That's not a great example at all. The New 3DS is more like the Gameboy Color or Nintendo DSi. They are actual chipset updates rather than just cosmetic redesigns. Usually a 2 year release before the next portable arrives.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Iwata on NX: "Expanding on existing hardware is dull"
- Thread starter axisofweevils
- Start date
That's not a great example at all. The New 3DS is more like the Gameboy Color or Nintendo DSi. They are actual chipset updates rather than just cosmetic redesigns. Usually a 2 year release before the next portable arrives.
WiiU was / is not getting games that are being released on PS360. Hardware doesn't guarantee 3rd party support, really.
TreasureHunterG
Banned
That pretty much proves that it's irrelevant if a Nintendo system can run 3rd party games. Nintendo needs a healthy, successful platform first, and a powerful one last.
Unknown One
Member
Even though they'll keep releasing PS360 games in 2015? The reason why WiiU doesn't get 3rd party games is because WiiU is not a healthy platform with a big 3rd-party-game-buying audience.
yeah why should they have wasted their time retooling games for a next gen console? those guys had to make time to retool games for next gen consoles.
SatoAilDarko
Member
This. Stronger hardware won't mean third-parties anymore interested. The Wii U is capable of a ton of ports but even now that it doesn't get.
Look at the Gamecube a lot of Western and mature games multiplatform titles skipped only that platform.
Honestly publishers probably realize that what sales they get are partly from other consoles. They stop releasing the port many who would have bought it will still buy it on another platform.
The power thing would only help Nintendo if it was clearly a big step up from the other two consoles or if released simultaneously a clear step up from the competitors.
In the same ballpark won't help them.
I think that it's reasonable to argue that Nintendo's internal development is so out of sync with the AAA publishers that they won't benefit from making the kind of hardware that most AAA games demand. In a way, the Wii ended up disconnecting Nintendo from the rest of the industry and it left them in a horrible position for the next generation. Having said that, I think that it's necessary for Nintendo to bite the bullet and try to compete on the high end again. They're likely to fail, but at least they would have a chance the next go around. If not, then Nintendo is going to slide further into irrelevance.
The problem was that the Wii U didn't manage to attract the audience that buys those games so it's no surprise that the publishers pulled out as well. As long as Nintendo persists in not catering to that audience, you can be sure that they're on their own. During the development of the Wii U, they should have been asking themselves hard questions about who was going to be buying their new console and why. And right now, they should be asking the same questions if they want to perform better.
No audience = no ports. It's Nintendo's fault through and through.
Imbarkus
As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
I made a thread little while ago about a console idea, maybe a suggestion for Nintendo's next one? Added some use cases for some sample games, maybe come see, be kind.
The 4th Dimensional Console
The 4th Dimensional Console
TreasureHunterG
Banned
Here we go again. Some are unaware of many issues that plagued GCN and keep using it as example to point Nintendo as unable to compete but it's inaccurate. Here's a post from Cheerilee clarifying this matter:
Publishers decided that it wasn't worthwhile to support the Wii U, and they weren't wrong. This contrasts strongly with the original Wii where publishers missed the boat badly. Then again that boat probably wasn't going to be filled with traditional hardcore games anyway, so I doubt most people here would have cared much either way.
Nintendo has made it's bed at this point, and for better or worse this means little in the way of western 3rd party support for any type of hardware going forward. I can't even imagine any course of action Nintendo could go in that would mend that situation at this point.
TreasureHunterG
Banned
They managed to change the tides in Japan in a very similar situation. Japanese developers completely abandoned Nintendo in the N64-era and they managed to bring them back (somehow, not completely) in the GCN/Wii days. Japan simply said NO to carts and got away. Similar to how the west (well, Japan, too) to underpowered hardware with "unique" features. It's not impossible, as it happened in Japan, as long they are actually motivated to do so.
EatinOlives
Member
I'm sorry but if you think outputting a duplicate feed a secondary display is your idea of "meaningfully using the game pad" you have some truly low standards.
