Support NeoGAF

[Arc Christelle]

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

Because this.

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]

The same reason Sega couldn't.

And why was that? I know Sega's the closest example, but weren't they being pretty terribly managed prior to going third party?

And splitting their library between three consoles didn't do them any favors. Nintendo could easily avoid that mistake.

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

If I wanted to be cynical I'd say they're already headed in that direction... they're doubling down on Mario/Zelda a lot more than they did with the Wii, at least.

 

[Meelow]

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.

They wouldn't be able to take risks on games, there would be no Kirby, Yoshi, Kid Icarus, X tipe games, very rarely any new IP's, no Bayonetta 2, and say good bye to any chance of a new F-Zero, Starfox, etc because that wouldn't happen.

We would get new 2D Mario games every year, and they would milk Zelda as much as they could, and MAYBE if Nintendo was nice enough we would get a new Metriod game, they would also have to sell off studio's they have, because hardware makes them a lot of money.

I'm sorry if you don't agree, but Nintendo's in the same "game" Sony and Microsoft our in, and a future with JUST Sony and Microsoft in the gaming industry is too scary to even think off.

I mean I could say Sony should just drop the Vita and develop for the 3DS, but I wouldn't want them too.

 

[H_Prestige]

They wouldn't be able to take risks on games, there would be no Kirby, Yoshi, Kid Icarus, X tipe games, very rarely any new IP's, no Bayonetta 2, and say good bye to any chance of a new F-Zero, Starfox, etc because that wouldn't happen.

We would get new 2D Mario games every year, and they would milk Zelda as much as they could, and MAYBE if Nintendo was nice enough we would get a new Metriod game, they would also have to sell off studio's they have, because hardware makes them a lot of money.

I'm sorry if you don't agree, but Nintendo's in the same "game" Sony and Microsoft our in, and a future with JUST Sony and Microsoft in the gaming industry is too scary to even think off.

Well, you completely missed my point again, but whatever.

Hardware only makes money if it sells. Their handhelds make tons of money. The Wii made tons of money. The GC did not make tons of money. The Wii U is not even making them a single penny.

F-Zero and Starfox? When was the last time Nintendo made those games? Mario and Zelda games are already the majority of their output. What new IPs?

 

[Meelow]

Well, you completely missed my point again, but whatever.

Hardware only makes money if it sells. Their handhelds make tons of money. The Wii made tons of money. The GC did not make tons of money. The Wii U is not even making them a single penny.

F-Zero and Starfox? When was the last time Nintendo made those games? Mario and Zelda games are already the majority of their output. What new IPs?

So fix this if I'm understanding you wrong, you think Nintendo should do this because the Wii U isn't making a profit? Couldn't you have to say that about the PS3/Vita (PS3 before 2010) as well? Sony lost all of they're profits they made off the PS1/PS2 with the PS3, didn't make Sony drop out, it got them stronger and our willing to fix themselves into the company they once we're.

I said say goodbye to any chance we could get off a new F-Zero and Starfox, because it's possible they are making a new one in the series and a non hardware based Nintendo wouldn't do it, and Nintendo made new IP's for Wii U and 3DS, Nintendo Land, Push Mo, etc.

 

[Darryl]

lol then you get people modding nintendo games to work without the gamepad and they're mass pirated. "Nintendo we want to give you our money without the gimmicks!" they'd say. then they do it and now everyone wants it on Steam. Next people are wondering, since the games are so easy to port over to PS4 and Xbox why can't we get them there as well?

 

[baggagelizard]

lol then you get people modding nintendo games to work without the gamepad and they're mass pirated. "Nintendo we want to give you our money without the gimmicks!" they'd say. then they do it and now everyone wants it on Steam. Next people are wondering, since the games are so easy to port over to PS4 and Xbox why can't we get them there as well?

If any console does not have exclusive games, what is the purpose of the console to exist?

 

[flippedb]

Why do people need this stupid speculation? It won't happen, Iwata ain't reading this. You won't convince anyone.

