• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Nintendo says the transition to its next console is ‘a major concern for us’

Kataploom

Member
Right, it's all down to player activity rather game design. Almost every game can be played casually or hardcorely.
Yes, though some games require more investment than others to get average good at them, but you're right, "core games" must be these and not "realistic western looking games" actually... Those tend to be less "core" (apart from online stuff, most online game requires time put with no exception to barely start enjoying)
 

Woopah

Member
Yes, though some games require more investment than others to get average good at them, but you're right, "core games" must be these and not "realistic western looking games" actually... Those tend to be less "core" (apart from online stuff, most online game requires time put with no exception to barely start enjoying)
I don't think "core" and "casual" are useful terms to describe games. I think "traditional" and "non-traditional" are much better.
 

Tams

Gold Member
Yup Switch is an outier and my concern is that if they've seen their new way of doing things are more profitable than they'll keep it that way.
 

FergusFrost

Member
Backwards compatibility and owner licenses are what needs to happen going forward. Ninte do are still behind in so many ways.
 

Beechos

Member
Just allow ps plus and game pass on the next switch. Between the nintendo, sony and xbox fanboys easily 100+ million system seller.
 

gamer82

Member
They don't want to spend the money so you will pay more for games on low tech and like it . As much as i am a Nintendo fan they are way behind, get with it .

This old we don't need power is just a lazy excuse and why would you want to loose out on game sales of third party titles . If they look and play better on other systems thats a loss, not very good business sense there think of the lost profits and funds for new games/movies.

i mean who doesn't want smooth, jaggie free, higher res Nintendo games the legit way. if you don't want to release them on a system why not make them for the pc or streaming then the cost is on the customer if they want higher res Nintendo games.
 
Last edited:

PaintTinJr

Member
Personally, I think they should be more worried than they've ever been, because the Switch success has positioned them in an awkward spot, both in terms of future hardware and software development IMO.

My first concern for them is that they've forgotten the people like me - they need to recruit at day 1 - that bought and loved the Cube, and bought and loved the WiiU, and was there day one for the Wii and Switch, and despite not liking the later two systems as much, I still actively showed them off with friends and family that all went on to buy those two very popular outliers.

I'm not looking for a Switch 2, but a local splitscreen multiplayer Nintendo Pro console(ps4 level would do) that can companion with a Switch or Switch 2 like the WiiU tablet if need be, but primarily a console that when I fire up Mario Kart or Sports bowling, etc it doesn't become a judder mess because the processor is too weak to monitor multiple bluetooth controller connections - like the ARM chip does in the Switch - or is too weak to handle the high availability processing requirements of splitscreen gaming as seen in 3P Switch Bowling or 2P or more MK8,

Local multiplayer might not be the revenue maker for Sony and Microsoft, but just from a marketing and identity point of view for Nintendo home systems, it has been a very important part of their pitch. And the portable legacy if foisted on to their next system - which will likely be used in docked mode by the majority - will again be at odds with delivering that local multiplayer at the quality associated by Nintendo systems IMO. because portable processors will be too weak.

They seem to have also backed themselves into a lower production portable corner via the Switch's success with software development, too, and the problem with that strategy if Switch 2 is received like WiiU is that they can't easily recover to the levels of WiiU development because they are now bridging an even bigger gap than before because the Switch could never move beyond the WiiU level games for all these years, and it was already a generation behind when it launched. For Nintendo to even have their games reach AA PS4 game production level they will need large lead times IMO and they just won't be able to buy that time back.

There is also the more obvious issue that a lot of the Switch's first party software has been re-releases of software produced in the era of Iwata/Miyamoto, or the new games were poor derivatives(IMHO) and they've now sweated their old games too much now, adding more pressure for new great game ideas being needed,
,
The missteps in key games like Mario Odyssey where they had game music containing sing/lyrics, and the game had lost all the sense of speed/motion from 64. Sunshine and Galaxy suggests they are going to struggle to produce new compelling gameplay Adding in gimmicks like the hat which provided really shallow gameplay IMO really exposed that Miyamoto wasn't an easy man to emulate. I also suspect that despite BotW's commercial success, moving the Zelda IP into a Assassin Creed openness will likely be a fatigue issue for gamers after the follow up with lasting damage to the franchise IMO.
 
