch input and visuals.

I highly doubt the NX console will just be the same thing on the TV, that's how not to go about it (see: Vita TV, which felt like one big uncomfortable hack and has no synergies between itself and its handheld cousin).

As Iwata has already hinted, the NX platform will be like iPhone and iPad. Some games will be better suited to one of the systems (there are a fair few iOS games that launched as iPad only because they really needed the screen space), others will be on both. The games on both will be optimised for the form factors of each, so you might get a different UI or UX, or better visuals on the iPad.

Nintendo emphasising a global Nintendo cloud system that encompasses the whole platform is important too, as that will be key in making sure switching between both systems is as seamless as possible. Investing in DeNA for their capabilities in cloud and backend services was a very smart move.

 

[Roo]

The general sentiment behind Nintendo unifying the lineups is more about two things:

1) Nintendo doesn't have to develop two different versions of every major franchise entry from scratch to suit two platforms with unique hardware architectures. Both form factors - handheld and console - could both play the same Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and Pokemon games. This means that we won't get a lot of the development redundancies across platforms like we saw with Mario 3D Land/World, Mario Kart 7/8, and the two Smash versions - those games will be playable on everything, without Nintendo needing to ramp up development teams or spend 2+ extra development years making a second version.

This could theoretically lead to more variety in the lineup - EAD Tokyo could make a 3D Mario, then a new IP, instead of bouncing between 3D Mario games on multiple platforms - but it could also lead to simply more games and more even advancements from each franchise on every platform in a generation by cutting down the development time and allowing them to improve the experience in a linear fashion on everything.

2) People don't have to buy two different pieces of Nintendo hardware to play more than half of Nintendo's software output. The vast majority of games will be on all form factors, so Nintendo's install base won't be fractured and people can invest in whatever devices suit their budgets and play habits, not based on which one happens to have the better library at the time.

I don't think anyone expects that people will play "mobile games" on their TVs. It's more about people expecting to be able to play most or all of their games on any of their gaming devices. Nintendo has specifically said they're looking to the way people use software across multiple iOS/Android devices for their model for the future.

Couldn't this open the possibility to expand their online infrastructure like..a lot?
If their games are virtually the same between both platforms they could make both games work with each other.

You have Mario Kart 9 for NX Handheld? Great! You can play with NX console Mario Kart 9 players as well and viceversa.
A massive pool of players who are no restricted by the number of players in their console of choice.

Same could apply to all their online games.
Smash Bros, Mario Strikers, Mario Golf, Splatoon, Animal Crossing, Pokémon, etc.

 

[Neoxon]

Couldn't this open the possibility to expand their online infrastructure like..a lot?
If their games are virtually the same between both platforms they could make both games work with each other.

You have Mario Kart 9 for NX Handheld? Great! You can play with NX console Mario Kart 9 players as well and viceversa.
A massive pool of players who are no restricted by the number of players in their console of choice.

Same could apply to all their online games.
Smash Bros, Mario Strikers, Mario Golf, Splatoon, Animal Crossing, Pokémon, etc.

FTFY

But yeah, you have a point about Nintendo massively expanding their online pool.

Spoiler

Let's hope that Game Freak plays ball.

Not 100% related to the discussion, but I'd just like to put out my thoughts on the Pokemon thing. GameFreak has been pretty open to not wanting to make a console Pokemon adventure, but they also acknowledge the demand for one. I feel like if it cost almost nothing we could likely see Pokemon games release on both the handheld and the console (It wouldn't be like one version exclusive to handheld and one to console, but instead both versions released on both platforms), with the console version being low effort (essentially just make it a higher res and maybe slap on some AA or something). The console versions would still be fully compatible with the handheld versions, you just would be missing some features that would require it be on a handheld. It would shut some people up and ultimately be some "free" sales for them.

My fear is that as long as there's some kind of effort that needs to be made to get it running properly on the console, Game Freak won't bother.

