Support NeoGAF

[Oregano]

Like people are already doing right now? If every Wii U owner was also a 3DS owner there still would be more than 30 million 3DS owners without Wii Us, so little would change.


Unique libraries? The best selling Wii U games have 3DS counterparts that were released earlier.

Yes the point is that the Wii U having such a small install base means that the games released on it have a sales ceiling. Iwata directly says that the point of having a unified ecosystem is that they won't have to build install bases anew with every system.

It won't matter if the console SKU only sells 10 million and the handheld SKU sells 80 million because the games can still sell to everyone.

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

It's going to be a regular Handheld and a Console that will share the same OS/Architecture but also play exclusives, it just means that it would be way easier to make stuff like Smash 3DS/WiiU without having to make two version of the game, but the systems will still have exclusives.

I can imagine titles like Animal Crossing and other games getting simultaneous releases, but they won't have the same libraries.

Also anyone still saying the Nintendo phone has NO IDEA of how crazy and stupid that idea is.

 

[ec0ec0]

They could just use cartridges for everything;

Discs are annoying. Cartridges could be cool but... what are their drawbacks!?

 

[Cheeseman Battitude]

Discs are annoying. Cartridges could be cool but... what are their drawbacks!?

Price and capacity.

 

[Astral Dog]

With certain exclusives tailored to the hardware, yes.

 

[Cheeseman Battitude]

Also anyone still saying the Nintendo phone has NO IDEA of how crazy and stupid that idea is.

I'm sure it would cost an arm and a leg for a start.

 

[Shiggy]

If they want to avoid the 3DS/Wii U drought, this better happens.

 

[ec0ec0]

Price and capacity.

makes sense haha

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

If they did I wonder how many people would bitch about "no exclusives hurr hurr".

Personally I think it's a great idea. Cross play / buy is awesome.

 

[GhostTrick]

If they want to avoid the 3DS/Wii U drought, this better happens.

Exactly.
They need to think of an ecosystem, not a platform. If you mix 3DS and Wii U's year... you get a great year for a Nintendo platform.

If they did I wonder how many people would bitch about "no exclusives hurr hurr".

Personally I think it's a great idea. Cross play / buy is awesome.

That would be a stupid reasoning as it would be about a platform with form factors. An ecosystem. No one goes out saying "this isn't iOS exclusive as it's on both iPhone and iPad". Nor says "This isn't PC exclusive as it's on Linux too".

With certain exclusives tailored to the hardware, yes.

Bad idea. As it would push a concurrence against both platforms. If I had to take a parallel with Vita (because it's about great ideas and bad execution), it would be the following.
Vita is suffering from PS3 and PS4 for a reason... because the library sounds the same as the two others yet lack titles available on these platform... although, if PS3 and Vita had all the same library... that would be about a form factor difference... and the ability to not rebuy every of your games.

The best idea around this would be Vita and Vita TV... then again bad execution as some Vita titles won't work on Vita TV. Same platform but different form factor.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

That would be a stupid reasoning as it would be about a platform with form factors. An ecosystem. No one goes out saying "this isn't iOS exclusive as it's on both iPhone and iPad". Nor says "This isn't PC exclusive as it's on Linux too".

Oh I agree, it's just something you hear allllllll the time regarding indie/psn titles on the Playstation platforms. I just wonder how vocal the counter culture would be regarding that decision.

 

[Pizza]

I'm thinking it'll be like the ios comparisons quoted earlier in the thread, which is actually really rad. Epecially since another driving force is that Nintendo doesn't like splitting its teams up based on hardware either, since half of Nintendo's internal devs don't know the wiiu hardware and vice versa.

 

[GhostTrick]

Oh I agree, it's just something you hear allllllll the time regarding indie/psn titles on the Playstation platforms. I just wonder how vocal the counter culture would be regarding that decision.

Pretty simple. You hear such a thing on the PlayStation platforms because the idea isn't well executed. You still own different platforms and not all of them are served equally.

 

[balgajo]

Not having the games that everybody wants to play will still hurt their home console business. Unless they make something incredible like Wii again, which seems unlikely. Sharing the same library is a good feature but not the solution.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

Pretty simple. You hear such a thing on the PlayStation platforms because the idea isn't well executed. You still own different platforms and not all of them are served equally.