Nintendo hardware sequels have always had poorer sales:

SNES < NES

GC < N64

WiiU < Wii

GBA < GB

3DS < DS

Which is why Switch 2 from Switch may be a problem.
Why is the Wii not a "sequel" to the GameCube? It was basically a GameCube with motion controls.

Also, the Switch is basically the Wii U 2, or what the Wii U really wanted to be, but needed a few more years for the technology to be affordable.
 
Switch 2 releasing and then leading into a powerful standalone console that isn’t held back by the handheld aspect would be great. Switch would effectively become Gameboy in that it exists as its own line of development alongside Nintendo home consoles.
 
Last edited:

KingT731

Member
Switch 2 releasing and then leading into a powerful standalone console that isn’t held back by the handheld aspect would be great. Switch would effectively become Gameboy in that it exists as its own line of development alongside Nintendo home consoles.
Except that was Nintendo's problem previously. They couldn't feed both sectors.
 

KiteGr

Member
They need to make something beefy for once, otherwise I'll be playing their games on my eventual Steam Deck 2.
 

Kataploom

Member
Except that was Nintendo's problem previously. They couldn't feed both sectors.
They shouldn't need to though, but for people that don't play it portable like me out would be great, the only problem I see is having a third hardware profile for developers
 

Tams

Gold Member
Why is the Wii not a "sequel" to the GameCube? It was basically a GameCube with motion controls.

Also, the Switch is basically the Wii U 2, or what the Wii U really wanted to be, but needed a few more years for the technology to be affordable.

Not really. Being able to play away from the TV was only one feature of the Wii U and not even the one they promoted the most heavily. It was more the asymmetric gameplay (that unfortunately very few games used) and additional controls (BOTW was butchered on Wii U and Splatoon 2 has noticeable worse user created art than Splatoon, among quite a few other things).
 

Cyberpunkd

Gold Member
I don't know anything about Steam deck, but can Nintendo just make a more powerful switch roughly the same size but with better graphics that plays switch 1 & switch 2 games for switch 2
Yes, that is the most sensible thing to do. However Nintendo is also obsessed with radically changing console design from one generation to another - Gamecube, Wii, WiiU, Switch.
We shall see if they will fuck it up again.
 

Ozzie666

Member
I know recently youtuber RGT 85 (love him, hate him, indifferent - whichever), had a video discussing this very problem. His suggestion was just extending the Switch brand, leaning towards more of a pro than a full on break. Whichever happens, backwards compatibility is a must. I think Nintendo could extended the Switch for another 5 years easily, with a decent step up, without using '2' on it. Not ideal, but Nintendo needs to resist the urge to innovate too much and change the paradigm. What they have now is gold. Now with scaling technology, maybe they release a Hybrid and a console combination or give people options. But honestly just hold back the big ideas for another few years and ride this train out and build that Nintendo war chest. Their going to need it.
 
Last edited:

Robb

Gold Member
How much do you think the budget is on Nintendo's games? Honest question.
Out of curiosity, what do you think they are?

For example, Mario Kart 8 had a 3 year development time with a team of ~280 people while Zelda: BotW had a 5 year development time with a team of ~600 people.

Considering the cost of employees are the biggest expense I don’t think their cost vary as much compared to other AAA games as some people think.

Although if you know the actual budgets for Nintendo’s games relative to other games in the AAA space that’d be interesting to know. I’ve never seen the actual numbers/that kind of comparison.
 
Last edited:

IDKFA

Gold Member
Anybody think the Switch 2 will release next year or in 2024? Was thinking of picking up a Switch, but didn't want to bother if the successor was out next year.
 
Why is the Wii not a "sequel" to the GameCube? It was basically a GameCube with motion controls.

Also, the Switch is basically the Wii U 2, or what the Wii U really wanted to be, but needed a few more years for the technology to be affordable.