Nearly all of the first party games make game pad use optional. My experience with the console is one where I use a traditional controller virtually the entire time. I'm glad you've found value in the console' optional features, but right now the entire industry collectively doesn't either on the developer or consumer side, and Nintendo themselves continue to develop games with those features as an afterthought. Your experience doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of their first party software still follows the traditional gaming control schemes and concepts, and it won't make the repeated addition of what amounts to be optional features the front an center of their next console actually useful and compelling to developers and consumers.
timetokill
Banned
No, my standards are quite appropriately set. It's hilarious that you would chide me on enjoying "optional features" when you're the one using the optional controller for most things. what are you even talking about?
The GamePad streaming isn't an "afterthought." It was a key element in their design of the system.
Whether the market or industry finds value in it is completely beside the point.
The problem is that western developers have pretty much settled into specific niches at this point. You have indie devs, AAA devs and mobile devs. Where do you find enough western developers that are willing to make a mid budget handheld game? I think at this point the west has reached the conclusion that the paradigm has shifted and that dedicated handhelds have been supplanted by mobile.
Does anyone really believe that they wouldn't mess up a high spec machine? People like to point out all the mistakes they made with the Gamecube, and that if they don't do any of those the third parties will come crawling back. I highly doubt that. Ignoring demographic issues, Nintendo would just make different mistakes. Don't underestimate their ability to screw up a good idea. They would need to perfectly execute it to get western AAA developers back, and that will never happen. That and chasing after them has never gone their way. Their most successful systems have always been founded on the strength on their first party software. Not third parties. They will determine the success or failure of the next console, and not anyone else.
Dont think nintendo doing gimicks/inovations to there new hardware not competing, they are.its just that there mind set is not like sony/microsoft, as iwata said they want to surprise people as to what they gana do this time around and im very excited with that.
you cant bring back the golden age of gaming without without risking for new things, just be happy theres still one trying....
TreasureHunterG
Banned
NES and SNES were restricted to first-party titles? N64 in the US market? Sorry, buddy, there was Nintendo prior to GCN/Wii/Wii U.
While I understand your point, being unique does not necessarily mean endorsing a gimmick. They can be different in ways with more staying power. I'm certainly not against the idea of having a more powerful console, but I think they like the idea of competing in untapped markets with relatively untapped tech in video games. I can't blame them for taking a different route than Sony or Microsoft.
Unknown One
Member
Iwata can surprise me by making a powerful console 
Whatever Nintendo decides to create, I will probably buy it. I just hope that it is powerful enough, or more so, than its competitors. I'm fine with whatever gimmicks/innovations they want to do. Just don't skimp on the power, and please use a developer-friendly architecture D:
Anyways, I feel like Nintendo's innovation this time around is not as obvious, or straightforward, as it has been with the Wii/Wii U/DS/3DS. The concept of NX... The idea that the platform is connected all around. That may be the innovation this time around. An ecosystem comprised of mobile, handheld, and console. Maybe even a little PC segment. Connectivity between all forms of hardware, driven by Nintendo software.
I feel as if the mobile games may be available on all of Nintendo's platforms (mobile, handheld, console, and perhaps PC). Handheld games will only be available on handhelds, and console games will only be available on consoles. I don't see this chanigng because Nintendo develops handheld games for the handheld environment. Virtual console games, in addition to various select titles (many indies and perhaps remakes) may be available across multiple platforms depending on the games themselves.
Simple touch-based 2D (or even 3D in some cases) game? Probably mobile, handheld, and console.
N64, GCN, or Wii remake? Probably handheld and console (mobile lacks proper controls)
Pokemon? Probably only handheld.
Big-name titles that require a lot of power to run would run only on the console. Possibly comes with companion app for handheld/mobile or a version suitable for other platforms.
Other titles could get released on all platforms, but through different versions with exclusive content that takes advantage of the specific platform's attributes. Smash Bros. is an example of this.
I would imagine third parties could pick and choose their platform of choice based on not just these factors, but many more, such as audience and business models fit for those platforms.
All under the same account. Maybe this is the innovation Nintendo is looking towards next. I hope so. Keep the screen on the controller. That shouldn't go away.
There's probably some redundancy in this comment, so please forgive me. It's 2am here
Whatever Nintendo decides to create, I will probably buy it. I just hope that it is powerful enough, or more so, than its competitors. I'm fine with whatever gimmicks/innovations they want to do. Just don't skimp on the power, and please use a developer-friendly architecture D:
Anyways, I feel like Nintendo's innovation this time around is not as obvious, or straightforward, as it has been with the Wii/Wii U/DS/3DS. The concept of NX... The idea that the platform is connected all around. That may be the innovation this time around. An ecosystem comprised of mobile, handheld, and console. Maybe even a little PC segment. Connectivity between all forms of hardware, driven by Nintendo software.
I feel as if the mobile games may be available on all of Nintendo's platforms (mobile, handheld, console, and perhaps PC). Handheld games will only be available on handhelds, and console games will only be available on consoles. I don't see this chanigng because Nintendo develops handheld games for the handheld environment. Virtual console games, in addition to various select titles (many indies and perhaps remakes) may be available across multiple platforms depending on the games themselves.
Simple touch-based 2D (or even 3D in some cases) game? Probably mobile, handheld, and console.
N64, GCN, or Wii remake? Probably handheld and console (mobile lacks proper controls)
Pokemon? Probably only handheld.
Big-name titles that require a lot of power to run would run only on the console. Possibly comes with companion app for handheld/mobile or a version suitable for other platforms.
Other titles could get released on all platforms, but through different versions with exclusive content that takes advantage of the specific platform's attributes. Smash Bros. is an example of this.
I would imagine third parties could pick and choose their platform of choice based on not just these factors, but many more, such as audience and business models fit for those platforms.
All under the same account. Maybe this is the innovation Nintendo is looking towards next. I hope so. Keep the screen on the controller. That shouldn't go away.
There's probably some redundancy in this comment, so please forgive me. It's 2am here
Pancakes R Us
Member
This. People need to stop assuming that hardware parity will solve the problem. Like it or not, the audience Nintendo has been attracting with their home consoles the last few generations just doesn't tend to buy the the types of games that sell well on PS/XB platforms (in decent numbers, maybe except a title here or there). Unless that is resolved, which I don't see happening any time soon, third parties will steer clear with these types of games.
I dunno is Nintendo throwing tons of money to make the most powerful console out there in the market to become a worthwhile endevor. It's almost as if most of GAF thinks "Sure, just make a console more powerful than the PS4 and developers will flock to it" is a gospel given. We knew time and again developers/publishers would always come up with certain "excuses" even if that were the case.
When Wii U was the most powerful console out in the market before the X1 and PS4, I didn't see that many developers flock to it, or at least still had reservations about Nintendo's "reputation" i.e. the kiddie image.
When Wii U was the most powerful console out in the market before the X1 and PS4, I didn't see that many developers flock to it, or at least still had reservations about Nintendo's "reputation" i.e. the kiddie image.
NES and SNES were led to success by the first party titles like Mario and Zelda, though yes third parties certainly helped there. Especially the SNES. 3DS also gets a lot of help from third parties. But the first party titles always lead the way. They drive sales first, and then get supplemented by strong third parties. At least ideally. But the N64 had third party help? Yeah there was Rare, but didn't Nintendo publish those games? I suppose I could be forgetting something from that era though.
Actually, what does the Gameboy Tetris count as? That was a huge part in the Gameboy's early life.
the wii u is the wii u, but publishers were quick to make tomb raider: again for the ps4 and xb1 and couldn't be troubled to do so for the wii u when the platform hadn't even released. the system was clearly an afterthought at best, similar to the way western developers treated the gamecube and wii for the most part. i agree that everyone's made their beds at this point, and i think it's rather fair to assume nintendo won't be getting third-parties back. i think nintendo needs third-party support, but i'm not sure they want that kind of third-party support. there's alternatives out there, but i don't know if they'll fully embrace them for the kind of platform they want to make.
Beerman462
Member
Serendipitous? Man, the lengths some people go to downplay how incredibly well-executed the Wii was. A novel concept, a killer app, an appropriate price, instantly recognizable branding, and razor sharp marketing. Nintendo didn't haphazardly stumble upon all these things.
This right here:
is some Apple iPod level shit.
Nah, Nintendo caught lightning in a bottle and had no clue how to sustain or replicate it. Nintendo makes hardware for Nintendo games. The Wii is an out lier for them post SNES.
Astral Dog
Member
To be fair, Wii U is barely more powerful than last gen, and its different architecture made making ports more difficult than it should be, that combined with an unappealing image and poor sales, its no wonder third parties flock somewhere else.
that said its true that simply making a powerful console is not going to fix everything either.
