With all the built up tension on the present I figured it would be more fun and less stressful to talk about the future. This question is more about if they could pull it off not if they would do it. However, feel free to discuss your thoughts on if they would or not.
Nintendo's NX console will be revealed in 2016 (confirmed) and most likely launch late 2016 or sometime in 2017. Iwata has been discussing the need for a Unified OS architecture (and they have made appropriate partnerships to create this) that allows a game made for one device to work on another. However, a unified OS has other advantages specifically *backwards compatibility* should future hardware have the same OS we could see more frequent hardware releases as games would just work on the next iteration and generational changes would be less of major shift and more of a smooth slide.
Now, phones go through yearly hardware refreshes already part of the reason this is possible is the Unified OS architecture that they share (and Nintendo will soon be adopting). A person can go several years without refreshing the iphone because they all run the same OS and most major apps and games will continue to work with their phone for the foreseeable future and most developers target their apps and games at systems that are still several years old in order to reach the widest audience.
Despite this fact the enthusiasts will typically update their phone at either the 1 or 2 year mark. This is not a minor purchase and is typically around $600 but even so year after year Iphone's, Galaxies, and other major phone brands sell more than the year before and some will outsell major game systems. Seeing these examples proves the business model is both possible and sustainable. A lot of this tends to be because of contracts being up however the day 1 sales of the iphone are typically not as people line up and pre-order months in advance and pay the price in full.
Obviously Nintendo doesn't make smartphones they make game systems but modern game systems can nearly do all the major functions of a smartphone (web, email, etc) minus make calls on cellular they are for all intents and purposes a multipurpose device. Even so they are still dedicated to gaming and not quite analogues to a phone. Because of these differences I think a bi-yearly refresh would be better than a yearly one. This would make the "generational leap" a bit more apparent and give consumers a bit more confidence in the longevity of their devices This would give a roughly 4 year window before a given device is "obsolete" which is not too far removed from the current 5-6 year cycle. And perfectly in line with their current model of a minor handheld upgrade halfway through the lifecycle.
I think it's also important to say whatever this would end up being it would need to be launched as a "third pillar" product until the waters have been proven.
_________________________________
Advantages
It would make Nintendo more competitive with the encroaching smartphone market.
It would keep hardware competitive throughout it's lifecycle instead a flickering moment of being competitive followed by obsolescence.
It would encourage smaller games and more experimentation within genres
It would take Nintendo out of direct competition with the other game systems on the market
Disadvantages
Some games already take 2+ years to make so your game would either release on the older hardware or have to be developed in a shorter time period
It would discourage the AAA game market and longer dev cycles
It would take Nintendo out of direct competition with the other game systems on the market
It could lessen "innovation" between cycles as R&D would have to be done more quickly and safely.
_________________________________
It would split the userbase
The idea would be a singular OS that would ensure that older platforms can still run the games. The dev's would more than likely target a lower denominator in order to increase sales which has already been observed in phone games you should mean we have at least 2 cycles (4 years) before a system becomes loses major support.
But devs wouldn't support this/ would just go for the lowest common denominator
Major developers are already doing it on mobile with developers like Konami embracing it to a startlingly degree. Going for the lowest common denominator with minor enhancements for the more powerful hardware is also being done on Nintendo hardware already just look at Smash Bros 3DS and Monster Hunter 4.
Nintendo wouldn't do this
I'm aware of that that is why I mentioned this is more of a "what if"/could they could pull it off however if you would like to discuss the possibility of them doing it feel free. Keep in mind not too long ago Nintendo would have never created mobile games however now we have this recent DeNA partnership.
You sound like you are talking about the NX being a handheld when it's basically confirmed to be a console
I'm trying to refer to the NX as less of a singular system and more of a "platform" that would encompass both handhelds and home consoles. As that seems to be what all the hints point too.
Why Nintendo?
From what I see neither of them are setup to do this with their console segments. Microsoft has something going with it's Win10 Xbox backend and the unification with PC but they don't have a handheld which would make the most sense for this kind of refresh cycle. They in a sense already do it with the surface line. Sony has the Vita but honestly the Vita didn't even get a mention at Sony's conference and is virtually non-existent at their E3 booth. They also don't seem to have any plans to unify OS architecture or move towards a fully backwards compatible future. They sort of do it with their Xperia phone line already.
Lolwut
Thank you for your wonderful contribution
Anyway, that's all I have I'm sure many of you will come up with creative arguments both for and against the idea that I could never foresee it's just my hope that this will generate some interesting discussion and not just turn into a one sided thing. I've done my best to outline my reasoning and support it but I'm far from perfect. What are your thoughts?