 

[Arc Christelle]

So fix this if I'm understanding you wrong, you think Nintendo should do this because the Wii U isn't making a profit? Couldn't you have to say that about the PS3/Vita (PS3 before 2010) as well? Sony lost all of they're profits they made off the PS1/PS2 with the PS3, didn't make Sony drop out, it got them stronger and our willing to fix themselves into the company they once we're.

I said say goodbye to any chance we could get off a new F-Zero and Starfox, because it's possible they are making a new one in the series and a non hardware based Nintendo wouldn't do it, and Nintendo made new IP's for Wii U and 3DS, Nintendo Land, Push Mo, etc.

lol As much as I hate to defend Prestige in Wii U threads, he wasn't actually supporting the idea.

Why do people need this stupid speculation? It won't happen, Iwata ain't reading this. You won't convince anyone.

Haha! Yes! lol. But at the same time, I guess I can understand, the presence of GAF is not to be understimated. Hence, why I joined in the first place.

 

[PKrockin]

F-Zero and Starfox? When was the last time Nintendo made those games? Mario and Zelda games are already the majority of their output.

2011?

What new IPs?

Pushmo, Sakura Samurai, Dillon's Rolling Western, Steel Diver, Spirit Camera, HarmoKnight, Pandora's Tower (?) in the last few years.

 

[H_Prestige]

So fix this if I'm understanding you wrong, you think Nintendo should do this because the Wii U isn't making a profit? Couldn't you have to say that about the PS3/Vita (PS3 before 2010) as well? Sony lost all of they're profits they made off the PS1/PS2 with the PS3, didn't make Sony drop out, it got them stronger and our willing to fix themselves into the company they once we're.

I said say goodbye to any chance we could get off a new F-Zero and Starfox, because it's possible they are making a new one in the series and a non hardware based Nintendo wouldn't do it, and Nintendo made new IP's for Wii U and 3DS, Nintendo Land, Push Mo, etc.

No, I'm simply saying that Nintendo being a third party would not be a programming challenge. It's not like game development on PC or ps4 is something alien compared to Wii U development.

And yes, if Sony continued on that downward spiral it would make no sense to keep burning money on new consoles.

 

[baggagelizard]

In reply to the Thread in general,[Hypothetical Content ahead] Nintendo having the gamepad as a PC accessory would most likely make it much more of a niche product, like Oculus Rift (I know it looks awesome, and I want one myself, but that thing won't be true mainstream for a long time).

Now, having it as a niche product would cater more to the core market, but at the same it would be such a major shift in their business model they would most likely have to become a much smaller company lowering their staff and offices greatly. Having nintendo as it is now developing for PC would not be very sustainable.

Even with a "Glorified PC" console it would still be problematic, as the PC market would not be willing to pay $50 or $60 or more on games, and Nintendo's Development staff (what's left of it) would have to learn to program on x86 hardware as apposed to the Wii-based tech, which may not be that hard, but would most likely take some time, delaying any games in production farther away, possibly many being cancelled

 

[Darryl]

If any console does not have exclusive games, what is the purpose of the console to exist?

i fully agree. the idea i'm putting forward is that if they do this, the games they make will hardly be exclusive. the set up that nintendo has now is best.

 

[JordanN]

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.

The PS4 could brute force it so instead of running at 30fps it could be 60fps.

The 8x number comes from if Nintendo had the gall to make a full on "next gen" game (so 1080p, dramatically higher polycounts, improved lighting etc).

This can only be achieved on more powerful hardware.

The competition on Playstation and Xbox is more hell now than people realize, thanks to multiplatform oversaturation.

In other words, nothing would change. Nintendo just can't put out half ass releases.

 

[Arc Christelle]

In reply to the Thread in general,[Hypothetical Content ahead] Nintendo having the gamepad as a PC accessory would most likely make it much more of a niche product, like Oculus Rift (I know it looks awesome, and I want one myself, but that thing won't be true mainstream for a long time).

Now, having it as a niche product would cater more to the core market, but at the same it would be such a major shift in their business model they would most likely have to become a much smaller company lowering their staff and offices greatly. Having nintendo as it is now developing for PC would not be very sustainable.

