Support NeoGAF

[Branduil]

If Nintendo launches Wii2 next year, they can easily make a console which blows away the PS3 and 360 on a technical level while not breaking the bank. I think this is likely their strategy right now. Sure, in a couple years Sony and MS can release even more powerful consoles, but if Nintendo already has sold millions of Wii2s at that point it won't matter.

 

[The Technomancer]

Here's the problem: does Nintendo want a console that can blow away the PS360 visually? While it might be great for the consumers in the short term, let us not forget that one of the huge problems in the industry currently is the enormous budgets and teams required to make games on the HD twins.

 

[Zzoram]

Here's the problem: does Nintendo want a console that can blow away the PS360 visually? While it might be great for the consumers in the short term, let us not forget that one of the huge problems in the industry currently is the enormous budgets and teams required to make games on the HD twins.

Ya that. Nintendo's plan is to make low cost hardware so they can profit on it from Day 1, but also so developers will be enticed to develop for it and consumers can afford it.

 

[gerg]

Here's the problem: does Nintendo want a console that can blow away the PS360 visually? While it might be great for the consumers in the short term, let us not forget that one of the huge problems in the industry currently is the enormous budgets and teams required to make games on the HD twins.

I don't think we're going to see something that is, say, twice the power of the PS3 or the 360, no.

But I have no doubt that Nintendo will create a system which is technologically comparable. Boosting graphics significantly next generation will be the last thing on Microsoft's and Sony's mind, imo.

 

[charlequin]

Looking at the game lineup, it looks obvious that Nintendo was planning a "Super generation" all along, then saw a prototype parallax barrier display and decided to throw it in for a brilliant marketing story.

Oh, just noticed this. I disagree, but I don't think it takes away from your point. I think Nintendo went with this effect from very early on specifically because it was a good complement to a "Super" generation -- it adds a new and unique hook that is nonetheless only about visual refinement rather than a revolution of gameplay.

op's theory is destroyed by two simple facts:

1. this is a capitalist society; businesses exist to make money
2. the "core gamer" demographic simply does not have the buying power of the "casual market". the numbers simply do not equate (i.e. - 10 casuals buy 5 games in one year, 1 core buys 50/year).

One again I point to the pyramid. (Chittagong, you should edit a pyramid into your OP on account of how clever I am with this analogy.)

Right now, Nintendo relies on (metaphorically) 100 people who buy 1 game a year while Sony and Microsoft are splitting 2 people who buy like 40 games a year each. Meanwhile there are like 48 people in the middle who sometimes buy Nintendo games, sometimes buy Sony/MS games, but mostly are feeling a bit underserved and making threads complaining about it on GAF or taking up flyfishing or something.

Nintendo's strategy is to grab some significant portion (let's say 30) of those people and get them to buy tons of Nintendo games, while keeping those bottom 100. If you add 30 people who buy 5 games a year each to 100 people who buy 1 a year, you've now hugely improved your position in the market.

 

[Kai Dracon]

op's theory is destroyed by two simple facts:

1. this is a capitalist society; businesses exist to make money
2. the "core gamer" demographic simply does not have the buying power of the "casual market". the numbers simply do not equate (i.e. - 10 casuals buy 5 games in one year, 1 core buys 50/year).

nintendo, like most companies, is not interested in satisfying "the core" market alone. what they are interested in is making a lot of money. to pretend otherwise is laughable.

Servicing the core or hardcore customer is not pointless because they're reliable customers. Games that are open to a wide audience sell... widely. Like Wii Sports. But games focused on the enthusiast can sell deeply - every enthusiast can be guaranteed to buy a copy, and it's a safe investment. Also, keeping your customers happy with a positive image, showing that you care about them, is another strategy for profit in the long run. By satisfying the core, Nintendo creates lifelong fans. They can always fall back on a healthy core, if they've cultivated it correctly.

The problem is that too much playing it safe in turn fails to expand the market or bring in a new generation, so the core begins to shrink and die out, becoming bored.

Nintendo's whole premise, to phrase it in different terms, is to try and figure out how to keep creating more core - or if you prefer enthusiast - gamers so there's always a new generation of reliable customers. Finding new markets, exposing the "masses" to games to get them into it, and making bridge games are a ways to accomplish this.

It's not always as simple as just "make the most popular product then watch teh money roll in". That's precisely what the other guys have been failing at by trying to copy the Wii's success with their quick cash in games for "dem stupid casualz". It's /not/ easy to just make a trendy product that "the bigger audience" will buy. The bigger audience is a tougher sell. They're not enthusiasts. They have to be convinced to waste time and money with your product.

But it's necessary to court both demographics - that's not being uninterested in making money. Nintendo is a business, but they're a company interested in sustainable business. Not just for a five year hardware cycle, but /forever/. Because unlike Microsoft and Sony, all Nintendo HAS is the game market. That's all they do. If the game market goes sour, Nintendo is screwed. It shouldn't surprise /anyone/ that they're damned good at dominating it when they have the slightest opening to attack.