That's about where I'm at. I don't think it's possible to have your own platform and be successful without significant third party support. I also don't see them getting support on either handhelds or consoles, but that means they need something that is neither. They are in a tough spot to say the least.
GustyGardens
Banned
If Nintendo had constructed a console with horsepower equal to that of the PlayStation 4 I fear that we would be in a very similar situation. The failures of the Wii U stem mostly from the stigma gained during the Wii era. Many of the gamers that flocked to the Xbox and PlayStation were gamers that grew up with their predecessors. To these people the Wii was the kiddy machine. It's the home of Barbie and Carnival games. A shovelware box.
The first issue was keeping the Wii branding. When targeting a demographic it's important to research what people think of said brand. Wii was mega popular and sold a ton of games. Some of these games were amazing and some were not so much. Nintendo failed to realize how these games affected their brand.
When they announced the Wii U, they shoot themselves in the foot. Not only did they fail to properly introduce the console, they simultaneously told this new generation of gamers, the ones that grew up in the Wii era, that this console is just another Wii, or in some cases, a Wii controller.
Sure, a stronger console may have brought a few more 3rd party titles to the system, but once publishers saw that their target wasn't buying the Wii U they would have pulled the plug just as they did. Nintendo relied on last gen marketing to sell its next gen console. They went after a demographic without researching their needs and expectations. They needed to distance themselves from the Wii brands and launch with a campaign that showed that Nintendo isn't the baby brother in the console market, it's the daddy.
The first issue was keeping the Wii branding. When targeting a demographic it's important to research what people think of said brand. Wii was mega popular and sold a ton of games. Some of these games were amazing and some were not so much. Nintendo failed to realize how these games affected their brand.
When they announced the Wii U, they shoot themselves in the foot. Not only did they fail to properly introduce the console, they simultaneously told this new generation of gamers, the ones that grew up in the Wii era, that this console is just another Wii, or in some cases, a Wii controller.
Sure, a stronger console may have brought a few more 3rd party titles to the system, but once publishers saw that their target wasn't buying the Wii U they would have pulled the plug just as they did. Nintendo relied on last gen marketing to sell its next gen console. They went after a demographic without researching their needs and expectations. They needed to distance themselves from the Wii brands and launch with a campaign that showed that Nintendo isn't the baby brother in the console market, it's the daddy.
SuperAngelo64
Banned
Don't care what it is as long as I can use my pro controller.
The publishers could run internal projections on the system and tell that the Wii U wouldn't have the proper audience for them, and plan their releases accordingly. And given the actual sales results, it's hard to argue that they were wrong.
I think that the publishers will be willing to give them another chance, but only if Nintendo were to demonstrate their willingness to make infrastructure and hardware that can bring in the proper audiences. If you miss out on these AAA titles, then your game library is going to have a massive hole that cannot be satisfactorily filled by anything else.
I know just the kind. The kind of support that involves the talented buggers housed at these AAA publishing homes instead. Take UbiSoft. Iwata should get Shibata to jump into bed with Ancel and UbiMontpellier. Assassin's Creed? Watch_Dogs?? Bah! I'd say that funding for a BG&E Remaster/BG&E sequel/Rayman _____/ZombiU expansion pack/ZombiU sequel makes much better sense.
What they did was create self-fullfilling prophecies.
Considering some of the 3rd party NPD numbers John Harker was hinting at during the Wii U's first year, I don't think you can assume that. It was a blood bath outside of Nintendo's titles.
i think they have enough support on consoles and handhelds to support a sort of unified structure as long as everything gets localized. whatever mid-tier developers stuck on vita that don't go steam or mobile will pretty much be left with one option. atlus has been a fairly good supporter, and so has koei tecmo, level-5, and even ubisoft (who basically went above and beyond with the wii u compared to those around them). i don't mean just support from these folks though, but also promoting, heavily, the kinds of games they want to see in the marketplace. shovel knight became a thing primarily on nintendo platforms last year, and instead of locking that shit down and guaranteeing yacht club's job security for the next few games, they kind of just let that success story spread elsewhere. swords and soldiers ii, affordable space adventures, and armikrog are the kinds of things nintendo should be touting, making limited physical copies at retail, and trying to turn into big deals.