Even with a "Glorified PC" console it would still be problematic, as the PC market would not be willing to pay $50 or $60 or more on games, and Nintendo's Development staff (what's left of it) would have to learn to program on x86 hardware as apposed to the Wii-based tech, which may not be that hard, but would most likely take some time, delaying any games in production farther away, possibly many being cancelled

i fully agree. the idea i'm putting forward is that if they do this, the games they make will hardly be exclusive. the set up that nintendo has now is best.

Exactly. They have to try to change and control the market in order to succeed, due to what many may think, this is not a visuals/graphics/tech battle. It's a battle for control of the market in order to remain relevant.

Big names are least likely to try to play the game. But in the end, it was never for them.

AAA/AAAA/indie vs AA/A/B/indie

 

[Green Wiggly]

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

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.

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.

Good points all.

It's not that I think that Nintendo couldn't adapt to more powerful hardware, but rather that being the platform holder gives them an advantage in terms of being the ones who design the OS and write the APIs that developers will be using. This lets them push a system in the direction that they want it to go, and puts them ahead of the learning curve by default. If they decided to write software for the PC, or PS4, or whatever, they would have to learn to work within another company's framework rather than having total control over it. It's not like the Wii U is running DirectX, right?

Maybe I'm just not giving them enough credit. If they did decide not to make another console after the Wii U, I'd rather see them fall back to the handheld market though.

 

[JordanN]

The same reason Sega couldn't.

I think SEGA made some good quality games. Valkyria chronicles, Rhythm thief and Total War Shogun 2 come to mind.

I think their problem came from the "shake" of going third party. But with time, they got better.

Nintendo could experience a similar "shake" but to the point of ruin? Doubt it.

Games like Mario and Pokemon are built on a solid foundation that they should be good on any platform.

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

For home consoles maybe but even that is arguable. There's still PSN/Xbox Live/Steam and Vita to consider.

 

[kirby_fox]

A better idea would be teaming up with an electronics company and creating a branded Nintendo console as a joint venture- but without screwing it up this time. Similar to the deal Nintendo and Sony had during the SNES era-- but with no backing out and going with another company last minute.

Let the company create the hardware, brand it as a Nintendo console with comparative specs to other systems coming out, use R&D to create the new controller that'll come with the system.

The hardware business as is, is awful. You have to sell the systems at a loss and make up for it over a ton of time. If your hardware does poorly, you're screwed. An underpowered console just won't cut it in this fast paced world anymore, as 3rd parties have shown they just aren't interested.

Nintendo needs actual unprecedented partnerships at this point if they can't figure it out in-house. They need someone to do their Internet system, their hardware power, and their OS. Nintendo makes the controller and games in-house outsourcing the rest. Then get 3rd parties on board by showing them how much of a powerhouse and desirable the system will be to consumers.

That last part is why Wii U is doing poorly. They can't convince consumers to buy into it, and thus they can't convince 3rd parties to either.

 

[Refreshment.01]

People are bringing that into the argument because it's a sensible variable.

Arc, the people bringing that up so far use it as the typical defense mechanism for "you shouldn't never question Nintendo's hardware design choices". Not really interested in this branch of the disscussion because it has been explained a million times that a hardware in the same price as Wii U with better specs was in the realm of possibilites.

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.

PC indies code their games for PC, so they code for this hypothetical scenario. You are basically doominig Nintendo's recent aproach to indies as futile then.

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.

It seems you are missing what's been discused or not explaining yourself properly. Everything works the same as the Wii U. Nintendo will be releasing it's hook, which is the GamePad with subscreen, in the PC space at a very generous profit, yet at a small cost of admision for the millions of PC users that comply with the baseline specs. Then the market deciseds if they want more or less use of the GamePad features in subsequent third party games.

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.

Again, this misses the point and gives me an stronger case. Nintendo is still releasing their odd ball gadget, but they won't be restraining the gadget to one hardware configuration. So theres the potential for the device to reach million of more users.

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.

???? In the proposed scenrario they are releasing a Wii U. Instead of making a frankestin out of old tech in a custom system on a chip, they make their box with more standard PC parts and sell the device at profit. A potential reduction in sales at the begining could be offset by the PC kit that would be selling cheaper but with larger profit margins.