TLDR I think it would be interesting to see Nintendo try a bi-yearly hardware refresh cycle.
Nintendo's NX console will be revealed in 2016 (confirmed) and most likely launch late 2016 or sometime in 2017. Iwata has been discussing the need for a Unified OS architecture (and they have made appropriate partnerships to create this) that allows a game made for one device to work on another. However, a unified OS has other advantages specifically *backwards compatibility* should future hardware have the same OS we could see more frequent hardware releases as games would just work on the next iteration and generational changes would be less of major shift and more of a smooth slide.
Now, phones go through yearly hardware refreshes already part of the reason this is possible is the Unified OS architecture that they share (and Nintendo will soon be adopting). A person can go several years without refreshing the iphone because they all run the same OS and most major apps and games will continue to work with their phone for the foreseeable future and most developers target their apps and games at systems that are still several years old in order to reach the widest audience.
Despite this fact the enthusiasts will typically update their phone at either the 1 or 2 year mark. This is not a minor purchase and is typically around $600 but even so year after year Iphone's, Galaxies, and other major phone brands sell more than the year before and some will outsell major game systems. Seeing these examples proves the business model is both possible and sustainable. A lot of this tends to be because of contracts being up however the day 1 sales of the iphone are typically not as people line up and pre-order months in advance and pay the price in full.
Obviously Nintendo doesn't make smartphones they make game systems but modern game systems can nearly do all the major functions of a smartphone (web, email, etc) minus make calls on cellular they are for all intents and purposes a multipurpose device. Even so they are still dedicated to gaming and not quite analogues to a phone. Because of these differences I think a bi-yearly refresh would be better than a yearly one. This would make the "generational leap" a bit more apparent and give consumers a bit more confidence in the longevity of their devices This would give a roughly 4 year window before a given device is "obsolete" which is not too far removed from the current 5-6 year cycle. And perfectly in line with their current model of a minor handheld upgrade halfway through the lifecycle.
I think it's also important to say whatever this would end up being it would need to be launched as a "third pillar" product until the waters have been proven.
_________________________________
Advantages
It would make Nintendo more competitive with the encroaching smartphone market.
It would keep hardware competitive throughout it's lifecycle instead a flickering moment of being competitive followed by obsolescence.
It would encourage smaller games and more experimentation within genres
It would take Nintendo out of direct competition with the other game systems on the market
Disadvantages
Some games already take 2+ years to make so your game would either release on the older hardware or have to be developed in a shorter time period
It would discourage the AAA game market and longer dev cycles
It would take Nintendo out of direct competition with the other game systems on the market
It could lessen "innovation" between cycles as R&D would have to be done more quickly and safely.
_________________________________
It would split the userbase
The idea would be a singular OS that would ensure that older platforms can still run the games. The dev's would more than likely target a lower denominator in order to increase sales which has already been observed in phone games you should mean we have at least 2 cycles (4 years) before a system becomes loses major support.
But devs wouldn't support this/ would just go for the lowest common denominator
Major developers are already doing it on mobile with developers like Konami embracing it to a startlingly degree. Going for the lowest common denominator with minor enhancements for the more powerful hardware is also being done on Nintendo hardware already just look at Smash Bros 3DS and Monster Hunter 4.
Nintendo wouldn't do this
I'm aware of that that is why I mentioned this is more of a "what if"/could they could pull it off however if you would like to discuss the possibility of them doing it feel free. Keep in mind not too long ago Nintendo would have never created mobile games however now we have this recent DeNA partnership.
You sound like you are talking about the NX being a handheld when it's basically confirmed to be a console
I'm trying to refer to the NX as less of a singular system and more of a "platform" that would encompass both handhelds and home consoles. As that seems to be what all the hints point too.
Why Nintendo?
From what I see neither of them are setup to do this with their console segments. Microsoft has something going with it's Win10 Xbox backend and the unification with PC but they don't have a handheld which would make the most sense for this kind of refresh cycle. They in a sense already do it with the surface line. Sony has the Vita but honestly the Vita didn't even get a mention at Sony's conference and is virtually non-existent at their E3 booth. They also don't seem to have any plans to unify OS architecture or move towards a fully backwards compatible future. They sort of do it with their Xperia phone line already.
Lolwut
Thank you for your wonderful contribution
Anyway, that's all I have I'm sure many of you will come up with creative arguments both for and against the idea that I could never foresee it's just my hope that this will generate some interesting discussion and not just turn into a one sided thing. I've done my best to outline my reasoning and support it but I'm far from perfect. What are your thoughts?
TLDR I think it would be interesting to see Nintendo try a bi-yearly hardware refresh cycle.