the problem with nintendo and third-parties isn't that they don't have any third-parties. it's that the third-parties that sell shitloads of games are dictating where the industry is going. and it's not the kind of industry nintendo wants. nintendo was successful last gen in that they were able to dictate where the industry should go and created platforms where those specific kinds of third-party games could thrive. they generally weren't first-person shooters and third-person shooters, although those didn't do poorly across the board on wii and ds, but they were more old school affairs, jrpgs, platformers, and on-rail and 'lightgun' shooters. and you could see these within nintendo's offerings like new super mario bros., golden sun, kirby, and sin & punishment 2. they just rarely made the effort to also reach out to third-parties that were doing the sorts of things they were back then, and those games died with nintendo's output, instead of growing and staying an important part of the industry nintendo wanted.
i think now they realize it was a mutually beneficial relationship. the biggest error in the wii era was complacency. you see now in nintendo directs and even treehouse live, time set aside specifically to discuss third-party games and sometimes announce bonuses at retail. this last holiday, nintendo sold the persona q limited edition on their nintendo of europe store. it's the sort of thing that indicates things may be turning around for them, or at least they're realizing what they want and are seeking it out.
Astral Dog
Member
Wii U was doomed before it began, that is the harsh reality, its not like the system had everything going for it and then suddendly crashed, Nintendo are the ones keeping it alive with quality games, but even them arent sure what to do with it (like the Gamepad itself)
To be fair there was only one legitimately good third party game at launch. The rest were really awful ports or cheaper versions of the game released at the same time (Mass Effect Trilogy at the same time as Mass Effect 3? Really?)
NFS was probably the best 3rd party "port" that received zero support from EA or Nintendo (huge mistake IMO.) Then during a prime area where Rayman Legends, a game placed on every Wii U kiosk (not a Nintendo game,) had nothing around it for release but instead Ubisoft decided to kill the game by making it multiplatform and delaying the release to coincide with Pokemon and GTA5.
Third parties had a window of opportunity to make something of the Wii U. They just didn't for whatever reason. The narrative that Nintendo did nothing to court 3rd parties is just a bogus one.
i don't know what projections there were to run on a system that wasn't out yet. it seems to be more of a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way. i think nintendo's secrecy and shitty management leading up to the wii u may be more to blame, the more i think about it. kits probably didn't make it out to developers until budgets were set.
regarding the 'proper audiences,' i kind of think nintendo is making a conscious effort not to pursue that market, as i mentioned in an earlier post. it seems they would have made a shot for it at this point. actually, they probably did, and out of it got goldeneye, boom blox, and gta: chinatown wars.
funding the rest of beyond good & evil 2 would be an act of good for all mankind, but i don't think the game's ever coming out, unfortunately. ancel's working on a ps4 exclusive, and rayman legends didn't do well, which bge2 was supposedly hinging on.
you don't want a gimmick, but you're jonesin' for vr?
What this equates to is basically saying "I hate Nintendo for being Nintendo". We don't even know what their "gimmick" is.
Nocturno999
Member
What about XBO's Kinect? What if people reject Nintendo's new gimmick like they did with the recent tablet controller?
Nintendo needs a solid console and controller to back on if things go sour. They did it with ROB and the Zapper.
Muchi Muchi Pink
Member
Yeah but Wii U was almost abandoned right from the start, when it sold actually decent. There was definitely something else going on behind the scenes. But one of the reasons why Wii U didn't catch fire like the Wii, was no good launch title from Nintendo this time around.
Well to be fair, Kinect also had many uses outside of the Xbox and could be used with PC. There have been a lot of cool experimental stuff with Kinect on PC. I've even seen people adapt Kinect with MMD (MikuMikuDance).
No. The wii was very deliberate and the messaging and marketing was planned well in advance and executed perfectly.
It's not the Damned hardware. That's one of the last things wrong. In order to attract the audiences the major western third parties want to put their games, they would have to drastically shift their development to make games (and attract thoSe audiences successfully) for young male power fantasies. Sorta like how sony makes mostly games where you shoot and kill things now, as opposed to the massive breadth of software their first party studios were responsible for in the ps1 and PS2 eras. Their output is perfect to attract the remaining western publishers