 

[Terrell]

Mario Kart 8 Complete and Smash Bros 4 NX at or very near launch would be a positive for the system any way you slice it, especially considering the fact that very few people have played the games relative to the standard series sales.

Either way you cut it, it doesn't end well. New users will say that the lineup is full of re-masters instead of original games (even if it ends up being untrue) and Wii U owners will be pissed that they'll be asked to re-purchase a game they already own. And regardless of how small the Wii U user base is, Nintendo is in absolutely no position to give reason for any more existing customers to turn away from their future devices.

People already say that about both series.

Amplify the "it's the same game" talk by 1000. That's what they'd be walking into.

The handheld especially, then need to simplify they're interface and the second screen hurts that.

Seems to me that the market clearly didn't find it to be a problem.

People keep saying this like Nintendo is doomed to be an Island forever, they aten't and they don't want to be one. If anything changes this gen shows that when they do it on their own theuly get significantly smaller consumer bases.

IMO it's try to get third parties or go third party, plain and simple.

I wouldn't go quite as far as "go third party", but yeah, the general sentiment is the same here. I know Nintendo won't be getting every 3rd-party game, but I'm not interested in another device from them that asks me to sacrifice my enjoyment of content that they don't make.

The problem is many Japanese third parties haven't been giving Nintendo much support either. I don't know if this is a west vs east thing. I don't think it's a cultural issue where Nintendo only understands Japanese publishers.

It's true that Capcom has been supportive with Monster Hunter.

But they didn't bring Street Fighter IV, Resident Evil 6, or DMC to the Wii U. They aren't bringing the remasters of Resident Evil remake and RE4 to the Wii U.

Konami doesn't have much interest in Nintendo outside of releasing old games on the Virtual Console.

Square Enix continues to ignore Nintendo's (non-handheld) consoles when it comes to Kingdom Hearts, Star Ocean, or any mainline Final Fantasy games. Square Enix wouldn't even publish "Life is Strange" or the first "Tomb Raider" reboot on the Wii U.

Nintendo and Namco have a good relationship with Pokken and Smash Bros, but even Namco isn't bringing games like Dark Souls to the Wii U. Tales of Berseria is not coming to the Wii U, but it's coming to PS3 and PS4.

Everyone ignored Wii U this go around, and Wii was given B-tier software by these companies because they didn't have the resources to have a dedicated A-game pipeline strictly for Nintendo.

Their relationships with these companies, though? They're still there. It's not like they've been begrudgingly forced to make games for Nintendo's handhelds, after all. That kind of relationship is maintained as best as possible and it's not like mentioning Wii U in a business meeting with Nintendo will have 3rd-parties walk out of a room or something.

If you give Japanese 3rd-parties a piece of hardware that allows them to make games using the same teams and assets, they'll be there. Period.

Give it away for free. Even then I'm not sure it would sell in large numbers.

Resisting the urge to tag-quote is almost impossible.

What is the point of Wii U compatibility? They refuse to unchain the system to the gamepad, requiring it to surf the interface. So you'd have to have the pad to even play Wii U games. The only people that will own one already own the Wii U. I don't see the point. Port Zelda and call it a day.

...

Yup. I'm hoping they let go of the dual screen form factor.

I hate to break it to you, but the Gamepad is going to return and the dual-screen setup isn't going away.

People seem to enjoy talking out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to Nintendo.

On this subject specifically, people who argue to kill the Gamepad and the 2nd screen will also say that they want more Virtual Console releases and available platforms, yet the interfaces that would require that to be a thing? Yeah, FUCK those features because I dislike them.

You literally can't have it both ways in this situation. You either want a more robust VC back catalog or you don't.