 

[The Technomancer]

I don't think we're going to see something that is, say, twice the power of the PS3 or the 360, no.

But I have no doubt that Nintendo will create a system which is technologically comparable. Boosting graphics significantly next generation will be the last thing on Microsoft's and Sony's mind, imo.

Yes, but games produced for the current generation are putting studios out of business because they can't recoup their massive budgets. Will an even more powerful system be any different?

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

op's theory is destroyed by two simple facts:

1. this is a capitalist society; businesses exist to make money
2. the "core gamer" demographic simply does not have the buying power of the "casual market". the numbers simply do not equate (i.e. - 10 casuals buy 5 games in one year, 1 core buys 50/year).

nintendo, like most companies, is not interested in satisfying "the core" market alone. what they are interested in is making a lot of money. to pretend otherwise is laughable.

I agree with the OP, and was thinking much the same myself. To discuss your specific two points;

The reason why the 'casual market' (hate that term) has an increased purchasing power in this generation is because the vast majority of games companies are iterators and not innovators, and this leads to increased homogenity within the market, meaning the number of total 'gamers' is reduced as their interests are not met.

Nintendo are specifically gaming innovators, because this allows them to make the most money with the minimum risk; selling games on a unique and untested mechanic that rely on that mechanic and not on expensive to produce assets such as models / licenced soundtracks / voice overs etc. This is also why Mario appears in so many titles that have absolutely nothing to do with the 'real' mario games (Mario Tennis, Mario Party, Mario Kart) etc - they have a recognisable IP that they can leverage for initial interest, and a bunch of stock assets (the standard Mario [x] crew of DK, Yoshi, Luigi etc) they can quickly implement onto an experimental game.

If the new 'genre type' is successful, then Nintendo can reap a lot of financial reward from it, and can usually get a couple of sequels in before the 'bigger boys' jump in with more expensive variants of the game - when this starts happening Nintendo have usually jumped ship to something else. Very few Nintendo franchises are still around as 'best of genre' examples - pretty much just 'real' Mario games and the Zelda series, where nobody else has yet managed to outdo them on both gameplay and production values.

The reason why the 'core' demographic is inevitably shrinking, is because when a genre has matured, it has iterated enough so that certain things are 'always expected' within that genre to be successful; if you think of FPSs, regenrating health is now a de facto standard, and the amount of money invested by a big name publisher into a 'best of genre' game to compete with the other 'big boys' means risk taking is usually avoided.

The downside of that however, is that consumers increasingly become turned away as the 'de facto standards' don't necessarily directly appeal to them - or that they become bored of the same mechanics across multiple examples of a genre. If you really love FPSes, but you cannot stand regenrating health, then there are fewer and fewer FPSes that are available that you will actually like. Eventually you will just give up gaming, because the genres you love become more and more niche to satisfy the unspoken 'de facto standards'.

It is incredibly telling that much of the Wiis success is not built on 'waggle casual games' as the popular opinion has it, but on 'lapsed core gamer' titles such as Mario Kart or New Super Mario Bros Wii. These aren't games that are designed to appeal specifically to people who've never played games before, they are designed to appeal to people who probably gave up gaming a while ago because they no longer had titles that appealed to them being released.

New Super Mario Bros Wii in particular is almost certainly reaping the rewards of 'lapsed gamers' that stopped gaming when the 3D generations began, as fewer and fewer 2D titles were released - in the SNES days 2D platform games were incredibly popular and I don't think it is a huge leap of logic to deduce that people who really loved 2D platformers were not well served by the generational leap to 3D.

 

[gerg]

Yes, but games produced for the current generation are putting studios out of business because they can't recoup their massive budgets. Will an even more powerful system be any different?

Of course, development costs won't go down, but hopefully, if Nintendo can give developers a wide-enough userbase, the market will be more lenient regarding success and some of the pressure that developers face today will be mitigated.

 

[schuelma]

I generally agree completely with the OP and points by charlequin, etc.

I do have 2 questions/issues that other people have brought up that seem to be potential barriers:

1- Does Nintendo even have 1st party studios that can make Wii2 games right now? Looking at the 3DS lineup, they seem awfully busy..


2- Unlike the DS, the Wii was never dominant hardware and software wise in Japan. Nintendo IMO isn't going to be able to count on 3rd parties just automatically wanting to jump on board like with the 3DS. Can/should Nintendo be more active in courting 3rd party developers, especially in Japan? I think this is a pretty big key to the whole strategy. Without the type of commitment the 3DS seems to have gotten, I am skeptical Nintendo can accomplish what they want to with the Wii successor.

interested in everyone's thoughts..

 

[charlequin]

Yes, but games produced for the current generation are putting studios out of business because they can't recoup their massive budgets. Will an even more powerful system be any different?