With time they could even sell different boxes in a variety of specs acording to market trends. This is the type of flexibility with hardware that the model would allow.

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

Why are you talking about Nintendo going third party in here? They wont be present in MS or Sony machines.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

The downside would be a loss of 1st party royalties. That's a crippling one. They should never go third party unless there's literally no other choice.

 

[Takamura-San]

Nintendo being a PC peripheral company will not help them at all. Having their games require them is worse.

 

[Refreshment.01]

The downside would be a loss of 1st party royalties. That's a crippling one. They should never go third party unless there's literally no other choice.

This is a tricky one of course. Fanatics argue that Nintendo design their machines with their needs in mind first, which is on itself a way to diminish potential royalties. So they are screwing themselves up right now with the Wii U and the slow 3rd party support.

On to the matter, first in this model they sell everything at profit and have a reduction in expenses in terms of custom CPU and GPU while gaining a potential bigger user base in less time. Now, they could charge the license fee if the game is played on their box.

Remember don't take this too heart since we are just talking about different models in whcih they could operate, that's part of the fun.

 

[rohlfinator]

Why are you talking about Nintendo going third party in here? They wont be present in MS or Sony machines.

Referring to PC. I should have said "other platform."

 

[Reallink]

Nintendo's best option is, in about 3 years time, release some sort of portable/console hybrid. I think it will take at least that long for the hardware to be where it needs to be at the prices and margins Nintendo will demand. This merging for markets will them give a natural and easy way out of the (likely still failing) U just as the 3DS is due for succession It could also represent an opportunity for them to pretend to make some effort to compete in the mobile market. Probably is such a device may be old hat by then with stuff like the Razer Edge already out.

 

[ASIS]

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.

The benefits are there, no doubt. But the negatives outweigh the positives in my opinion. You say they will have access to millions day one. But that million people already have other platforms to play on their PC, including steam, retail, etc. That means that Nintendo will likely create more competition for themselves than before. All the while limiting their third party support due to the fact that Nintendo will have to keep the specs pretty much the same until the end of the console generation. Since third parties already have accessed and established themselves in that playing field, I don't see how it would be beneficial at all in the long term. Unless you mean that third parties can choose to support only one of these platforms, which will also be unfeasible (See extra RAM usage on the DSi, dual shock on PS1, etc). A common denominator must be in place if Nintendo were to establish themselves as a platform in both markets.

Furthermore, although I don't have the exact numbers of the hardware money they get, it is enough that I can say a Gamepad alone will not be able to compensate. Not because it's not profitable, oh no, but because it won't bring in the same cash flow actual hardware does.


Overall I do think there is a way to make your idea work, but I don't think supporting the PC is the right way of doing it.

 

[Refreshment.01]

There are somethigs that are not clear to me, i'll try to go as carefully as i can so i'll brake your post in parts.

The benefits are there, no doubt. But the negatives outweigh the positives in my opinion. You say they will have access to millions day one. But that million people already have other platforms to play on their PC, including steam, retail, etc. That means that Nintendo will likely create more competition for themselves than before.

These people will have acces to Nintendo's catalogue of games at a lower price of entry than paying for an entire console. But anyways, Nintendo right now is competing with all the things you listed, maybe not as directly but they are. Even by their ex CEO admision.

All the while limiting their third party support due to the fact that Nintendo will have to keep the specs pretty much the same until the end of the console generation. Since third parties already have accessed and established themselves in that playing field, I don't see how it would be beneficial at all in the long term. Unless you mean that third parties can choose to support only one of these platforms, which will also be unfeasible (See extra RAM usage on the DSi, dual shock on PS1, etc). A common denominator must be in place if Nintendo were to establish themselves as a platform in both markets.

Sorry to repeat myself, but i think is pertinent. Basically, they sell Wii U's gamepad for the PC, it most comply with a baseline of features, I.E. DX 10 1 GB videocard, 4 GB RAM, X amount of hard disk space, etc. APU's are becoming comon place these days so the market in some years will be even bigger, people in the lowest level hardware could enjoy the games ok while the guy with a Titan can play the games at 4K resolutions if they want.