And there lies the problem that I constantly touch on, who would care (in the West)? None of the third parties in the west (beyond maybe Warner Bros.) are gonna give a shit. Maybe they can reach out towards some of the Japanese third parties, but few of them have a big influence in the West. And as someone alluded to in this thread, a number of them have written off Nintendo consoles some time ago. The big third party companies are mostly a lost cause. If anything, Nintendo should do what I've mentioned earlier & reach out to indies. Of all their third party relations, indie developers are among the few that Nintendo didn't screw over. They should take advantage of that fact, get feedback from a number of indie developers, & make sure that the NX family of systems are easy for indie developers to get their games out on.

I think Western 3rd-parties will need to see a best-case scenario before they'll jump in full-tilt. We're still likely to see something from them, a toe dipped into the water so to speak, but I don't think you'll see everything, no.

And I disagree with Japanese 3rd-parties not being a big influence in the West. 2 of the 3 bullets in Sony's gun that they used to kill it at E3 with? Japanese 3rd-parties. The hype was overwhelming.

Nor have they written Nintendo off, they've just given them little worth consideration in the modern development landscape.

But since you bring indies up, I think it's important to note that Nintendo made a big point with indies to begin eroding the idea that you can't sell a non-Nintendo game on their platform. "But indies are a special case" doesn't matter when they're fighting a perception issue and there are few to no legitimate modern counter-examples with marquee 3rd-party releases.

Exactly, Nintendo got themselves into this mess. Third parties aren't just gonna welcome Nintendo back with open arms, they have a long road to recovery before third parties will even consider to look their way. And judging by how long Nintendo has given them the cold shoulder, it's gonna take at least a decade to repair the damage Nintendo has done to their third party relations.

Their 3rd-party relations haven't been a problem. There's enough data on record to show that Nintendo doesn't snub them and seem to have rather frequent interaction with them, regardless of how much business is done between them.

They're just not tickling anyone's balls with what they have to offer, that's all.

Everyone else either is targeting a smaller yet more focused audience elsewhere (Koei Tecmo on PlayStation for example), Sega only releases 3D Classics, or they have restructured themselves in pursuit of short term profits in the mobile market (Konami).

I'd have to argue this point. Koei Tecmo and Nintendo have been excessively cozy with one another for the past 6 or 7 years now. They might be the easiest of all of them to win over.

I see the sentiment that Nintendo should unify their console and handheld lineups and that it would solve a lot of their ills. I disagree. If their ace in the hole is getting people to play handheld games blown up to the big screen and then thinking that they've solved the issues with their software output, well...it'd be catastrophic. Nobody wants to play mobile games on their tv. And combining their output means nothing if it isn't diverse. AKA if it's still platformers, light hearted adventure titles, and the rare rpg, then there is no point.

Why do you think they're doing what they're doing? Instead of having to make 2 platforms, 2 adventure titles and 2 rare RPGs, they can make 1, scale the game for another platform and have more time to do exactly what you suggest, diversify their offerings.

Which takes us to our situation. Since the host CPU would neither have an 'Espresso mode', nor have a huge performance advantage (or any, for that matter) the only option would be binary translation of Well Behaved (tm) wiiU software. Basically, we can expect BC 'compatibility lists' and all that jazz.

There's not a whole lot of games to put on that "compatibility list", so as far as opportunity cost, it sounds like we have an answer to the riddle of how Nintendo is going to do backwards compatibility. Which I already mentioned several pages back.

 

[Wavebossa]

There is so much nonsense in this Article. x86 Wii U... lol.

Anywho, ditching BC is the only way to go for Nintendo. Remasters are the future, and the future is awesome!

 

[ArchedThunder]

My fear is that as long as there's some kind of effort that needs to be made to get it running properly on the console, Game Freak won't bother.

Well I mean the whole point is that it will be almost zero effort to get it running, so they would just put the lowest possible effort into the console versions and then maybe put a bit more effort into them in the future if they sell well. Hell, they could probably just get Creatures to handle the console versions so they don't have to be bothered.