A system displaying the same resolutions, with the same shader technologies, as PS360, but with a RAM and clockspeed boost could produce more visually attractive games without any significant added costs -- that would basically just let devs include more of the PC version functionality compared to current systems.

The key thing is that dev costs for a given target on a given system actually go down over time -- engines can be reused, asset pipelines become mature, new middleware solutions save people time and money, etc. The issue is that this particular decline is dramatically slower than the increase associated with new hardware generations. Hypothetically, if you can keep people targeting the same basic underlying hardware for long enough, dev costs would actually start to go down eventually as technological productivity boosts kicked in.

1- Does Nintendo even have 1st party studios that can make Wii2 games right now?

My impression is that even with all the 3DS software, Nintendo still has a ton of teams unaccounted for -- and they can always expand.

Can/should Nintendo be more active in courting 3rd party developers, especially in Japan?

I would actually say "especially in the West." This is the part of this strategy I don't think Nintendo could actually pull off, but a system that's quantitatively better but qualitatively more or less the same "target" as PS360 could hypothetically draw in Western developers who suddenly can make dudebro shooters with better AA and framerate on it.

(I think key to this even being conceivable is 3DS blowing up like Robert DeNiro and being so wildly profitable for everyone that Nintendo can use it as a key part of a carrot-and-stick strategy in earning more console development.)

 

[The Technomancer]

But it's necessary to court both demographics - that's not being uninterested in making money. Nintendo is a business, but they're a company interested in sustainable business. Not just for a five year hardware cycle, but /forever/. Because unlike Microsoft and Sony, all Nintendo HAS is the game market. That's all they do. If the game market goes sour, Nintendo is screwed. It shouldn't surprise /anyone/ that they're damned good at dominating it when they have the slightest opening to attack.

This is incredibly telling in how Nintendo approaches games as well, both in terms of accessibility and scope. Like I said on the last page, because all Nintendo has is games, they're trying, with products like Wii Fit and Wii Party to make gaming an important part of peoples entertainment, possibly the most important. They want family's sitting down after dinner for a round of Wii Bowling, or a level of NSMB, or any of their other many games that focus on "living room social gaming" (as opposed to online gaming)

If they achieve that, then that's their masterstroke. If they can make their games the de facto passtime for family entertainment, then Nintendo has won once and for all.

 

[Vinci]

New Super Mario Bros Wii in particular is almost certainly reaping the rewards of 'lapsed gamers' that stopped gaming when the 3D generations began, as fewer and fewer 2D titles were released - in the SNES days 2D platform games were incredibly popular and I don't think it is a huge leap of logic to deduce that people who really loved 2D platformers were not well served by the generational leap to 3D.

I never became a lapsed gamer. My tastes were broad enough due to my background in PC gaming as well as console gaming that I never dropped gaming entirely, but... the shift to 3D was devastating to some of my favorite franchises. At least initially. Nintendo and others have found ways to make 3D gaming fun, but it still pales in comparison for me to the 2D era.

I'm thrilled to see more platformers and 2D-style games being made now.

 

[gerg]

1- Does Nintendo even have 1st party studios that can make Wii2 games right now? Looking at the 3DS lineup, they seem awfully busy...

Doesn't Shikamaru Ninja keep a record of what Nintendo's internal studios are up to?

In any case, someone said that EAD is being surprisingly quiet at the moment. And, were the Wii2 to launch next year, it might be possible that Wii Relax has been turned into a launch title.

2- Unlike the DS, the Wii was never dominant hardware and software wise in Japan. Nintendo IMO isn't going to be able to count on 3rd parties just automatically wanting to jump on board like with the 3DS. Can/should Nintendo be more active in courting 3rd party developers, especially in Japan? I think this is a pretty big key to the whole strategy. Without the type of commitment the 3DS seems to have gotten, I am skeptical Nintendo can accomplish what they want to with the Wii successor.

If Nintendo were serious about launching a new console late next year (or early in 2012) they would definitely need to be serious about proactively garnering third-party support. I do wonder about just how much Iwata did regarding third-party support for the DS, so I think we're just going to have to wait and see if he's going (to want) to do enough for the Wii2.

 

[leroy hacker]

1- Does Nintendo even have 1st party studios that can make Wii2 games right now? Looking at the 3DS lineup, they seem awfully busy..

EAD Tokyo should be available now that Galaxy 2 is done.

 

[WillyFive]

The OP presents a very good point.

That is definitely one believable way it could pan out.

 

[Vinci]

Doesn't Shikamaru Ninja keep a record of what Nintendo's internal studios are up to?

In any case, someone said that EAD is being surprisingly quiet at the moment. And, were the Wii2 to launch next year, it might be possible that Wii Relax has been turned into a launch title.

I would not be the least bit surprised by this actually. I have a feeling that Nintendo knew the moment the 3DS was announced, any remaining support for the Wii would disappear; the system would be on life support. So yeah, why waste something you think has great potential in expanding the audience when you can use it as a strong sales point for the next console, given it's only about a year or two away?

If Nintendo were serious about launching a new console late next year (or early in 2012) they would definitely need to be serious about proactively garnering third-party support. I do wonder about just how much Iwata did regarding third-party support for the DS, so I think we're just going to have to wait and see if he's going (to want) to do enough for the Wii2.

He's going to have to pay folks. Money will have to exchange hands. Nintendo will need to handle the marketing for 3rd parties. Go above and beyond. Otherwise, I don't see MS and Sony losing their grip on 3rd parties. Not in the console arena.

 

[gerg]

He's going to have to pay folks. Money will have to exchange hands. Nintendo will need to handle the marketing for 3rd parties. Go above and beyond. Otherwise, I don't see MS and Sony losing their grip on 3rd parties. Not in the console arena.

Based on what charlequin has said about lowering development costs, could we conceivably see the console exclusive return in some fashion?

 

[schuelma]

I would not be the least bit surprised by this actually. I have a feeling that Nintendo knew the moment the 3DS was announced, any remaining support for the Wii would disappear; the system would be on life support. So yeah, why waste something you think has great potential in expanding the audience when you can use it as a strong sales point for the next console, given it's only about a year or two away?


.

Agreed completely. 3DS just hastens the need for a hardware update.

He's going to have to pay folks. Money will have to exchange hands. Nintendo will need to handle the marketing for 3rd parties. Go above and beyond. Otherwise, I don't see MS and Sony losing their grip on 3rd parties. Not in the console arena.

Yeah leaning that way as well. Especially with Western devs, but I think he'll have to be aggressive in Japan as well. I also like charlequin's theory of the 3DS giving Nintendo more leverage.

Will certainly be interesting.

 

[Vinci]

Based on what charlequin has said about lowering development costs, could we conceivably see the console exclusive return in some fashion?

I think that's certainly what Nintendo wants, and they may have actually gotten it this time around had the setting for this generation not been so antagonistic to their goals. Also, if they had properly leveraged their influence on Japanese 3rd parties. The Western ones are fucking hopeless for Nintendo; they can't get them till either Sony or MS drops out of the race, but the Japanese should have been an easier sell than Nintendo made it out to be.

 

[onipex]

Based on what charlequin has said about lowering development costs, could we conceivably see the console exclusive return in some fashion?

When did it leave?

 

[gerg]

I think that's certainly what Nintendo wants, and they may have actually gotten it this time around had the setting for this generation not been so antagonistic to their goals. Also, if they had properly leveraged their influence on Japanese 3rd parties. The Western ones are fucking hopeless for Nintendo; they can't get them till either Sony or MS drops out of the race, but the Japanese should have been an easier sell than Nintendo made it out to be.

Provided the Wii2 is graphically competitive, and has a decent online infrastructure, I really don't think getting Western third-party support would be amazingly difficult, especially if Nintendo can leverage any 3DS success to leverage Japanese Wii2 support to gain it.

I mean, of course it would require Nintendo exert some effort in doing so, but it wouldn't be prohibitively expensive like it would have been this generation.

When did it leave?

There are substantially less exclusive console games being released this generation than in past generations. I think the question stands.

Edit: In regards to the next console generation more generally, I asked this question in the thread about the 360's sales "stalling" but no one seemed to reply: is there a currently un-patented way for Microsoft to implement motion conrols a la the Wii Remote? Could it do something similar to Move, but with multiple LEDs instead of a large glowing ball?

 

[Vinci]

Provided Nintendo is graphically competitive, and has a decent online infrastructure, I really don't think getting Western third-party support would be amazingly difficult, especially if Nintendo can leverage any 3DS success to leverage Japanese Wii2 support to gain it.

This is where my perspective on things, admittedly, breaks down. For one thing, I'm sure Nintendo will release a console that is graphically competitive and has a decent online infrastructure. I simply feel that Microsoft skews the environment too much with their presence. Not only will it have an online that is overwhelmingly better (it's their strength, after all), but they have a willingness to throw money away in this contest - in a way that Nintendo would never, ever consider doing. So yeah, I believe if it came down to it - again, I feel that either Sony or MS would have to leave the console space - and MS was directly competing against Nintendo, MS would push out enough money to keep Nintendo's console from garnering all the support it would otherwise.

I just cannot picture a day in which MS and Nintendo get what they want while the other is around.

 

[Zachack]

Edit: In regards to the next console generation more generally, I asked this question in the thread about the 360's sales "stalling" but no one seemed to reply: is there a currently un-patented way for Microsoft to implement motion conrols a la the Wii Remote? Could it do something similar to Move, but with multiple LEDs instead of a large glowing ball?

I assume you mean pointer controls, not motion controls, and it comes down to how broad patents are and what patents each company has for defensive use. I'm not exactly sure how Kinect works, but I'm guessing MS could create a controlling device of some sort that indicated direction and angle towards the screen based on two Kinect-camera-only points on the controller.

Yeah leaning that way as well. Especially with Western devs, but I think he'll have to be aggressive in Japan as well. I also like charlequin's theory of the 3DS giving Nintendo more leverage.

The GBA was supposed to give Nintendo leverage for the GC and look how that panned out. Strong-arming publishers is partly what put Nintendo in the position they were prior to the Wii.

 

[schuelma]

The GBA was supposed to give Nintendo leverage for the GC and look how that panned out. Strong-arming publishers is partly what put Nintendo in the position they were prior to the Wii.

I didn't mean strong arm, I meant being able to show 3rd parties "look, your games can succeed on our platforms if you are on board day 1. Now what can you give us for the Wii 2"

And I'm guessing the 3DS is going to have a lot more impact than the GBA, honestly.

 

[Zachack]

I didn't mean strong arm, I meant being able to show 3rd parties "look, your games can succeed on our platforms if you are on board day 1. Now what can you give us for the Wii 2"

Again, how is that different than the GBA-GC? Nintendo handhelds have always been decent money makers for 3rd parties. If the current landscape is any indicator, a super-successful 3DS would simply get more 3rd parties to only develop for the 3DS (and port the hell out of everything to iPhone/Android).

And I'm guessing the 3DS is going to have a lot more impact than the GBA, honestly.

Based on what? The GBA was huge, and was released more than a decade after the original GB.

 

[schuelma]

Again, how is that different than the GBA-GC? Nintendo handhelds have always been decent money makers for 3rd parties. If the current landscape is any indicator, a super-successful 3DS would simply get more 3rd parties to only develop for the 3DS (and port the hell out of everything to iPhone/Android).

Based on what? The GBA was huge, and was released more than a decade after the original GB.

I mean in terms of capturing mindshare and market share that portables have never been able to capture. And I'm coming at this largely from a Japanese perspective, where the DS and now the 3DS is fully out of the portable ghetto.

 

[gerg]

Again, how is that different than the GBA-GC? Nintendo handhelds have always been decent money makers for 3rd parties. If the current landscape is any indicator, a super-successful 3DS would simply get more 3rd parties to only develop for the 3DS (and port the hell out of everything to iPhone/Android).

You're ignoring the difference in the type of games released for both the DS and the GBA and those announced for the 3DS.

 

[stuminus3]

You're ignoring the difference in the type of games released for both the DS and the GBA and those announced for the 3DS.

This is very important. If first impressions can be sustained, the 3DS might finally be the Nintendo system where third parties do what Nintendon't.

This has always been Nintendo's problem. It's not with getting third parties on board. It's getting third parties on board to do the things that Nintendo will not do. Shamefully, they all just try to copy them, and wonder why they fail.

 

[Zachack]

I mean in terms of capturing mindshare and market share that portables have never been able to capture. And I'm coming at this largely from a Japanese perspective, where the DS and now the 3DS is fully out of the portable ghetto.

Ok but that does nothing for western devs.

You're ignoring the difference in the type of games released for both the DS and the GBA and those announced for the 3DS.

I see PSP-style games being announced for the 3DS aka the kind of games that are often decried as the "wrong type of game for portables" by people who militantly defend Nintendo.

That said, the difference is the same as it was between the GB (launched with Tetris), the GBA (launched with SNES F-Zero), and the DS (launched with a FPS demo). I'll certainly agree that the 3DS is attacking the PSP in Japan, though.

This has always been Nintendo's problem. It's not with getting third parties on board. It's getting third parties on board to do the things that Nintendo will not do. Shamefully, they all just try to copy them, and wonder why they fail.

And now we're making up history.

 

[gerg]

I see PSP-style games being announced for the 3DS aka the kind of games that are often decried as the "wrong type of game for portables" by people who militantly defend Nintendo.

Well, I'm not one of those people, so...

The point is that if Nintendo can get developers to make more of the types of games they make for consoles for a handheld, hopefully it can try and repeat that success on the 3DS with the Wii2. In any case, the problem is most prevalent with Western third-parties, and it still remains to be seen how well Nintendo can encourage Western developers to releases FPSs for the DS2.

 

[JavyOO7]

I think with the idea of 3D I don't think that Nintendo thought it up last year and was like "eureka!". According to them they've been working on implementing 3D in some fashion and waited until now because it was more reasonable to what they wanted to do.

I don't think the hardcore gamer is a blue ocean market either right now... in fact, I think it'll never be. These folk are always expecting more and more and more (look at the thread about consoles coming in years later). I think you can never satiate their appetite. Yeah, focus on the hardcore by throwing them games that they'll like... but they should never be the focus. The focus should be on all markets not just one...

I believe Nintendo's strategy will be more refined as the generation goes. I guess that so the hardcore gamer doesn't go completely loco or anything Nintendo will keep a keen eye on them but yet Nintendo will also have its sights on other markets.