Nintendo releases their official box as always, a PC in a box at marginal profits. Why would someone buy this? Because close to 4 Million people bough a console that is more expensive than the competition while lacking a lot of competing features. Maybe because of Nintendo's pedegree or maybe because they found the GamePad interesting. They could potentialy even launch in multiple sku's with different procesing capabilities if they gauge a demand for it.

Furthermore, although I don't have the exact numbers of the hardware money they get, it is enough that I can say a Gamepad alone will not be able to compensate. Not because it's not profitable, oh no, but because it won't bring in the same cash flow actual hardware does.

Nintendo design philosophy is puzzling these days. Like already pointed out, they design with their software necesities above all esle and underpowered hardware in relation to the competition. This undermine their licensing fees busyness when 3rd parties don't feel confortable with the platform. So this is already costing them a lot of money with the Wii U. More over making a ginmick (nothing wrong with this) the alluring feature complicates 3rd parties development even more due to the need of implementing features that exploit the input device. So Nintendo is already sabotaging their revenue here.

Maybe with the hypothetical model in place, a 3rd party game played on PC would not give them the license fee. But a 3rd party one played on their box would give then that fee.

 

[Refreshment.01]

Nintendo's best option is, in about 3 years time, release some sort of portable/console hybrid. I think it will take at least that long for the hardware to be where it needs to be at the prices and margins Nintendo will demand. This merging for markets will them give a natural and easy way out of the (likely still failing) U just as the 3DS is due for succession It could also represent an opportunity for them to pretend to make some effort to compete in the mobile market. Probably is such a device may be old hat by then with stuff like the Razer Edge already out.

I always liked the possible Nintendo Hybrid, simply out of coolnes, there are some strong positives but i don't know if the company is ready to sacrifice one revenue stream. Even if it implies larger profits in the long term, Nintendo is not really forward thinking when risking instant gratification. For them the Hybrid or VR glasses are the more interesting things they could do, yet i think some other competitor will beat them to the VR land. And let's face it, the VR tech is more an allure to a traditional set on gamers and would work for some genres.

However, the company has all the tools to test the hybrid concept right now. First, they should make every important 3DS game from now on 100% compatible with the Wii U. And stablish a model that let's you download the game to the other platform (Wii U or 3DS) after the first sale for a small fee. The other thing they could do, if possible, is sale signal booster to extend the GamePad ranges so it function in more areas around the users house.

The above posibility is a lot more realistic and something they should do.

 

[Arc Christelle]

@Refreshment.01

For the sake of saving space and avoiding to read long ass posts, I'm just gonna make sure I understand what you're trying to say.

Is your idea releasing a Wii-U with specs closer to PC parts instead of custom specs, with the Gamepad PC-Compatible as a secondary hardware function?

 

[Refreshment.01]

@Refreshment.01

For the sake of saving space and avoiding to read long ass posts, I'm just gonna make sure I understand what you're trying to say.

Is your idea releasing a Wii-U with specs closer to PC parts instead of custom specs, with the Gamepad PC-Compatible as a secondary hardware function?

The above would be very nice. Im not giving it too much taught at the moment, it might even be a lot more plausible than what i propose. Better some ways and with some disadvanatges.

The scenario is if Nintendo releases the Wii U gamepad kit for the PC platform (or Linux which is another case with +/-), that would work in PC's that meet certain amount of specs. So Wii U games work like PC games. The kit would be sold at a larger profit margin since they don't need to worry about the hardware runing the games.

At the same time they sell the Wii U gamepad with the Nintendo branded PC box. Which is exactly what they do now and had an important user base that always buys the hardware, no matter how crippled it is (see Wii U). Here they can be as flexible as they want, sold a box close to the minimun specs or sell something better, whatever they feel conforrable with.

A game played on PC doesn't net them a license fee, a 3rd party game played in their box nets then the fee. Pluses: The potential user base becomes gigantic from day 1 and every sell in there grands then a lot of profits from the hardware (that is Upad). 3rd parties doesn't have to deal with extra resources for ports. Users can play the games with the visual fidelity they want or can. Also users will be efectibly buying a game that works in two platforms their PC or Wii U box. Nintendo doesn't have to bother that much with custom hardware to power it's box, so the R&D centers around the input method and service side of things.