 

[Terrell]

Well I mean the whole point is that it will be almost zero effort to get it running, so they would just put the lowest possible effort into the console versions and then maybe put a bit more effort into them in the future if they sell well. Hell, they could probably just get Creatures to handle the console versions so they don't have to be bothered.

There's also a possibility, albeit a potentially small one without more information, that just such a purpose as the one you describe (though not just for Game Freak) might have at least partially been behind re-purposing Brownie Brown into 1-UP Studio, around the time they started pinning down what they wanted NX to be. Nintendo has had a pretty clear vision for the future of NX since January 2013 at the earliest, and 1-UP Studio became a thing in February.

 

[Overside]

There is so much nonsense in this Article. x86 Wii U... lol.

Anywho, ditching BC is the only way to go for Nintendo. Remasters are the future, and the future is awesome!

Remasters are the future past, because the past was awesome!

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Which takes us to our situation. Since the host CPU would neither have an 'Espresso mode', nor have a huge performance advantage (or any, for that matter) the only option would be binary translation of Well Behaved (tm) wiiU software. Basically, we can expect BC 'compatibility lists' and all that jazz.

I would hope that they could take the top ~20 first party titles and just port them to the new architecture.

Does anyone think this thing is going to have an optical drive?

 

[Pokemaniac]

I would hope that they could take the top ~20 first party titles and just port them to the new architecture.

Does anyone think this thing is going to have an optical drive?

I'm pretty sure Sony quite thoroughly proved that putting an optical drive in a handheld is a bad idea.

While it would be nice to get some Wii U games on the handheld, I'm not really expecting that to happen until the handheld after the next one at least. I'd be pretty impressed of they managed to get any significant number of Wii U games running on the first NX handheld.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

I'm pretty sure Sony quite thoroughly proved that putting an optical drive in a handheld is a bad idea.

While it would be nice to get some Wii U games on the handheld, I'm not really expecting that to happen until the handheld after the next one at least. I'd be pretty impressed of they managed to get any significant number of Wii U games running on the first NX handheld.

I mean on either the handheld or console version. Has there been any determination that about which version will release first?

 

[Neff]

Exactly, Nintendo got themselves into this mess. Third parties aren't just gonna welcome Nintendo back with open arms, they have a long road to recovery before third parties will even consider to look their way. And judging by how long Nintendo has given them the cold shoulder, it's gonna take at least a decade to repair the damage Nintendo has done to their third party relations.

It's not 1995. The purported third party rift exists in the console space simply because it's much harder to sell a game on Nintendo if it's also selling on Playstation or Xbox, due to either smaller install bases, lesser performance due to different/weaker architecture, or in Wii U's case, a combination of the two.

If Nintendo could overcome these obstacles, they'd have third party content on consoles. 3DS and DS after all have enjoyed a ton of 3rd party titles due to these issues being largely redundant. Third parties are refusing to play ball because it's financially illogical to do so, not because of any decades-old grudge.

If there's money to be made on Nintendo, then by god you can guarantee that publishers will be falling over themselves to do it.

 

[StevieP]

It's not 1995. The purported third party rift exists in the console space simply because it's much harder to sell a game on Nintendo if it's also selling on Playstation or Xbox, due to either smaller install bases, lesser performance due to different/weaker architecture, or in Wii U's case, a combination of the two.

If Nintendo could overcome these obstacles, they'd have third party content on consoles. 3DS and DS after all have enjoyed a ton of 3rd party titles due to these issues being largely redundant. Third parties are refusing to play ball because it's financially illogical to do so, not because of any decades-old grudge.

If there's money to be made on Nintendo, then by god you can guarantee that publishers will be falling over themselves to do it.

You forgot the actual reasons: demographics differences and return on investment. But we've had this discussion already.

 

[Terrell]

You forgot the actual reasons: demographics differences and return on investment. But we've had this discussion already.

I don't recall a discussion. I recall you bringing it up, me offering a rebuttal and nothing came of it. So if you disagreed with any of what I said, you certainly didn't make yourself heard. Not exactly what I'd call a "discussion", but rather a dictation with no further discourse.

 

[Clefargle]

So full BC through emulation won't be feasible/cost effective until after NX?

 

[Neoxon]

It's not 1995. The purported third party rift exists in the console space simply because it's much harder to sell a game on Nintendo if it's also selling on Playstation or Xbox, due to either smaller install bases, lesser performance due to different/weaker architecture, or in Wii U's case, a combination of the two.

If Nintendo could overcome these obstacles, they'd have third party content on consoles. 3DS and DS after all have enjoyed a ton of 3rd party titles due to these issues being largely redundant. Third parties are refusing to play ball because it's financially illogical to do so, not because of any decades-old grudge.

If there's money to be made on Nintendo, then by god you can guarantee that publishers will be falling over themselves to do it.

But there's also another obstacle that Nintendo must overcome, the lack of an audience for said games. Nintendo has previously tried & failed to cultivate such an audience (see Bayonetta 2). While granted, it could have been because of the Wii U's low sales, but the point still stands. Nintendo has a long way to go until they gain the audience that third parties are looking for in a potential platform that they can support.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

So full BC through emulation won't be feasible/cost effective until after NX?

Handheld emulation and BC (for DS/3DS) is doable. NES/SNES/N64 Emulation is doable. GC/Wii/WiiU is probably a no-go.

Ports would be a better way to go for the real gems of those 3 consoles. If they really wanted to make VC GC/Wii, they could probably pack in a Broadway/Hollywood on a chip for fairly cheap. I don't think WiiU is likely at all.

 

[Neff]

You forgot the actual reasons: demographics differences and return on investment. But we've had this discussion already.

I alluded to the former and fully acknowledged the latter. I still maintain that if Nintendo were ever to put out a console with a healthy install base and competitive hardware, these issues would evaporate, save for exclusive coups. Of course, Nintendo would have to actually want to do that for it to happen, which is another matter entirely. After being a passionate gamer for 30 years, I've learned that demographics aren't by any means set in stone. People go where the products are.

The idea that big, enterprising publishers lack marketing resources and reasoning beyond "It's Nintendo- it's not going to sell", or that they're still sore over '80s/'90s cartridge production markups is a work of internet fiction. They have good reasons for not participating on Nintendo in 2015, but kneejerk reactions and emotions almost certainly aren't among them.

But there's also another obstacle that Nintendo must overcome, the lack of an audience for said games. Nintendo has previously tried & failed to cultivate such an audience (see Bayonetta 2). While granted, it could have been because of the Wii U's low sales, but the point still stands. Nintendo has a long way to go until they gain the audience that third parties are looking for in a potential platform that they can support.

I don't know how much Bayonetta 2 sold, and only being available on Wii U probably didn't help it any, but you'll remember that the original Bayonetta was far from a huge hit despite the shared PS3/360 install base several times larger, with much stronger advertising.

Sadly we have no idea as to how well the average well-advertised game would fare on a Nintendo platform, if the option of purchasing an identical title across Sony/MS/Nintendo, with no disproportionate install base advantage, was possible. Because it's never happened. But I'd wager that it wouldn't be the whitewash some are claiming.

 

[Sakujou]

this basically means, the new processor wont be super powerful.

i dont care as long as nintendos new system/s (i still believe they will release more than one system) will last a couple of years with tons of good RETAIL games(with not too many DLCs).

 

[Grampa Simpson]

this basically means, the new processor wont be super powerful.

i dont care as long as nintendos new system/s (i still believe they will release more than one system) will last a couple of years with tons of good RETAIL games(with not too many DLCs).

This is probably a lateral move for the Console, or a little better, but a clean slate. This is almost certainly an upwards move for the Handheld.