Let me elaborate:

SNES < NES (2D generation)

GC < N64 (3D generation)

WiiU < Wii (New Play Style generation)

GBA < GB (Lo-fi HH gen)

3DS < DS (Hi-fi HH gen)

Switch... (Hybrid generation)

Interpretation ;)
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Out of curiosity, what do you think they are?

For example, Mario Kart 8 had a 3 year development time with a team of ~280 people while Zelda: BotW had a 5 year development time with a team of ~600 people.

Considering the cost of employees are the biggest expense I don’t think their cost vary as much compared to other AAA games as some people think.

Although if you know the actual budgets for Nintendo’s games relative to other games in the AAA space that’d be interesting to know. I’ve never seen the actual numbers/that kind of comparison.
I somehow doubt the cost of development is as big in Japan as it is in the U.S. though…


 
Last edited:

Robb

Gold Member
There's surely no way they can go into 2024/25 with the current hardware
To me 2024 sounds about right. They have at least one heavy hitter for 2023 with BotW2. Splatoon 3 will likely get a year of splatfests and DLC support so they’ll keep that going until around September 2023. Then they have the Mario Kart 8 Booster Course Pass which is running until Q4 2023.

A Switch 2 in march 2024 launching with Mario Kart 9 seems perfect.
 

Tams

Gold Member
To me 2024 sounds about right. They have at least one heavy hitter for 2023 with BotW2. Splatoon 3 will likely get a year of splatfests and DLC support so they’ll keep that going until around September 2023. Then they have the Mario Kart 8 Booster Course Pass which is running until Q4 2023.

A Switch 2 in march 2024 launching with Mario Kart 9 seems perfect.
Splatoon 3 is as almost certainly two years of content. Splatoon 2 saw content planned for a year, but extended an extra year. Splatoon 3 has more announced than Splatoon 2 got.
 

Robb

Gold Member
Splatoon 3 is as almost certainly two years of content. Splatoon 2 saw content planned for a year, but extended an extra year. Splatoon 3 has more announced than Splatoon 2 got.
Oh okay, I guess I’m just misremembering how long they actually supported Splatoon 2.
 

KingT731

Member
Out of curiosity, what do you think they are?

For example, Mario Kart 8 had a 3 year development time with a team of ~280 people while Zelda: BotW had a 5 year development time with a team of ~600 people.

Considering the cost of employees are the biggest expense I don’t think their cost vary as much compared to other AAA games as some people think.

Although if you know the actual budgets for Nintendo’s games relative to other games in the AAA space that’d be interesting to know. I’ve never seen the actual numbers/that kind of comparison.
Tbh based on salary information available for Japan I doubt any of their games push passed $60M. Lots of staff doesn't necessarily mean they're paid highly (see the amount of testers for BoTW) or that they worked on the project concurrently also being "in development for x years" doesn't indicate ACTIVE development. Not to mention outsourcing and a large amount of work being handed off or co-developed with other studios like Namco and Koei.
 
Last edited:

Robb

Gold Member

KingT731

Member
I tried to look around and it seems Nintendo mentioned BotW needed to sell around 2M copies to break even, so that’d be at least $120M for BotW (which is lower than I would have thought tbh).

Although BotW is likely one of Nintendos most expensive projects so you might be correct with the ~$60M for other titles.
Also have to consider that BotW was also in development for the unannounced Switch, retail taking their 30% etc that 2M is much less than you might think. Let's say the Phys/Digital split is 75:25 now that's only 90M to cover development based on this quote.

Other things said in the article that the statement may have been a bit of exaggeration as the articles quotes Miyamoto saying: "Breath of the Wild has over 100 staff, and over 300 people in the credits, spending over 5 years. Our current efforts will be helpful in the next production. The costs will be recovered by selling in large volumes, passing 2 million sales. A game is a hit in the domestic market if it reaches 300k sales, but we’re targeting worldwide sales." Sounds more like justifying both the dev time and money spent (remember the Wii U was a failure) to shareholders.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom