Support NeoGAF

Refreshment.01 · May 9, 2013

Ever since Nintendo started to be less and less competitive in terms of hardware configurations in their home consoles, i've been thinking in ways they could aproach the situation withouth resorting to entirely leaving the console manufacturing.

I'll excuse myself for how superficial this is, the idea has been on my mind for quite some time, but never amount to much really. Yet, it might be interesting to share.

Let's say with the Wii U, Nintendo opted to release the U Gamepad and it's games designed for a baseline set of PC specs while at the same time, offer a Nintendo branded console (PC in a box really) sold at a profit.

The only really big downside i can think of, is piracy. On the other side the pros are quite big. From third party developers having and easier time developing, downright to enjoying Nintendo games with the highest visual quality possible. And Nintendo still maintains big revenue streams while avoiding a ton of R&D costs and have acces to an expanded user base. Of course the consumer will need to buy the U GamePAd., even when gaming on PC.

What would you think of something like this?

BD1 · May 9, 2013

It goes against Nintendo's entire philosophy as a business, but sure, it'd be cool. I think the GamePad is a great controller.

Edag Plata · May 9, 2013

So would that be like going 2.5nd party?

ASIS · May 9, 2013

That wouldn't work. Hardware makes a ton of money for Nintendo, giving that option out would hurt them very badly.

What they need to do is make a console that, while weak, is still competitive against the others in the market.

Refreshment.01 · May 9, 2013

ASIS said:
That wouldn't work. Hardware makes a ton of money for Nintendo, giving that option out would hurt them very badly.

Asis, they would be making a branded console box and adding to that they would be selling the GamePad at profit for the user that plays in PC. They are not exactly exiting the hardware business, they would be just removing a layer of complexity.

Or maybe you could expand the answer a bit more in detail because i might be missing something you have in mind.

liquidtmd · May 9, 2013

The downside would be piracy?? Because the DS and Wii, the two machines that made them probably more money than Sony and Microsofts efforts this gen combined, were incredibly easy to hack / soft mod / run SD and USB backups on.

I get what your saying but Nintendo won't because...they are Nintendo. Stubborn. I think the Wii U is weak and is perhaps the worst Nintendo has thrown out in terms of their lack of urgency but I still respect them and won't count them out. They don't need to be competitive in terms of hardware configuration...or they haven't needed to be since the SNES because theyve run a tight ship once the big titles hit. People mock the GameCube but it was still more profitable to them then Microsoft's Xbox and in terms of games, it catered for the hardcore very well. With the Wii, they captured a casual market and reaped massive reward. Their approach to hardware this gen or the next isnt really essential to their ethos or success.

Maybe this gen will turn that round.

FyreWulff · May 9, 2013

Nintendo is a toy company. Controlling the hardware is the entire point of the business.

fluffydelusions · May 9, 2013

ASIS said:
That wouldn't work. Hardware makes a ton of money for Nintendo, giving that option out would hurt them very badly.

What they need to do is make a console that, while weak, is still competitive against the others in the market.

I think Nintendo would rather go out of business than release hw/sw up to 3rd parties

Green Wiggly · May 9, 2013

One thing I always wonder when talk of Nintendo going 3rd party (or 2nd party in this thread?) comes up is if their games would still be at the same quality level if they're not designing the actual hardware.

Kimawolf · May 9, 2013

What they should do is partner with someone like Samsung or LG and set up a deal where every 40inch and up TV comes with a Wii U and Zoimbi U or something. Sell hardware with TVs and you'll build a huge base just by virtue of people buying TVs.

Oppo · May 9, 2013

I think Nintendo sort of lost sight of the target when they moved away from physically oriented gaming.

If I were Nintendo (ha), I would lean towards some sort of AR system, some sort of game you can play in a public space like a park, or backyard. Mixing of real life play and video games. Think Johaan Sebastian Joust. Think Spaceteam. AR Pokemon. Make it all hyper accessible. Make a system that encourages and enhances natural movement but take it out of the living room and into the world.

Chû Totoro · May 9, 2013

Do you mean that the controller has some sort of drm control over games so they can only be played with it?
In this case they would progressively become only a software developer making their "emulator" and the games that will run with it to finally being an editor / developer of games and not anymore a hardware manufacturer. All the new gameplay mechanics they pushed with new technology in their controllers will be a good souvenir and the creativity will go down.
Mario will become a Crash Bandicoot like mascot and... Nintendo down

steveovig · May 9, 2013

They'd probably still be making games that are not going to excite the Western audience. They just need to keep at it with this console, carve their niche and fanbase further, and keep going until the next console. They still have time to turn a profit and develop a powerful console for the next gen. I'm not sure it would be PS4 next-gen or farther along than that though.

ASIS · May 9, 2013

Refreshment.01 said:
Asis, they would be making a branded console box and adding to that they would be selling the GamePad at profit for the user that plays in PC. They are not exactly exiting the hardware business, they would be just removing a layer of complexity.