Absolutely. But you'll hear pretty often that the titles that were executed flawlessly, are often the ones mocked lol. You'll read comments like "if you like PS3 ports or games you can play elsewhere hurrrrr". Which to me a great thing. Especially with games like Dragons crown that support cross platform play between the PS3 and Vita.

The backlash the Vita gets from having games on other platforms is just goofy. Especially regarding the indies that you don't even have to re-buy that often.

In the Indie / PSN / PS1 games, I'd say Sony's doing a very good job at cultivating a playstation "ecosystem".

 

[GhostTrick]

Absolutely. But you'll hear pretty often that the titles that were executed flawlessly, are often the ones mocked lol. You'll read comments like "if you like PS3 ports or games you can play elsewhere hurrrrr". Which to me a great thing. Especially with games like Dragons crown that support cross platform play between the PS3 and Vita.

The backlash the Vita gets from having games on other platforms is just goofy. Especially regarding the indies that you don't even have to re-buy that often.

In the Indie / PSN / PS1 games, I'd say Sony's doing a very good job at cultivating a playstation "ecosystem".

True. Which is why, if you aim for such ecosystem... you need it to be a complete ecosystem.
You either need to go full exclusives or full same library.

Not having the games that everybody wants to play will still hurt their home console business. Unless they make something incredible like Wii again, which seems unlikely. Sharing the same library is a good feature but not the solution.

It's not a feature. It's the main point. Sharing library means a lot of things.
The most obvious one, in term of consumer, is to own a library for two platforms without buying twice the same games...
As for both Nintendo and consumers, it means no drought. Taken each one individually, 2014 has been pretty average for both 3DS and Wii U.
Now, if you had one and same library... that would've been a huge year. The thing is that Nintendo's output has to be share with a two platforms. 3DS games now requires teams of 50 developpers or so.

As for a developpement point... Now, Nintendo needs a team to make a handheld iteration AND a home console iteration.
But now, if they have to make only one iteration... that means less IP fatigue, higher quality but also more titles. When a team isn't working on another iteration, it can works on another game.

More games. Higher quality games. No drought. Better prices.
It's a win-win.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Why do people think this is a good idea when a lack of unique content that couldn't be found on other platforms is one of the biggest reasons the Vita has failed so much

 

[GhostTrick]

Why do people think this is a good idea when a lack of unique content that couldn't be found on other platforms is one of the biggest reasons the Vita has failed so much

Then again, the problem of Vita is the execution. Trust me, if Vita had ALL the PS3 games, it would've sold. The thing is that if you don't execute well such a strategy, you end up with a Vita case, where the platforms feels like it lacks unique content and that you can play its game anywhere else.
You either need full exclusives or none.
Either two distinct platforms or one unique ecosystem with form factors.
But you can't be in-between, otherwise a platform will suffer being the lesser one.

 

[Oni Link 666]

Why do people think this is a good idea when a lack of unique content that couldn't be found on other platforms is one of the biggest reasons the Vita has failed so much

Was the Vita's problem a lack of unique games or a lack of games period? The thing people around here really seem to love about the Vita is crossbuy and crossplay PS4/PS3/Vita games. Those definitely are not unique to Vita, since they're also on PS4/PS3. What if Vita could play EVERY PS3/PS4 game? Would that have been a negative or a positive?

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

Why do people think this is a good idea when a lack of unique content that couldn't be found on other platforms is one of the biggest reasons the Vita has failed so much

Well I think it comes down to marketing. I don't think the "lack of unique content" is really a factor. Vita doesn't fill a need for anything, and I think the stagnating handheld market in the US for both the Vita (obviously) and the 3DS shows this. Cellphone hand me downs are a real and very present threat to this aspect of gaming. As are $200 tablets (or 99c for Christmas Verizon contract deals).

Gaining any momentum in the handheld gaming market is going to be difficult from this point forward I think. I'm hoping to eat massive crow, but I'm almost certain the New 3DS will be dead on arrival in the states.