Finally, we wouldn't be talking about this if their traditional model was working but it isn't, for several cycles even.

Edit: some slight corrections for clarity.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

A better idea would be teaming up with an electronics company and creating a branded Nintendo console as a joint venture- but without screwing it up this time. Similar to the deal Nintendo and Sony had during the SNES era-- but with no backing out and going with another company last minute.

Let the company create the hardware, brand it as a Nintendo console with comparative specs to other systems coming out, use R&D to create the new controller that'll come with the system.

The hardware business as is, is awful. You have to sell the systems at a loss and make up for it over a ton of time. If your hardware does poorly, you're screwed. An underpowered console just won't cut it in this fast paced world anymore, as 3rd parties have shown they just aren't interested.

Nintendo needs actual unprecedented partnerships at this point if they can't figure it out in-house. They need someone to do their Internet system, their hardware power, and their OS. Nintendo makes the controller and games in-house outsourcing the rest. Then get 3rd parties on board by showing them how much of a powerhouse and desirable the system will be to consumers.

That last part is why Wii U is doing poorly. They can't convince consumers to buy into it, and thus they can't convince 3rd parties to either.

I agree with you that Nintendo should hire someone to do their OS and internet system, similar to what they did with Nintendo TV.

However, the idea of overpriced hardware or that you have to be the most powerful one all the time just isn't true though. The fact of the matter is that Wii was cheap when it came out. PS3 & 360 are cheap now and cell phones are subsidized. Those are all of the areas where most of the gaming is occurring. Even on PC, the browser based games that were free and didn't require outrageous specs have recently seen the most growth.

You have to also look at the market. The market is trying to push the price of games down. Even high end games are looking at alternative ways (like FTP) to make money while keeping the price down for consumers. The idea of paying $500 for a console and $60 - $75 for next gen games is a huge gamble. It's why we're seeing so many cross gen games coming out. What we have are two forces directly working against each other.

If anything, Nintendo is way ahead of this. If you look at it, it's the big publishers and developers that are ignoring the facts, while indie devs are very aware of what's going on. I'm not saying there isn't room for AAA games with big budgets. What I am saying is that the days of low risk and high reward (like the PS1 & PS2 era) are in the other arena.

When the next gen starts, the trend we are on right now could completely flip. If they do, Nintendo will be in a good position to take ports (although their architecture could have made this easier) with the Gamepad able to play just about any type of game. Couple this with Nintendo's IP and it could turn out okay for them. I realize this is a big IF, but I do think that in the area of overpriced hardware, Nintendo is right.

What could be a solution is if Nintendo did something like what you and the OP are suggesting. Team up with a set of hardware manufacturers and get an architecture that can constantly be upgraded on an annual basis. The situation with graphics would be similar to PC where an older system would still play new games, but they wouldn't look as good as they would if it were on the brand new hardware. Of course, this requires the hardware to be inexpensive for the consumer, but the pay off could be huge do to there being a larger install base to buy the software. Imagine that if all Wii U did was play Wii games, but they looked like they do on Dolphin. It would keep development costs down while exciting the hardcore gamers and casuals. It's a way to extend the lifecycle until the next big iteration comes out.

 

[Arc Christelle]

The above would be very nice. Im not giving it too much taught at the moment, it might even be a lot more plausible than what i propose. Better some ways and with some disadvanatges.

The scenario is if Nintendo releases the Wii U gamepad kit for the PC platform (or Linux which is another case with +/-), that would work in PC's that meet certain amount of specs. So Wii U games work like PC games. The kit would be sold at a larger profit margin since they don't need to worry about the hardware runing the games.

At the same time they sell the Wii U gamepad with the Nintendo branded PC box. Which is exactly what they do now and had an important user base that always buys the hardware, no matter how crippled it is (see Wii U). Here they can be as flexible as they want, sold a box close to the minimun specs or sell something better, whatever they feel conforrable with.