Or maybe you could expand the answer a bit more in detail because i might be missing something you have in mind.

Before I elaborate, I need to understand your point of view first because I don't think I got it correctly. You want Nintendo software to be playable on PC, only catch is they buy the correct hardware to have the luxury. In the same time, they also release a console that is, well, a Nintendo branded PC. Did I get the right?

If that is what you are implying, then I still stand by my opinion. They won't exit the hardware business but they are losing a share of the pie, they will create competition within themselves between two platforms that offer the same value, since PC's other tasks are inherently superior, they would have a very hard time selling the proposed hardware to reach Nintendo level of revenue. I don't think the gamepad sales on PC would compensate.

Refreshment.01 · May 9, 2013

FyreWulff said:
Nintendo is a toy company. Controlling the hardware is the entire point of the business.

fluffydelusions said:
I think Nintendo would rather go out of business than release hw/sw up to 3rd parties

Guys, hold on, maybe is my lack of comunication skills. With this proposition NIntendo is still selling hardware.

Green Wiggly said:
One thing I always wonder when talk of Nintendo going 3rd party (or 2nd party in this thread?) comes up is if their games would still be at the same quality level if they're not designing the actual hardware.

They are using an AMD GPU, same as everyone else, altohugh one with lower processing capabilities.

DaBoss · May 9, 2013

The way I see it, Nintendo should just keep doing what it is trying to do, which is to try and make unique experiences. In this day and age, many gamers are wondering what the point of gaming on consoles are due to the growth of PC gaming. So if consoles offered something the PCs couldn't do, then their existence/use wouldn't be questioned.

8bits · May 9, 2013

ASIS said:
That wouldn't work. Hardware makes a ton of money for Nintendo, giving that option out would hurt them very badly.

Unfortunately, there are many people who absolutely can't or refuse to grasp this concept. It's a bit sad actually.

King_Moc · May 9, 2013

The main issue here is that they lose the licensing money from 3rd parties, however much that is nowadays...

But if they were just doing Nintendo only games and abandoning that side of the business, sure, it seems a neat idea. It would need some pretty full on DRM built into the hardware though. And i think it's need to be just the controller they sell, not the PC at all. Else there's no real difference to what they're doing now.

Refreshment.01 · May 9, 2013

ASIS said:
Before I elaborate, I need to understand your point of view first because I don't think I got it correctly. You want Nintendo software to be playable on PC, only catch is they buy the correct hardware to have the luxury. In the same time, they also release a console that is, well, a Nintendo branded PC. Did I get the right?

If that is what you are implying, then I still stand by my opinion. They won't exit the hardware business but they are losing a share of the pie, they will create competition within themselves between two platforms that offer the same value, since PC's other tasks are inherently superior, they would have a very hard time selling the proposed hardware to reach Nintendo level of revenue. I don't think the gamepad sales on PC would compensate.

They have the Upad (with some sort of DRM). Impose a baseline config for PC's to run their own and partners software. The pad is sold at a very generous profit. The PC Nintendo branded box is sold at a profit (less margins of course) for people that just like consoles, don't have the capable enough PC, don't have one in the livingroom, or just want an easier time.

Some of the benefits are:

+They get from day zero a potential user base of millions.
+Third parties support is exponentially increased. Almost automatic support for the platform since the ports are already made, this means they have extra time to implement pad features or just throw the token ones with zero effort.
+They are as competitive in terms of visuals as the user wants. Or as they want if deciding to sale multiple SKU's with different horse power.

Those are some of the ones i quickly came up with. But i havent seen reasonable refutals, safe for "they'll make less money", which we don't have data to back that up.

Uncle Rupee · May 9, 2013

Just because they're no longer attempting to push graphics technology doesn't mean they should leave the hardware business.

New tech does not automatically make better games, you know?

Refreshment.01 · May 9, 2013

DaBoss said:
The way I see it, Nintendo should just keep doing what it is trying to do, which is to try and make unique experiences. In this day and age, many gamers are wondering what the point of gaming on consoles are due to the growth of PC gaming. So if consoles offered something the PCs couldn't do, then their existence/use wouldn't be questioned.

You must be missing something. The Wii U unique experience is the GamePad. They will be selling it with the business model that's been proposed here.

8bits said:
Unfortunately, there are many people who absolutely can't or refuse to grasp this concept. It's a bit sad actually.

Try to analise a bit harder. They are making hardware still.

Uncle Rupee said:
Just because they're no longer attempting to push graphics technology doesn't mean they should leave the hardware business.

New tech does not automatically make better games, you know?

Again, with this model they don't leave the hardware business.

ASIS · May 9, 2013

Uncle Rupee said:
Just because they're no longer attempting to push graphics technology doesn't mean they should leave the hardware business.

New tech does not automatically make better games, you know?