That being said, I don't want Nintendo to release Wii 2 yet. I still think there are plenty of ideas to use when it comes to the controller... but this reminds me of 2004 where you can tell Nintendo was knee deep in DS development and forgot about the Cube. So I think Wii 2 will come next fall. Meh. Too soon. =/

 

[marc^o^]

3DS blurs the line between high tech experience and portable attractiveness.
It offers every kinds of controls and is supported by the best franchises in every genres.

I predict gamers will spend more money on it than on any other console, starting next year.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I see PSP-style games being announced for the 3DS aka the kind of games that are often decried as the "wrong type of game for portables" by people who militantly defend Nintendo.

...where do you see these games?

I don't see any games released yet. I don't see any games shown yet.

The titles people talk about that are "wrong for portables" A) exist and B) are designated so because they are usually console ports that are undeniably structurally unsound for portables (Prince of Persia: Two Thrones comes immediately to mind). That you lead your finger of judgment over some tech demos and announced titles as "exactly the same" in order to expose a swath of hypocrisy that only you are smart enough to see, maybe you should realize that "wrong type of game for portables" is more about the execution of the game and not the mere existence of the genre.

Or continue being stupid, what the hell do I care.

 

[truly101]

The Wii 3rd party support has been an abomination from the start, so what you just said is patently untrue. Yes, it's had some titles that were good from 3rd parties - but lets not blow these scant offerings out of proportion. It's the market leader. It's had shit support.

Even the DS's support has been... scattered.

The 3DS's possible launch lineup could very well show 3rd parties aren't quite so anti-Nintendo as people assumed, but lets not rewrite recent history here.

You missed the point, I said that the Wii has a bunch of 3rd party titles, I even offered the disclaimer that many of them did not sell well or were not very good, but 3rd parties do support the system, unlike the N64 or GC to a lesser extent. I'm not talking about which had the better library in terms of quality, I'm talking about who is publishing games for the system. I see tons of 3rd party games whenever I'm in the games section of Wal-Mart or Best Buy, some is good, a bunch of it is shit. But its not like 3rd parties have abandoned the system, that utter bullshit.

To say that the DS library is scattered in terms of 3rd party support is fucking laughable. The DS has a fucking awesome line up and a lot of it is 3rd party.

 

[Zachack]

...where do you see these games?

I don't see any games released yet. I don't see any games shown yet.

Are there not screenshots of games like Metal Gear and Resident Evil which appear highly similar to PSP games or, alternatively, improved versions of iPhone games? The current discussion is about how the 3DS is somehow uniquely different than the DS, GBA, and GB in terms of giving Nintendo leverage over 3rd parties with a Wii2, due to 3rd parties preference for certain types of games. Games which happen to be more prevalent on the PSP.

But you're right, maybe the Metal Gear game will be another AC!D card game. This is a complete speculation thread so maybe the RE game will be a X-Com/Tapping of the Dead hybrid.

The titles people talk about that are "wrong for portables" A) exist and B) are designated so because they are usually console ports that are undeniably structurally unsound for portables (Prince of Persia: Two Thrones comes immediately to mind). That you lead your finger of judgment over some tech demos and announced titles as "exactly the same" in order to expose a swath of hypocrisy that only you are smart enough to see, maybe you should realize that "wrong type of game for portables" is more about the execution of the game and not the mere existence of the genre.

Or continue being stupid, what the hell do I care.

I think you need to go outside and get some fresh air because you're getting really worked up and creepily defensive.

And there's nothing wrong with a game like Two Thrones on PSP. There's nothing wrong with any kind of game on a portable device provided the device has a suspend mode. The only time a game is "wrong" for a device is if the controls are clearly unsuited to the task (like some iPhone games) or when a game is on a console in competition to a fanboy's preferred console, which is what you're doing right now.

 

[Supervlieg]

yes, maybe no

 

[inner-G]

I really think we're gonna see the next Wii @ TGS.

 

[schuelma]

or when a game is on a console in competition to a fanboy's preferred console, which is what you're doing right now.

Ok yeah. I'm not interested in a discussion with someone trying to shoehorn some vague hypocrisy claim which has little to nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

It is my opinion that the 3DS is in a unique position for a portable and is going to get better 3rd party support than any portable system yet, which could have positive consequences for the Wii successor in terms of getting 3rd parties in board. I don't really understand your argument against that, but hey, knock yourself out with your "lol fanboys" crap.

 

[Vinci]

You missed the point, I said that the Wii has a bunch of 3rd party titles, I even offered the disclaimer that many of them did not sell well or were not very good, but 3rd parties do support the system, unlike the N64 or GC to a lesser extent. I'm not talking about which had the better library in terms of quality, I'm talking about who is publishing games for the system. I see tons of 3rd party games whenever I'm in the games section of Wal-Mart or Best Buy, some is good, a bunch of it is shit. But its not like 3rd parties have abandoned the system, that utter bullshit.

Putting out worthless shit on the system thru its first 18 months is anything but actual 'support.' To support is to help something, not drown it in feces so high that virtually everyone suffers from asthma walking through the Wii section in a store.