A game played on PC doesn't net them a license fee, a 3rd party game played in their box nets then the fee. Pluses: The potential user base becomes gigantic from day 1 and every sell in there grands then a lot of profits from the hardware (that is Upad). 3rd parties doesn't have to deal with extra resources for ports. Users can play the games with the visual fidelity they want or can. Also users will be efectibly buying a game that works in two platforms their PC or Wii U box. Nintendo doesn't have to bother that much with custom hardware to power it's box, so the R&D centers around the input method and service side of things.

Finally, we wouldn't be talking about this if their traditional model was working but it isn't, for several cycles even.

Edit: some slight corrections for clarity.

Alright. I think I'm getting what you're trying to say. So my next question is who would support it for PC, and what would be the price of the standalone Gamepad?

 

[Refreshment.01]

Alright. I think I'm getting what you're trying to say. So my next question is who would support it for PC, and what would be the price of the standalone Gamepad?

As of support there are 1000 of games already released for PC. The bulk of the extra work will depend on how a 3rd party will chose to employ the specail features of the Updad if they chose to. If not, remember that Off TV play, customizable HUD's and button layouts on touchscreen are super easy to implement.

The pricing with zero data to back up could be a vast amount of values and it is a tricky part. But to keep things simple lets assume a BOM of 60/65 for the base Upad. So you sell the PC kit for 180 U.S. with the NIntendo 1st party game that showcases the controller. The Nintendo box goes on sale for the 349 or 399. They could make the box more appeling using promotions or subsidized methods. Buy the box get 10 % discount in eShop games, buy 3 games get 1 free, subcribe to whatever sh!t we come up with for 2 years and get a discount on base hardware, buy the hardware get 2 free games. And so on.

 

[Arc Christelle]

As of support there are 1000 of games already released for PC. The bulk of the extra work will depend on how a 3rd party will chose to employ the specail features of the Updad if they chose to. If not, remember that Off TV play, customizable HUD's and button layouts on touchscreen are super easy to implement.

The pricing with zero data to back up could be a vast amount of values and it is a tricky part. But to keep things simple lets assume a BOM of 60/65 for the base Upad. So you sell the PC kit for 180 U.S. with the NIntendo 1st party game that showcases the controller. The Nintendo box goes on sale for the 349 or 399. They could make the box more appeling using promotions or subsidized methods. Buy the box get 10 % discount in eShop games, buy 3 games get 1 free, subcribe to whatever sh!t we come up with for 2 years and get a discount on base hardware, buy the hardware get 2 free games. And so on.

I understand the intent, but it's more like you're leaving it up to chance that people would develop for it which isn't good. And assuming is a no no in business. You either know or you don't. I recall a new Gamepad from the Factory is $150, but they haven't hit retail yet. So that's also something to take into consideration with your business plan.

• Also would the revised version of the pad be able to do all of the functions inside of the actual Gamepad (Gyro/Motion/Camera/Mic/Wii-mote & 3DS Compat./Etc?)
  
• Would Nintendo have to support it, and if so, how would it affect their home console brand if consumers are being offered a better deal at a cheaper price? [I know you tried to answer but you're going to actually have to come up with something.]
  
• How would they avoid pirating and emulation fears with more accessible hardware/consoles? (Taito-Type X2 arcade board is a good example of a Windows based arcade board being hacked and emulated.)
  
• How will it work with the 3DS?
  

I recommend taking the time to do some research to come up with a solid plan to help convey your point. It might be possible, but if we are to discuss it realistically. We're gonna need solid details for the concept or constants in order to conclude to a true answer.

Because in an idea situation, the Wii U would currently have strong support.

Also you would have to come up with the plan that leads to profit, which means you will need to know how much it costs to manufacturing 1 of both the gamepad and the Wii U PC Box, as well as shipping and retail price. Consider all factors to cost and gaining profit, as well as marketing.

I'm sure there are probably some other things I forgot to mention but most of what I wrote is necessary to consider before saying "It's a good idea."