That's not what's being discussed here.

Refreshment, I need to go for a bit but I will reply to your post, but yes there is enough Data to make the conclusion that a significant amount of Nintendo's revenue comes from hardware.

Shiggy · May 9, 2013

8bits said:
Unfortunately, there are many people who absolutely can't or refuse to grasp this concept. It's a bit sad actually.

They can still create hardware. Wii Motion Plus and the Wii Balance Board are just two successful examples. The Wii U is probably not making too much money at the moment.

Refreshment.01 · May 9, 2013

King_Moc said:
The main issue here is that they lose the licensing money from 3rd parties, however much that is nowadays...

But if they were just doing Nintendo only games and abandoning that side of the business, sure, it seems a neat idea. It would need some pretty full on DRM built into the hardware though. And i think it's need to be just the controller they sell, not the PC at all. Else there's no real difference to what they're doing now.

Well maybe, they could still charge for licensing. But yes, they would need to negotiate that a bit more openly with third parties.

ASIS said:
That's not what's being discussed here.

Refreshment, I need to go for a bit but I will reply to your post, but yes there is enough Data to make the conclusion that a significant amount of Nintendo's revenue comes from hardware.

No problen sir.

And before you answer let me clear something for you. I do know they make a very large portion of revenue from hardware. I was saying we don't have an idea how much less they will be losing if they addopted the hypothetical business model here. That's what i was refering to. Also, remember they will be selling at profit from day 1, not like with the Wii U.

Maztorre · May 9, 2013

Nintendo's success is attributable to high quality first party games attached to hardware sold near cost or at profit. Nintendo do not need to abandon this business model, they need to make adjustments to their first party development since that is what makes the hardware appealing. Throughout the life of their successful systems they were able to release software in a timely manner that served to advertise the thinking behind the hardware.

Right now there is an imbalance in that Nintendo seemingly cannot support either of their systems with steady releases of quality software from launch. The solution is to heavily invest in 1st party development. It's likely too late for 3DS or WiiU to see the benefit of this kind of investment but even just 4-5 additional 1st party teams would cover the majority of times when Nintendo platforms classically experience "software drought".

It's really that simple.

Refreshment.01 · May 10, 2013

Maztorre said:
Nintendo's success is attributable to high quality first party games attached to hardware sold near cost or at profit. Nintendo do not need to abandon this business model, they need to make adjustments to their first party development since that is what makes the hardware appealing. Throughout the life of their successful systems they were able to release software in a timely manner that served to advertise the thinking behind the hardware.

Right now there is an imbalance in that Nintendo seemingly cannot support either of their systems with steady releases of quality software from launch. The solution is to heavily invest in 1st party development. It's likely too late for 3DS or WiiU to see the benefit of this kind of investment but even just 4-5 additional 1st party teams would cover the majority of times when Nintendo platforms classically experience "software drought".

It's really that simple.

Any reasons while the proposed model won't work?

In regards to your comment. This is not working for them right now. In retrospective, after the SNES using that model has constantly driven NIntendo to reduced market share. The Eureka moment that was the Wii, a phenomenom almost impossible to reproduce, was crippled by the traditional Nintendo model of sticking to hardware that just benefits their internal teams. More over, it's really hard and expensive for them to support their hanheld and home console business. Just look at how they abandoned the Wii early and how that impacted their bottom line and brand recogniton goin with the Wii U.

Yes, they managed survive but in each cycle at the cost of relevance. If they continue in this track all that is left for them is contraction.

Nintendo's success is attributable to high quality first party games attached to hardware sold near cost or at profit. Nintendo do not need to abandon this business model, they need to make adjustments to their first party development since that is what makes the hardware appealing.

Again, Nintendo will still be producing hardware. Please adress this correctly when replying.

JordanN · May 10, 2013

Green Wiggly said:
One thing I always wonder when talk of Nintendo going 3rd party (or 2nd party in this thread?) comes up is if their games would still be at the same quality level if they're not designing the actual hardware.

It's not like Nintendo and their hardware uses completely different rendering techniques like voxels or ray tracing. Their hardware is just outdated technology.

I fail to see how a Mario Kart on PS4 would be worse than one on Wii U. In reality, it would actually be anywhere from 2-8x better.

Arc Christelle · May 10, 2013

Nintendo as a company is very Anti-PC, especially in a world where PC's are starting to gain more of a mainstream presence in gaming. However in a sense, it needs to be.

There is a reason why most Western publishers/devs are abandoning the Wii U at the moment, and that's because the console itself is the very thing that stands against all of the standards set by the other two consoles during this gen. While people have found a way to transfer PC Games to default control schemes using similar methods, the Nintendo Market actually requires them to step outside of the box and create a unique experience, and that's where the problem lies. Even bigger publishers like EA, Activision, and Ubisoft, are pushed down to an even playing field against A/AA/indie tier devs. And that creates a problem, especially when they're trying to push the AAA market even harder. The Western presence on the DS is a prime example.