It wouldn't work for all applications mind you, but I imagine a device like a chromecast that could plug into your TV, and mirror what's being played off your device could do well, (think the reverse of the Wii-U). Then you could take that same device with you on the go as you always would. How this works with Nintendo's great approach to multiplayer is beyond me however.

 

[E-phonk]

Why do people think this is a good idea when a lack of unique content that couldn't be found on other platforms is one of the biggest reasons the Vita has failed so much

Because they are nuts. Nintendo and it's third parties will keep offering exclusives.
Also, I don't believe in nintendo offering cross buy. They will give you incentives (free DLC/cheaper price etc) to buy both versions - because they know a significant part of their fanbase will do that.

It's going to be a regular Handheld and a Console that will share the same OS/Architecture but also play exclusives, it just means that it would be way easier to make stuff like Smash 3DS/WiiU without having to make two version of the game, but the systems will still have exclusives.

I can imagine titles like Animal Crossing and other games getting simultaneous releases, but they won't have the same libraries.

Fully agree. Games like that & 2d platformers and games that make sense - but not everything. And some games will distinguish themselves slightly (ala smash, monhun etc) - so the hardcore fanbase might buy them twice.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Was the Vita's problem a lack of unique games or a lack of games period? The thing people around here really seem to love about the Vita is crossbuy and crossplay PS4/PS3/Vita games. Those definitely are not unique to Vita, since they're also on PS4/PS3. What if Vita could play EVERY PS3/PS4 game? Would that have been a negative or a positive?

I really wouldn't consider GAF in any way representative of the game purchasing market. The people on GAF who love those features are a vocal minority that are in absolutely no way representative of the market. Most people simply can't justify spending hundreds of dollars to play the exact same games they can play on devices they already own, and in pretty much any market outside of Japan portability simply isn't a huge selling point to most people, especially given the advent of smartphones. When people say Vita has no games, they're almost always talking about games that make the system worth purchasing and thus discounting games they can play on other systems they currently own.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Well I think it comes down to marketing. I don't think the "lack of unique content" is really a factor. Vita doesn't fill a need for anything, and I think the stagnating handheld market in the US for both the Vita (obviously) and the 3DS shows this. Cellphone hand me downs are a real and very present threat to this aspect of gaming. As are $200 tablets (or 99c for Christmas Verizon contract deals).

Gaining any momentum in the handheld gaming market is going to be difficult from this point forward I think. I'm hoping to eat massive crow, but I'm almost certain the New 3DS will be dead on arrival in the states.

It wouldn't work for all applications mind you, but I imagine a device like a chromecast that could plug into your TV, and mirror what's being played off your device could do well, (think the reverse of the Wii-U). Then you could take that same device with you on the go as you always would. How this works with Nintendo's great approach to multiplayer is beyond me however.

The 3DS still does much better than the Vita. Vita doesn't fill a need BECAUSE it lacks quality unique content. The two issues are not unrelated

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

The 3DS still does much better than the Vita. Vita doesn't fill a need BECAUSE it lacks quality unique content. The two issues are not unrelated

Well the Vita's downfall is the obvious one. It's the 3DS's that's concerning to me. That's the system offering Glasses free 3D, two screens, and the Nintendo brand strength on handheld, and that's losing it's grip pretty fast on the DS market. I mean if were talking about unique experiences, I don't think it gets more unique than that. Handheld "gaming" devices are now everywhere.

I'll hope for the best, but I'm certainly anticipating the worst.

 

[GhostTrick]

I really wouldn't consider GAF in any way representative of the game purchasing market. The people on GAF who love those features are a vocal minority that are in absolutely no way representative of the market. Most people simply can't justify spending hundreds of dollars to play the exact same games they can play on devices they already own, and in pretty much any market outside of Japan portability simply isn't a huge selling point to most people, especially given the advent of smartphones. When people say Vita has no games, they're almost always talking about games that make the system worth purchasing and thus discounting games they can play on other systems they currently own.

Then again, it's because it's seen as a lesser platform. It's all about strategy and products.
Say the Vita would've been marketed as an accessory. Reception and marketing around it would've been different.
Say the Vita would've been marketed as having ALL the PS3 games without the need to rebuy games. Things would've been different.
Say the Vita would've been market with its own library. Things would've been different.

Vita's case is different, because yes, a lot of its titles can be purchased elsewhere... but it's not as simple. In some case, it requires to buy two games. That's for the big titles.
But in the case of crossplatform ones... it's about smaller indie titles... which is what also annoys people as most Vita's announcement nowadays are indie titles port.

 

[I Wanna Be The Guy]

The 3DS still does much better than the Vita. Vita doesn't fill a need BECAUSE it lacks quality unique content. The two issues are not unrelated

It didn't lack quality unique content when it first came out and it still sold like shit. The thing had an amazing first year for quality exclusives and nobody gave a shit. Vita not selling was never about the games. If it was then he launch lineup alone would have made it break records.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Then again, it's because it's seen as a lesser platform. It's all about strategy and products.
Say the Vita would've been marketed as an accessory. Reception and marketing around it would've been different.
Say the Vita would've been marketed as having ALL the PS3 games without the need to rebuy games. Things would've been different.
Say the Vita would've been market with its own library. Things would've been different.

Vita's case is different, because yes, a lot of its titles can be purchased elsewhere... but it's not as simple. In some case, it requires to buy two games. That's for the big titles.
But in the case of crossplatform ones... it's about smaller indie titles... which is what also annoys people as most Vita's announcement nowadays are indie titles port.

I think you'll find almost nobody wants to buy an accessory that costs hundreds of dollars. Honestly, I think trying to shift the vita's focus to being an accessory was an incredibly stupid move by Sony

 

[EulaCapra]

Maybe just for smaller eShop titles? And for the love of god, the Virtual Console.

I always expect the next logical steps for Nintendo's next systems to come a generation after now.

 

[Aaronrules380]

It didn't lack quality unique content when it first came out and it still sold like shit. The thing had an amazing first year for quality exclusives and nobody gave a shit. Vita not selling was never about the games. If it was then he launch lineup alone would have made it break records.

Not really. Most of the launch lineup games were mediocre at best, and were either ports or just really shallow versions of console franchises that couldn't really offer anything the console games didn't. A big part of the problem is that even the exclusives were pretty much all outsourced to shitty minor studios

 

[LoveCake]

Releasing a handheld & console at the same time would be difficult, if each could play the same games then the price would surely have to be the same, but then so would the spec, thus the games would run the same on the two systems & if were both sold together then the price would be too expensive.

I think it will just be like the 3DS & WiiU we have now, i'm not sure if Nintendo will release a handheld next or a console.

 

[GhostTrick]

I think you'll find almost nobody wants to buy an accessory that costs hundreds of dollars. Honestly, I think trying to shift the vita's focus to being an accessory was an incredibly stupid move by Sony

Well then again, that's the thing. PSVita has been released as a AAA gaming handheld. That's what annoys people nowadays.
Product perception and reality. If you say "such product is this" and then deliver something else... you get reactions.

It's all about marketing. If Nintendo goes out with an ecosystem and says "this is our handheld. this is our home console. They play the same game but not all." You create a difference in your products and one is seen as the lesser one.
Now if Nintendo says "This is our ecosystem. It's an OS, and we release a products family with different form factor to play our games". You change the perspective.

 

[Sojiro]

Nobody knows, but I hope the Virtual Console games are crossbuy.

100% agree here, and I constantly mention it on every VC survey I take (along with N64 and Gamecube game support), for whatever its worth.

 

[ElTopo]

Until 12 hours later from launch when someone at XDA will already have it rooted, opening the gates for emulation and piracy. Android is not the be all end all for mobile OS. If even Sony and MS with years of experience on mobile are having a hard time in this market, what makes you think people would ditch their iPhones and Androids for a Nintendo version without any of the apps and games they already own?

Of course someone would crack it. But the point would be to make it difficult for the average Joe to do it.

Let's face it, Nintendo will not be profitable with another dedicated handheld system. Maybe they could get away with a Tablet-kind of system with limited game controls but I don't even think that would work. They cannot compete with Smartphones. All of you can mock my opinion to the high heavens and think Nintendo is invincible but the fact of the matter is that their profits are down and they absolutely cannot compete with Smartphones. They need to adapt or die. There's no 2 ways about it.

 

[I Wanna Be The Guy]

Not really. Most of the launch lineup games were mediocre at best, and were either ports or just really shallow versions of console franchises that couldn't really offer anything the console games didn't. A big part of the problem is that even the exclusives were pretty much all outsourced to shitty minor studios

You're seeing what you want to see. Uncharted was great, Wipeout was absolutely fantastic an quite possibly the best portable racer ever. Lumines was brilliant. Super Stardust Delta was amazing. Littlebigplanet was by far the best in the series. Gravity Rush was a great new IP. It had great exclusives in the first year. It had a much better first year for quality exclusives than all the other new systems. People didn't care.

 

[pvpness]

I'm not really for or against. I can tell you though that I have to have a good reason to buy each system I own, and it's usually based on diversity. If you tell me all your games run on hardware a and b, then I'll do research and figure out what platform is best for me but there's no way in hell I'm buying both. That only happens when a and b's libraries have very little overlap.

 

[Neoxon]

Remember, the iPad does have exclusive games & apps. Basically you can play portable games on the console, but not necessarily the other way around if the nOS is anything like the iOS.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

I dunno, sounds a bit too technical for Nintendo

 

[Oni Link 666]

I really wouldn't consider GAF in any way representative of the game purchasing market. The people on GAF who love those features are a vocal minority that are in absolutely no way representative of the market. Most people simply can't justify spending hundreds of dollars to play the exact same games they can play on devices they already own, and in pretty much any market outside of Japan portability simply isn't a huge selling point to most people, especially given the advent of smartphones. When people say Vita has no games, they're almost always talking about games that make the system worth purchasing and thus discounting games they can play on other systems they currently own.

Regardless of how many ports Vita got, it didn't have EVERY PS3 or PS4 game on it. It's not the same thing as having EVERY GAME playable on both a handheld and console. That's something neither MS, Sony, or Nintendo has done yet. You can't use Vita as an example of how this is a bad idea, because it's not the same thing. Vita was never sold as a machine that could play ALL your PS3 games on the go, it was sold as an expensive new portable with exclusive versions of a bunch of games that were not Monster Hunter and a Call of Duty game that would surely get Westerners to buy it.

Also, what if people don't buy both systems? So what? They can sell their games to anyone who has bought either the console or the handheld. Even if the Nintendo hardware sales were exactly the same as 3DS and Wii U, Nintendo's audience for every game they make would be bigger and the sales of games would have even bigger sales potential. So, who cares what system you own as long as you buy one of them and buy games?

 

[AgeEighty]

Same quote from my previous post, but with different bolded statements to address this post:

Yes, I've read that quote. He's saying that they're going to move to a unified account structure with software- and cloud-based synergies, which I certainly welcome. But he is not, in that quote, saying that they will be unifying both platforms in such a way that they share the exact same game library.

Nor should they. To ignore the fact that some games are better suited to the portable experience while others are better suited to sitting at home on the couch is short sighted, and I strongly doubt that Nintendo will.

 

[Snakeyes]

Well the Vita's downfall is the obvious one. It's the 3DS's that's concerning to me. That's the system offering Glasses free 3D

No one cares, the 3D fad was over several years ago.

two screens,

Going by the popularity of single-screened smartphones and tablets, no one cares about this either. In fact, that form factor could even be a turn-off to some consumers.

and the Nintendo brand strength on handheld,

Nintendo software has been the most safe and iterative yet on the 3DS compared to past handhelds.

and that's losing it's grip pretty fast on the DS market.

Understandably so.

 

[AgeEighty]

I'm not opposed to building multiple versions of the same game as I am opposed to selling them separately, which would go against Iwata's stated goal for the virtual platform.

It wouldn't, though. There are plenty of areas where Nintendo can synergize their two platforms completely—Virtual Console titles, for instance—while still leaving room for development that leverages the critical differences between a home and a portable platform in both capability and use cases.

 

[pvpness]

Regardless of how many ports Vita got, it didn't have EVERY PS3 or PS4 game on it. It's not the same thing as having EVERY GAME playable on both a handheld and console. That's something neither MS, Sony, or Nintendo has done yet. You can't use Vita as an example of how this is a bad idea, because it's not the same thing. Vita was never sold as a machine that could play ALL your PS3 games on the go, it was sold as an expensive new portable with exclusive versions of a bunch of games that were not Monster Hunter and a Call of Duty game that would surely get Westerners to buy it.

Also, what if people don't buy both systems? So what? They can sell their games to anyone who has bought either the console or the handheld. Even if the Nintendo hardware sales were exactly the same as 3DS and Wii U, Nintendo's audience for every game they make would be bigger and the sales of games would have even bigger sales potential. So, who cares what system you own as long as you buy one of them and buy games?

NEC gave it a shot with the Turbo Express. That thing was hilarious. So many batteries.

I dunno how much they care, but right now they've got me purchasing two separate hardware set ups and buckets of games for each. If nintendo went turbo on us, you can cut my spending in half. Which works for me. I dunno how N would feel about it.

 

[GhostTrick]

Nintendo software has been the most safe and iterative yet on the 3DS compared to past handhelds.

And... just as he said, Nintendo's brand strength on handheld. Especially when said software shows good performance.

 

[Oni Link 666]

NEC gave it a shot with the Turbo Express. That thing was hilarious. So many batteries.

I dunno how much they care, but right now they've got me purchasing two separate hardware set ups and buckets of games for each. If nintendo went turbo on us, you can cut my spending in half. Which works for me. I dunno how N would feel about it.

Why would it cut your spending in half? Are you saying they would make half as many games? I think if anything, they would make more games.

 

[AgeEighty]

Remember, the iPad does have exclusive games & apps. Basically you can play portable games on the console, but not necessarily the other way around if the nOS is anything like the iOS.

Yes, if we talk about the platforms being united, this is the scenario I see as the most likely. Unless they mean to go completely streaming-based—which there is no current indication that they own or are developing the infrastructure necessary to do—the platforms will still be processing their games natively. That will require some means to cater to the needs of those platforms individually, but would also allow the freedom to have cross-compatible software where appropriate.

 

[Oregano]

NEC gave it a shot with the Turbo Express. That thing was hilarious. So many batteries.

I dunno how much they care, but right now they've got me purchasing two separate hardware set ups and buckets of games for each. If nintendo went turbo on us, you can cut my spending in half. Which works for me. I dunno how N would feel about it.

Well the thing is they would be able to make more games and content so would your spending really be cut that much?

Instead of the Mario Kart team having to make MK9 on portable and then MK10 on console they could make MK9 on both and then make a new game on both. They can also release stuff like the MK DLC or New Super Luigi to get more revenue from customers.

 

[Cheeseman Battitude]

Why would it cut your spending in half? Are you saying they would make half as many games? I think if anything, they would make more games.

They'd be able to flesh out the things they work on and then go "meh" and give us even more awesome games!

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

No one cares, the 3D fad was over several years ago. Going by the popularity of single-screened smartphones and tablets, no one cares about this either. In fact, that form factor could even be a turn-off to some consumers.Nintendo software has been the most safe and iterative yet on the 3DS compared to past handhelds. Understandably so.

Look I'm not necessarily arguing in favor of these things, I'm simply stressing the fact that there are many other factors in play than just "unique experience you can't get elsewhere" as the gentleman I was replying to had stated. I think the Vita failed because it didn't have the DS popularity to push start it, and it was competing with Smartphones and Tablets, which have arguably similar function and form factor.

The fact that the more unique of the two is seeing massive decline year over year to it's predecessor is worrying.

 

[pvpness]

Why would it cut your spending in half? Are you saying they would make half as many games? I think if anything, they would make more games.

Maybe, I dunno. All I'm saying is why would I buy two platforms if I can play everything on one? And if that's the case, are they still gonna make console specific games? Cause I'm not buying those on a handheld and vice versa. I feel like it would work out super for me, but I always buy handhelds begrudgingly at this point.

Edit: then there's all the shit like upscaling handheld games to put them on the console. I'm not buying those at full price, etc. I feel like with this idea, Nintendo has a ton to lose when it comes to me specifically. Maybe the market at large would now love this idea. I dunno.

 

[RM8]

I'd hate this, to be honest. If it's for the better, then I'll have to deal, but it'd suck to me.