To say that the DS library is scattered in terms of 3rd party support is fucking laughable. The DS has a fucking awesome line up and a lot of it is 3rd party.

Yes, the DS library is scattered. It is very strong in certain genres, very weak in others; it has very good Japanese support but very little Western support.

This is scattered.

 

[schuelma]

Yes, the DS library is scattered. It is very strong in certain genres, very weak in others; it has very good Japanese support but very little Western support.

This is scattered.

Yes, and even the Japanese support is largely relegated to RPG's.

 

[charlequin]

Are there not screenshots of games like Metal Gear and Resident Evil which appear highly similar to PSP games or, alternatively, improved versions of iPhone games?

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that Metal Gear and Resident Evil were games badly suited to handhelds. In fact, Metal Gear especially I would say is quite well-suited to portable play and has done unusually well as a conversion.

In terms of what's wrong with Sony's PSP strategy in these terms, it's much less that putting console games on handhelds is a bad idea, it's that early on their strategy, and that of many third parties, was to put games that were in every way like console games only objectively worse on the system, and not mix them up with any that were particularly well-suited to handhelds.

The current discussion is about how the 3DS is somehow uniquely different than the DS, GBA, and GB in terms of giving Nintendo leverage over 3rd parties with a Wii2, due to 3rd parties preference for certain types of games.

The 3DS just has more leverage because a) the DS was the most successful system ever and b) it has no meaningful competition in the handheld market now.

 

[RiskyChris]

I really think we're gonna see the next Wii @ TGS.

I don't think we'll see the new Wii before 3DS is released, personally. I wouldn't be shocked to see Wii2 at E3 next year, however.

 

[DrGAKMAN]

There are no core or casual markets...those are just BS buzzwords & PR.

Also, "the industry" see's this as a competition between MS/Sony/PC vs Nintendo, but there are way more factors and variables than that.

The reality is that in the coming years the depression the free world economy is facing will become more apparent and hit more and more homes. Most of us are in a state of denial about this and certainly companies like MS/Sony are as well. Nintendo not only foreseen stagnation in the same old bigger/faster/stronger religion their competitor's preached, but also the decline in the "core" video game market coming to a crash , but also entertainment dollars being spent less in general. Nintendo saw the need to prevent the crash and go for growth.

You can theorize evolution to revolution back to evolution again (and while there's truth to it's pattern in the past), but to say Nintendo should/will go for a bigger/faster/stronger Wii is missing the ideals behind growing the first Wii and ignoring the economic reality facing all entertainment markets today.

Hollywood (and "the industry" of gaming chasing it) is quickly spiraling as the prices go up. It's quite apparent by how the past standard (DVD) is still thriving even though everyone in Hollywood is spending all their marketing power to wards Netflix streaming, digital downloading to all your media devices, Blu-Ray/HDTV's and 3D theaters/glasses/TV's. Granted these are all great for a variety of reasons, but there's so many different things and NO true standards. People whine about standards though, they carry on about how it's a monopoly and it's old and whatnot and that "competition" (though it's a prefabricated, media controlled duopoly in most cases) is "better". No, it's just more expensive in the end. I'm for competition in content...and no I'm not preaching a "one console future" 'cos that will never happen and in no way am I pretending to have a solution to these problems...but I'm not going to delegate Nintendo's position as to "Wii 2 must be this and it must be soon" either.

If I were I would say Nintendo should just continue supporting the Wii (as-is, no Wii 2 or WiiHD even) for the foreseeable future in the background (behind 3DS) to keep current Wii owners happy and bring in newcomers with more growth...who needs to stop the growth and start all over again, who needs to "compete"??? MS has capped off it's "core" base and has no clue how to make growth with Kinect. Sony has been neutered two-fold by the 3DS making any PSP2 a no-go and making the powerful PS3's "ace-in-the-hole" (3D) irrelevant before either ever come out. When Move & Kinect fail to provide growth (let alone "steal" the Wii owners away) for their creators Sony & (more so) MS will be in a frenzy to go back to the bigger/faster/stronger way of doing things and that part of the market will crash as the economy will so deem.

I'm not saying Nintendo is invincible or that Sony/MS can do nothing to survive. But Nintendo has made their efforts futile going forward without the need of a Wii 2 and "the industry" has crippled itself with growing budgets and less returns on investments in an effort to "legitimize" itself alongside MOVIES yet ignore the growth Nintendo has made in GAMES.

It seems the main struggle/goal for game makers is to finally become "mainstream", but that will never truly happen until games are around $20 a pop and competing standards cannibalize themselves. Wii (on the console side) with or without third party support could easily do both...and in that case, does there need to be a Wii 2 or WiiHD...even if there is a X720 or PS4 even?