The Wii U will most likely be a console for Middle-Tier Devs, Japanese Devs, and Indies. The people who can't compete against the marketing and hype of established products, and I would like to see the result of this path.

I even want to know what does it say about the mindstate of gamers today who may choose the same old or demand something new. (When those games come.)

E3 is just a month away......

Also do anyone remember analysts saying that this was the year that one of the big 3 were going to drop out of the console market?

It's a wild guess and theory, but what if Nintendo was selected out of them, due to the fact that it's very anti-Western when it comes to game design, and could pose a threat if it could successfully deliver these experiences while the plan was to push the same ol for another 6 years (graphics+story+world-depth-mechanics). I even wonder if people were to see that for themselves, would they continue supporting this, if that was the hypothetical case.

But then again Ken is callin shots at Marvelous. lol

EDIT:

JordanN said:
It's not like Nintendo and their hardware uses completely different rendering techniques like voxels or ray tracing. Their hardware is just outdated technology.

I fail to see how a Mario Kart on PS4 would be worse than one on Wii U. In reality, it would actually be anywhere from 2-8x better.

Innovations and probably having to shift their resources to build an engine that's functional for the PS4. Not to mention the introduction of some insane shit you never knew you wanted. Then there's declining value in your product now that it's offered everywhere. Most multiplats don't have a strong demand for them because they are multiplats, and only games that sell well on both consoles, with all the hype can succeed. Some people who were NEVER interested in a Nintendo console or products aren't going to magically invest in the next big Mario with the Hype of the month around the corner. The competition on Playstation and Xbox is more hell now than people realize, thanks to multiplatform oversaturation.

Refreshment.01 · May 10, 2013

Arc Christelle said:
Nintendo as a company is very Anti-PC, especially in a world where PC's are starting to gain more of a mainstream presence in gaming. However in a sense, it needs to be.

There is a reason why most Western publishers/devs are abandoning the Wii U at the moment, and that's because the console itself is the very thing that stands against all of the standards set by the other two consoles during this gen. While people have found a way to transfer PC Games to default control schemes using similar methods, the Nintendo Market actually requires them to step outside of the box and create a unique experience, and that's where the problem lies. Even bigger publishers like EA, Activision, and Ubisoft, are pushed down to an even playing field against A/AA/indie tier devs. And that creates a problem, especially when they're trying to push the AAA market even harder. The Western presence on the DS is a prime example.

The Wii U will most likely be a console for Middle-Tier Devs, Japanese Devs, and Indies. The people who can't compete against the marketing and hype of established products, and I would like to see the result of this path.

I even want to know what does it say about the mindstate of gamers today who may choose the same old or demand something new. (When those games come.)

E3 is just a month away......

Also do anyone remember analysts saying that this was the year that one of the big 3 were going to drop out of the console market?

It's a wild guess and theory, but what if Nintendo was selected out of them, due to the fact that it's very anti-Western when it comes to game design, and could pose a threat if it could successfully deliver these experiences while the plan was to push the same ol for another 6 years (graphics+story+world-depth-mechanics). I even wonder if people were to see that for themselves, would they continue supporting this, if that was the hypothetical case.

But then again Ken is callin shots at Marvelous. lol

I don't.... what's the relation to the topic at hand? Can you adress some of the points already made and share why it wouldn't work?

And regarding the E3 comment. What exactly will happen that we don't know? You mean Nintendo will have high quality software like they always do and it's expected from them? Like the N64 and like the GameCube had. That's no surprise. Yet see my previous comment, they can't keep up with their usual modus operandi, they are contracting. Their low risk aproach to gaming is becoming a high risk in the long run. Their insistance on going for low hanging fruit, near term profits is costing them a lot right now.

Arc Christelle · May 10, 2013

Refreshment.01 said:
I don't.... what's the relation to the topic at hand? Can you adress some of the points already made and share why it wouldn't work?

And regarding the E3 comment. What exactly will happen that we don't know? You mean Nintendo will have high quality software like they always do and it's expected from them? Like the N64 and like the GameCube had. That's no surprise. Yet see my previous comment, they can't keep up with their usual modus operandi, they are contracting. Their low risk aproach to gaming is becoming a high risk in the long run. Their insistance on going for low hanging fruit, near term profits is costing them a lot right now.

1. The relation is on the idea of creating PC based hardware, when they are not a PC focused company.

2. There's plenty of shit that can happen, if Bayonetta 2 is being funded by Nintendo and SMTxFE is happening, I believe in ANYTHING.

3. To be honest that comment about the N64 and Gamecube has their purposes and are irrelevant at the same time. The whole idea that if Nintendo had catered to an audience people were just gonna magically support them or tried to go the power path. That shit failed and No one was there for them. You also had a whole different form of marketing and metagame. Also the quality of their games and demand has improved a lot since N64/GC.

4. No one would buy an accessory that they don't feel that they need for a PC. They haven't created a demand for the Wii U yet, how are they gonna create a demand for PC ports, especially with the Western presence bailing out on them. Not to mention me as a casual PC user myself know that I wouldn't upgrade or by shit for my PC unless I had to. The only reasons I even use my Xbox controller with my PC is due to the fact that I have an Xbox and they go hand in hand. Microsoft already runs that connectivity.

5. It's still early. Like I said, I want to see where it goes and how people will react to it.

6. N64 and Gamecube really didn't have anything to offer that wasn't available on PS1/PS2 even the Capcom Five hit PS2.

Too call it at this point is plain ludicrous.

EDIT: There's one major thing that everyone seems to forget.

7. We only know what's in the Nintendo's hand at the moment, and the information they've ALLOWED us to know. We still don't know what's being offered by Sony but custom streams of good PR and the few games (which we really haven't even seen enough of.) and Microsoft ain't saying shit till the 21st. So it's too early to declare winners, especially when diminishing returns is becoming a real thing in gaming.

Final Edit: To dumb it down I'm gonna use the "DBZ" format.

Buu Saga.

We have three main actors.

1. Goku who could be hiding his SSJ3 form.
2. Majin Vegeta
3. Buu

BUT. We don't know who is who. Thus the importance of E3 or Tenkaichi Budokai or whatever.

Dion Blaster · May 10, 2013

JordanN said:
It's not like Nintendo and their hardware uses completely different rendering techniques like voxels or ray tracing. Their hardware is just outdated technology.

I fail to see how a Mario Kart on PS4 would be worse than one on Wii U. In reality, it would actually be anywhere from 2-8x better.

So putting a game on more powerful hardware instantly makes it twice as good, and potentially 8 times as good? I'd like to hear the logic behind that.

rohlfinator · May 10, 2013

I can't see this working too well for them -- Nintendo is all about accessibility, and as much as I love the PC, it's way too complicated for Nintendo's philosophy.

If they're going to stay out of the hardware race, I'd like to see them go completely in the other direction:
-lower power, $100 console
-focus on 2D games and simpler 3D games
-focus on local multiplayer
-completely open up development for indie/smaller developers, much closer to an app store model but with a bit of curation to highlight the best games and filter out the junk
-partner with Unity/UDK/Game Maker/Construct 2/etc. to make development as easy as possible
-turn Virtual Console into a Netflix-style subscription service with full catalog access for a small fee

Sort of like an Ouya but with backing from a company who knows games and can support it with quality software. I think it would be a no-brainer secondary console for any gamer with nostalgia for older-era Nintendo, plus new games in a similar vein.

-COOLIO- · May 10, 2013

i honestly think an android living room box fits with nintendos design philosophy pretty well.

- it's open source so they could have a lot of control.

- user friendly OS

if they hammered in a decent gpu and took a minor loss i think they could sell it at $299 and android functionality would go a long way in justifying the price to the average joe.

Refreshment.01 · May 10, 2013

Dinosaur said:
So putting a game on more powerful hardware instantly makes it twice as good, and potentially 8 times as good? I'd like to hear the logic behind that.

Stop with this argument cause the thread is not about that. Sensible people just want Nintendo to put a competitive console spec wise, which is posible. Not cutting edge but not too outdated. This besides the point of the topic.

rohlfinator said:
I can't see this working too well for them -- Nintendo is all about accessibility, and as much as I love the PC, it's way too complicated for Nintendo's philosophy.

That's why i clearly said this strategy would be acompained by a Nintendo branded box.

If they're going to stay out of the hardware race, I'd like to see them go completely in the other direction:
-lower power, $100 console
-focus on 2D games and simpler 3D games
-focus on local multiplayer and
-completely open up development for indie/smaller developers, much closer to an app store model but with a bit of curation to highlight the best games and filter out the junk

Then they will be competing directly with the entire indy scenes, plus iOS, etc and pricing models that don't suit them. Remember people are getting used t pay cents for simple type games. Not to mention, if they took this route they might as well go portable only with a device that can also stream to the TV. If NIntendo is to maintain their living room prescense they should find balance. That 100 console you propose wouldn't be it i think.

-turn Virtual Console into a Netflix-style subscription service with full catalog access for a small fee

This is a good possibility. Woud like something like this to happen.

-COOLIO- said:
i honestly think an android living room box fits with nintendos design philosophy pretty well.

- it's open source so they could have a lot of control.

- user friendly OS

if they hammered in a decent gpu and took a minor loss i think they could sell it at $299 and android functionality would go a long way in justifying the price to the average joe.

How's the android presense outside of portable devices? Im out of touch with this? They could gain a ton of indie type games. Are people runing Android and Windows also. What's cool about Nintendo runing on baseline PC specs is that they also would get automatic support from many third parties, but going with android, wouldn't big publishers and high budget games be out of the equation then?

Arc Christelle said:
1. The relation is on the idea of creating PC based hardware, when they are not a PC focused company.

Yet, use PC based parts. Anyway, this reply didn't have some logical backup. Basically, "they never did this so they shouldn't do it". "Nintendo never implemented motion controls, so they shouldn't do it". Not a good excuse.

2. There's plenty of shit that can happen, if Bayonetta 2 is being funded by Nintendo and SMTxFE is happening, I believe in ANYTHING.

Save for Wii, they have been in downward spiral in the home space since the SNES.

3. To be honest that comment about the N64 and Gamecube has their purposes and are irrelevant at the same time. The whole idea that if Nintendo had catered to an audience people were just gonna magically support them or tried to go the power path. That shit failed and No one was there for them. You also had a whole different form of marketing and metagame. Also the quality of their games and demand has improved a lot since N64/GC.

Those two systems had the right specs at the right time, but were comrpomised in other ways (some very stupid) by Nintendo themsleves. If they had third party support in their first two console cycles and still have with hanhelds then theres no reason that with the right hardware and politics they couldn't get some support back.

4. No one would buy an accessory that they don't feel that they need for a PC. They haven't created a demand for the Wii U yet, how are they gonna create a demand for PC ports, especially with the Western presence bailing out on them. Not to mention me as a casual PC user myself know that I wouldn't upgrade or by shit for my PC unless I had to. The only reasons I even use my Xbox controller with my PC is due to the fact that I have an Xbox and they go hand in hand. Microsoft already runs that connectivity.

Dual release strategy here. Nintendo branded box as well as the Upad for the PC. If i meet the baseline specs with my PC then i get to play Nintendo content for a very low price of entry while having some benefits. Also the 3rd party support is substantially augmented and NIntendo has potential access to an user base of millions from day zero with marginal investment.

Meelow · May 10, 2013

As long as the Wii U is powerful enough to get PS4/720 games, it shouldn't matter.

Graphics don't make games funner, and I'm sorry but graphics won't be selling points to the PS4/720 for everyone, some people? Probably, everyone? Nope.

Games make the system, the Wii U could be 100x of times more powerful than the PS4/720 but if it had zero games it wouldn't matter how powerful it is.

- Rant over.

Refreshment.01 · May 10, 2013

Meelow said:
As long as the Wii U is powerful enough to get PS4/720 games, it shouldn't matter.

Graphics don't make games funner, and I'm sorry but graphics won't be selling points to the PS4/720 for everyone, some people? Probably, everyone? Nope.

Games make the system, the Wii U could be 100x of times more powerful than the PS4/720 but if it had zero games it wouldn't matter how powerful it is.

- Rant over.

You are missing the point to a degree that is simply amazing. But, i'll adress your rant anyway Meelow. As a matter of fact this would be a solution that would let Nintendo tackle the specs problem in a tangential way, withouth incurring in finantial draining costs. While allowing for bigger 3rd party support and give users the choice, choice to access the visual fidelity to the levels they can or wish to pay for.

rohlfinator · May 10, 2013

Refreshment.01 said:
That's why i clearly said this strategy would be acompained by a Nintendo branded box.

How would that work though? Would it basically be a regular PC, or would it have a custom OS and modified architecture? The first option would still have a lot of the weaknesses of the PC platform, and the second option would basically be what Sony/MS are doing.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Nintendo on the PC... I just don't think it makes a lot of business sense for them. It doesn't really expand their userbase in a meaningful way.

Then they will be competing directly with the entire indy scenes, plus iOS, etc and pricing models that don't suit them. Remember people are getting used t pay cents for simple type games. Not to mention, if they took this route they might as well go portable only with a device that can also stream to the TV. If NIntendo is to maintain their living room prescense they should find balance. That 100 console you propose wouldn't be it i think.

Nintendo has always been able to sell their games for more than iOS prices, so I don't think that would change. By "simple" I don't mean Angry Birds, I mean more like their output for the GBA/GameCube/DS/Wii/3DS. Simple in comparison to the big budget direction that Sony/MS are taking.

The portable-only device is an interesting idea and it's becoming more and more viable. But I think there are still a lot of strengths for a console that's designed to be played with a controller on a large screen, especially for same-screen local multiplayer.

Meelow said:
Games make the system, the Wii U could be 100x of times more powerful than the PS4/720 but if it had zero games it wouldn't matter how powerful it is.

Power is a big factor for third party support, which is what Nintendo is sorely lacking right now.

bomblord · May 10, 2013

It would potentially diminish the value of their IP's.

It would make the "console" useless as everyone already has a PC so any hardware profit would be negligible.