EDIT: I also forgot, another thing to consider is would these 1000's of games be worth getting a Gamepad for? The Wii U came out with what many said was the most available games at launch, yet it didn't result in massive sales, and many consumers, especially those here on GAF even feel as they would want to wait until some games they are interested in are released.

 

[Refreshment.01]

I understand the intent, but it's more like you're leaving it up to chance that people would develop for it which isn't good. And assuming is a no no in business. You either know or you don't. I recall a new Gamepad from the Factory is $150, but they haven't hit retail yet. So that's also something to take into consideration with your business plan.

People, devs, publishers already have done most of the developmen for the hypothetical platform since is 100% compatible with PC games. Even with the cumbersome 3rd party unfriendly Wii U the platform gets some support. While we endeed criticise Nintendo because they are becoming less relevant they still retain some importance. Indie developers will be best served this way even.

No, substituting a gamepad costs 150. The BOM of the GamePad is in no way above a 100 dollars.

[*]Also would the revised version of the pad be able to do all of the functions inside of the actual Gamepad (Gyro/Motion/Camera/Mic/Wii-mote & 3DS Compat./Etc?)

Of course, the whole point of the model is that Nintendo keeps its"oddbal" input/hook method while taking away some of the burden they have when making hardware and stablishing 3rd party relationships.

[*]Would Nintendo have to support it, and if so, how would it affect their home console brand if consumers are being offered a better deal at a cheaper price? [I know you tried to answer but you're going to actually have to come up with something.]

Because some people prefer consoles for gaming. If we get down to it, the best deal any consumer could get in terms of gaming is buying a PC. If the consumer was 100% value minded they wouldn't be buying consoles right now. Consumers do so because many factors, brand loyalty, exclusives or the convinience of a game box.

[*]How would they avoid pirating and emulation fears with more accessible hardware/consoles? (Taito-Type X2 arcade board is a good example of a Windows based arcade board being hacked and emulated.)

With their closed console business they havent been able to avoid the piracy either. The DS sold so much because it was pirated, the Wii was, hell the Wii U is already cracked if it wasn't for the lack of interest in the console we would be seen game dumps already.

[*] How will it work with the 3DS?

Well at least i gave the sugestion in a previous post that NIntendo should make their 3DS games a 100% compatible with Wii U because how close interface wise the Upad is to a 3DS. That's something they should do even outside of the hypothetical talk we are having here.

I recommend taking the time to do some research to come up with a solid plan to help convey your point. It might be possible, but if we are to discuss it realistically. We're gonna need solid details for the concept or constants in order to conclude to a true answer.

If i had the time i would really love to. And part of sharing this with the board was a fast way to at least have some new ideas going, or some pros and cons for this a lot more quickly. Yet, if we had the need to backup everything with solid data or proof then the disscussions in this board (dare i say the internet) would be almost non existant XD

EDIT: I also forgot, another thing to consider is would these 1000's of games be worth getting a Gamepad for? The Wii U came out with what many said was the most available games at launch, yet it didn't result in massive sales, and many consumers, especially those here on GAF even feel as they would want to wait until some games they are interested in are released.

That's up to consumers. Right now one the biggest hurdles Nintendo is facing is thris party support. Something like this would make 3rd party less hesitant to support Nintendo and more easily adopt the Wii U Gamepad.

Also the anyone can propose something different. I think there are some post right here doing so, maybe i'll reply to those later.

 

[m.i.s.]

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.

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.

I like the sound of this, a passively-cooled, solid state system designed primarily for indie games and Nintendo's own 3D and legacy 2D sprite games [something that other companies can't offer].

 

[Refreshment.01]

I like the sound of this, a passively-cooled, solid state system designed primarily for indie games and Nintendo's own 3D and legacy 2D sprite games [something that other companies can't offer].

You already got it then, just need to wait some years. I already adressed that post, so i won't expand. But i don't see that aproach solving their problems (might aswell lose more market promnance that way)

 

[Arc Christelle]

This might actually be an interesting discussion. I've been looking for more design-centric discussions on GAF lately besides the typical 3 threads that have been happening lately. I would contribute with some info. I'd have to know the current price of manufacturing a Gamepad and all of the parts inside of it to create a better deal.