 

[Neoxon]

this basically means, the new processor wont be super powerful.

i dont care as long as nintendos new system/s (i still believe they will release more than one system) will last a couple of years with tons of good RETAIL games(with not too many DLCs).

With the success of the DLC for Mario Kart 8, Smash 4, & Hyrule Warriors, you may be a bit disappointed.

 

[Sakujou]

With the success of the DLC for Mario Kart 8, Smash 4, & Hyrule Warriors, you may be a bit disappointed.

as much as i love the dlc of roy(best character in smash)
it still sucks.

have a look at mh4:u they add DLC for free.

iam still a person thinking that a game can be played for years without the need of dlc.
also dlc makes it somehow... that the vanilla game was not really finished. i know sakurai told us all, despite that it feels bad, it you revisit games seeing a mess of change logs/missing dlcs not being able to load that stuff eventually.

i wonder how nintendo will come up with this kind of stuff in the future.

i hope, its going to be as easy as APPLE/Steam/PSN but i doubt it.

 

[Pokemaniac]

I mean on either the handheld or console version. Has there been any determination that about which version will release first?

Sorry, the post you were responding to was about the possibility of Wii U BC on the handheld, so I thought that you were only talking about that. Personally, I think that the console will probably have full Wii U BC.

As for release ordering, there are a few theories, but nothing that I'd call definititive yet. I personally am partial to the Spring/Summer 2016 handheld release, Holiday 2016 console release theory, but I don't have any really strong evidence for it.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

Is there any specific reasoning people are referring to the NX as both a console and a handheld?

I mean, obviously Nintendo is working on new iterations of both lines (unless it really is a single unified device), but they've only spoken about the NX in the singular so far as far as I know.

 

[sörine]

Is there any specific reasoning people are referring to the NX as both a console and a handheld?

I mean, obviously Nintendo is working on new iterations for both (unless it really is a single unified device), but they've only spoken about it in the singular so far, as far as I know.

The big idea is that the NX platform is the OS itself (a la Android/iOS) and differing devices simply run it. We may see more hardware configurations than just a console and handhelds too.

 

[Neoxon]

Is there any specific reasoning people are referring to the NX as both a console and a handheld?

I mean, obviously Nintendo is working on new iterations of both lines (unless it really is a single unified device), but they've only spoken about the NX in the singular so far as far as I know.

Because Nintendo's statements (including Iwata making a difference between "platform" & "console") is pointing towards the NX being a family of systems, with both console & handheld form factors. They'd share the same architecture, the same OS, & most of their games.

 

[Scum]

Is there any specific reasoning people are referring to the NX as both a console and a handheld?

I mean, obviously Nintendo is working on new iterations of both lines (unless it really is a single unified device), but they've only spoken about the NX in the singular so far as far as I know.

Project NX is NintendOS. Believe!

 

[Neoxon]

as much as i love the dlc of roy(best character in smash)
it still sucks.

have a look at mh4:u they add DLC for free.

iam still a person thinking that a game can be played for years without the need of dlc.
also dlc makes it somehow... that the vanilla game was not really finished. i know sakurai told us all, despite that it feels bad, it you revisit games seeing a mess of change logs/missing dlcs not being able to load that stuff eventually.

i wonder how nintendo will come up with this kind of stuff in the future.

i hope, its going to be as easy as APPLE/Steam/PSN but i doubt it.

The only real things about Smash 4 that weren't complete was the lack of a Tourney Mode, a YouTube Uploader, & Sharing Options. The first two are coming this August (for sure Tourney Mode, not sure about the YouTube Uploader), & the Sharing Options are out now. Other than that, Smash 4 is a complete package. DLC will be the new norm for the likes of Mario Kart & Smash, best if you just accept it now. Perhaps they can adopt Street Fighter V's method of DLC distribution & you can earn points in-game so you can get character for free.

 

[AmyS]

Nintendo went though quite a process to come up with partners for what would become GameCube.

Ultimately though:

+