It would eliminate the money they get from 3rd party sales, even though third party games don't sell that much every game sale on a Nintendo Console gives Nintendo money from the licensing fees. Nintendo can't charge for third party support on PC, because it's a PC and any dev that wants to make a PC game can just release a PC game why on earth would they go through Nintendo.

It would cut out the "pure profit" Nintendo gets from first party game sales.

Microsoft would essentially own Nintendo.

Not to mention the numerous issues that comes up with hardware incompatibility, what exactly the baseline specs are, the loss of the ability to "code to the metal" among other things

I think the biggest thing though is we would lose Nintendo as serious competitor. Even if they did find a sustainable business model through this they would be so far removed from the other 2 that we would lose a large chunk of competition and potentially cause the industry as a whole to stagnate.

The easiest thing Nintendo could do to both recoup financial losses and get third parties on board with both quality and contend would to simply start licensing out their game engines

Arc Christelle · May 10, 2013

Refreshment.01 said:
Stop with this argument cause the thread is not about that. Sensible people just want Nintendo to put a competitive console spec wise, which is posible. Not cutting edge but not too outdated. This besides the point of the topic.

People are bringing that into the argument because it's a sensible variable. We do have to consider what they really have to gain and lose, as well as would they be supported. If a big Third party game was being released for PS4/720/PC the question would come should they support the Wii U, while most of their customers or even people with a Wii U would probably by one of the first three ports over the Wii U port to begin with due to larger combined base. If they support it, they will have to make it more attractive and compete with the games that have successfully set standards on it. Not even overhyped marketing will be able to guarantee sales on a new market like that.

That's why i clearly said this strategy would be acompained by a Nintendo branded box.

It's no where near as complicated as Nintendo's design philosophy. The real problem is developers would have to develop games that compliment the design and are attractive because of that. Not many AAA devs are interested in risks or stepping out of the box. It's just wasting money for PC indies to support something on a platform that will not offer much in return.

How's the android presense outside of portable devices? Im out of touch with this? They could gain a ton of indie type games. Are people runing Android and Windows also. What's cool about Nintendo runing on baseline PC specs is that they also would get automatic support from many third parties, but going with android, wouldn't big publishers and high budget games be out of the equation then?

They were out of the equation to begin with. Even announced it.

Yet, use PC based parts. Anyway, this reply didn't have some logical backup. Basically, "they never did this so they shouldn't do it". "Nintendo never implemented motion controls, so they shouldn't do it". Not a good excuse.

Uh yes it is. Because most major developer use basic PC design templates when making a game for consoles. It works on PC's by default and are interchangeable on consoles. Nintendo focuses on making games work for their consoles, and not necessarily a PC, Dolphin proved that emulation is possible, but some games you're just gonna need that Wiimote and that Bluetooth adaptor. You also forget the fact that even with more power the Wii U demands that the games have something unique using the control to have actual value, or else they will be overshadowed by games that do. Even big budget games will suffer.

Save for Wii, they have been in downward spiral in the home space since the SNES.

Then like you said, The Wii happened. The Wii succeeded because they decided to play a different game. It's adaptation and evolving. You do notice that the PS/Xbox cut in each other's sales right? You don't want to be the last lion at the dinner table to get scraps.
By becoming the oddball they still have a demand from audiences who might already own a console and want another. Most likely people will have by default PC/Xbox or PC/PS, if they have one, they won't necessarily need another, because there are very few exclusives that they'll miss out on, however the Wii-U would have more exclusives, therefore generating a demand.

Those two systems had the right specs at the right time, but were comrpomised in other ways (some very stupid) by Nintendo themsleves. If they had third party support in their first two console cycles and still have with hanhelds then theres no reason that with the right hardware and politics they couldn't get some support back.

They probably can get that support now, but most likely not from who you think.

Dual release strategy here. Nintendo branded box as well as the Upad for the PC. If i meet the baseline specs with my PC then i get to play Nintendo content for a very low price of entry while having some benefits. Also the 3rd party support is substantially augmented and NIntendo has potential access to an user base of millions from day zero with marginal investment.

Extra money for some shit that no one's gonna buy, with only them having to support it, plus destroying their own business is the process? That's crazy.

EDIT: Man I'm gonna need a drink after all of that. lol

H_Prestige · May 10, 2013

Green Wiggly said:
One thing I always wonder when talk of Nintendo going 3rd party (or 2nd party in this thread?) comes up is if their games would still be at the same quality level if they're not designing the actual hardware.

Well there's no technical reason why not. If anything it could improve with better specs.

Consoles aren't made like they were in the 90's, where everything was super customized and designed. We're looking at the same graphics companies providing the chips for all these consoles and many PC cards. If Nintendo devs can develop on the Wii U's AMD GPU, then they should have no problems developing for something like the PS4.

The question is if it remains profitable to make consoles if they sell like the Wii U. And if they do sell like crap, is it still worth staying in the game for symbolic purposes. No doubt going third party would instantly devalue their IPs.