It's not like I am saying Nintendo should be forever laxed, but the urgency that Nintendo SHOULD do something (what most are saying is HD of course) and even funnier that they need to do it SOON is kinda rediculous to me with the content that's coming to the Wii (Zelda delayed to next year even, still no F-ZERO, Star Fox, etc., what about WiiRelax/VS or whatever else they cook up?), but also who needs a Wii HD when HD hasn't mattered for them so far, no one can touch the WiiMote this late in the generation and then looking at the economy...why is a next-gen needed? Hell I think the 3DS (especially due to the economy and it's likely possition in Japan) will be more than enough to carry Nintendo (hell, gaming) with no new home console needed for a while. Maybe even until a console/portable hybrid is ready and/or the next true revolution in games is cooked up by Nintendo. Let MS/Sony kill themselves off breaking their piggybanks and pissing off their investors trying to compete, I (and I think a bulk of Wii current & potential owners) don't really need a new console...especially with the 3DS ready to rape my wallet.

 

[KuwabaraTheMan]

I generally agree completely with the OP and points by charlequin, etc.

I do have 2 questions/issues that other people have brought up that seem to be potential barriers:

1- Does Nintendo even have 1st party studios that can make Wii2 games right now? Looking at the 3DS lineup, they seem awfully busy..

They're pretty busy, but they should have teams that are available. EAD Tokyo is definitely free, and maybe EAD 4. Retro supposedly has another game in the works, and with DKCR coming out this year, they should be able to develop a Wii2 game either for launch or shortly after launch. Monolith Soft has one unannounced project (which could be on future hardware), and Xenoblade is done, so that team should be able to start on a new project.

I don't think Genius Sonority has anything on their plate right now, either.

2- Unlike the DS, the Wii was never dominant hardware and software wise in Japan. Nintendo IMO isn't going to be able to count on 3rd parties just automatically wanting to jump on board like with the 3DS. Can/should Nintendo be more active in courting 3rd party developers, especially in Japan? I think this is a pretty big key to the whole strategy. Without the type of commitment the 3DS seems to have gotten, I am skeptical Nintendo can accomplish what they want to with the Wii successor.

interested in everyone's thoughts..

It probably won't be as easy as with the 3DS, but I think they can probably woo a fair amount of 3rd party developers. They'll certainly have to be more proactive and probably cut some deals. With some series which are popular in Japan but not as popular in the west, they could probably cut a deal similar to the ones they made with Monster Hunter or Dragon Quest (help to push the series in the west).

If the Wii2 is significantly powerful, than that will also cut out one of the major barrier's they've had with western third parties.

I doubt they'll be able to boast nearly as strong an early lineup as the 3DS, but they should be able to get more support than the Wii had.

 

[Canadian Psycho]

The 2005-2006 "resurrection" of Nintendo was mesmerizing and totally unexpected to this fan who grew up on the NES. But what this E3 looks like it is promising feels like some sort of parrallel universe where the N64 et al. days never existed. All I mean to say is that, with the side-scrollers and old favourites returning for an encore, I feel like Nintendo is bringing gaming where I wanted it to be right after the Super NES.

Game Over begs for a future edition with added chapters.

 

[Gahiggidy]

If Nintendo launches Wii2 next year, they can easily make a console which blows away the PS3 and 360 on a technical level while not breaking the bank....

I doubt that. One reason is that the PS3/360 are still over $200. Plus, I'd think the price of putting together more advanced tech would increase much faster than the actual improvement in visuals. Diminishing returns, etc.


----

I think Nintendo may be holding off until some new innovation comes along to warrant something more than a simple upgrade to Wii.

 

[Quadrangulum]

I think you need to go outside and get some fresh air because you're getting really worked up and creepily defensive.

And there's nothing wrong with a game like Two Thrones on PSP. There's nothing wrong with any kind of game on a portable device provided the device has a suspend mode. The only time a game is "wrong" for a device is if the controls are clearly unsuited to the task (like some iPhone games) or when a game is on a console in competition to a fanboy's preferred console, which is what you're doing right now.

Seriously? Bitter butterballs like you made yesterday fun but it's getting a bit tiresome now.

 

[Manus]

Well they already have me looking forward to more titles than both Microsoft and Sony put together. Which hasn't happened in about 10 years so their doing something right.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Decent theory, but I think it misses an important point: Nintendo the developer has never been able to capture the 'dudebro crowd'. Franchises like F-Zero, Starfox, Pikmin, etc, are loved by the actual hardcore, enthusiast crowd, but the guy who buys CoD, GTA and Madden couldn't care less.

Nintendo will have to rely on heavily on third parties to capture that crowd.

This is a very, very important point. The hardcore crowd in the sense that you would associate most of Neogaf with is entirely different from the "hardcore" crowd that buys Madden and CoD and Halo in massive droves. The same people who made Modern Warfare such a hit would laugh at games like Kirby or Mario or LittleBigPlanet. They only want to play things that coincide with masculinity. Blood, guns, and healthy amounts of beard scruff sell games to dudebro-hardcore gamers, they really could care less about game mechanics or innovations. In a way they're just casual gamers with different aesthetic desires.