Then like you said, The Wii happened. The Wii succeeded because they decided to play a different game. It's adaptation and evolving. You do notice that the PS/Xbox cut in each other's sales right? You don't want to be the last lion at the dinner table to get scraps.
By becoming the oddball they still have a demand from audiences who might already own a console and want another. Most likely people will have by default PC/Xbox or PC/PS, if they have one, they won't necessarily need another, because there are very few exclusives that they'll miss out on, however the Wii-U would have more exclusives, therefore generating a demand.

The exclusives that sell Nintendo hardware are Nintendo's own games. Making a similar console to the other two would not decrease the number of games Nintendo makes. It would just add a whole bunch of third party output that they have intentionally locked themselves out of. I don't know how you think that would result in a less desirable console than what they have now.

Warm Machine · May 10, 2013

Just make the Nintendo phone to TV hybrid.

Meelow · May 10, 2013

Refreshment.01 said:
You are missing the point to a degree that is simply amazing. But, i'll adress your rant anyway Meelow. As a matter of fact this would be a solution that would let Nintendo tackle the specs problem in a tangential way, withouth incurring in finantial draining costs. While allowing for bigger 3rd party support and give users the choice, choice to access the visual fidelity to the levels they can or wish to pay for.

Maybe in the future all of the big 3 will be forced to do this, but right now, Nintendo has a console they have to turn around, it may take time but they turned around the 3DS in my opinion, I think they can turn around the Wii U.

H_Prestige said:
Well there's no technical reason why not. If anything it could improve with better specs.

Consoles aren't made like they were in the 90's, where everything was super customized and designed. We're looking at the same graphics companies providing the chips for all these consoles and many PC cards. If Nintendo devs can develop on the Wii U's AMD GPU, then they should have no problems developing for something like the PS4.

The question is if it remains profitable to make consoles if they sell like the Wii U. And if they do sell like crap, is it still worth staying in the game for symbolic purposes. No doubt going third party would instantly devalue their IPs.

Sega says hello.

H_Prestige · May 10, 2013

Meelow said:
Maybe in the future all of the big 3 will be forced to do this, but right now, Nintendo has a console they have to turn around, it may take time but they turned around the 3DS in my opinion, I think they can turn around the Wii U.

Sega says hello.

What? So better specs = worse games?

Is Nintendo's output on the Wii U going to be worse than the Wii because of the vastly superior specs?

Meelow · May 10, 2013

H_Prestige said:
What? So better specs = worse games?

Is Nintendo's output on the Wii U going to be worse than the Wii because of the vastly superior specs?

No, I'm saying Nintendo working on other companies hardware would ruin them.

baggagelizard · May 10, 2013

I'm starting to think that the Wii U was designed for Nintendo's development staff first and foremost. This would explain a good bit.

rohlfinator · May 10, 2013

Meelow said:
No, I'm saying Nintendo working on other companies hardware would ruin them.

Why wouldn't they be able to keep up the quality/sales on other platforms?

Meelow · May 10, 2013

rohlfinator said:
Why wouldn't they be able to keep up the quality/sales on other platforms?

The same reason Sega couldn't.

Arc Christelle · May 10, 2013

H_Prestige said:
What? So better specs = worse games?

Is Nintendo's output on the Wii U going to be worse than the Wii because of the vastly superior specs?

Sega's technical aspects for all of their consoles were actually pretty good for their time, however, poorly released and even marketed when you consider the Saturn. Not to mention how often they competed with themselves.

The Dreamcast at the time was the best technical option, and had a plethora of games. (Many of them were great mind you due to the spring of healthy popular arcade titles that were built on the Sega Naomi arcade board.)

But due to pushing things they can't afford and the rise of the PS2 and DVD, they mishandled their money and fell out the sky like Icarus. But from your previous post I already know you understand what was mentioned earlier isn't a safe bet business wise for Nintendo.

baggagelizard · May 10, 2013

rohlfinator said:
Why wouldn't they be able to keep up the quality/sales on other platforms?

they probably could, but we would most likely lose any and all non AAA titles from them, games that aren't mario, zelda

H_Prestige · May 10, 2013

Meelow said:
No, I'm saying Nintendo working on other companies hardware would ruin them.

There's no technical reason why it should. Others reasons, sure, whatever. But actually programming a game for a different system or for PC would be no different than programming on their own.

But due to pushing things they can't afford and the rise of the PS2 and DVD, they mishandled their money and fell out the sky like Icarus. But from your previous post I already know you understand what was mentioned earlier isn't a safe bet business wise for Nintendo.

There's nothing safe about the trajectory they're on with the Wii U either (ever since the n64 really). The stakes are only getting higher in this market. Just casually releasing consoles like the Wii U and watching them get destroyed on the market isn't a good strategy.

Support NeoGAF

Nintendo and alternative hardware business model.

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

The Everyman

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Similar threads