Support NeoGAF

[Spieler Eins]

In regards to console games on portable Xenoblade 3D is the ultimate testament to Nintendo not really caring any more about what type of games can and cannot be on a portable.

Yep, that myth is dead. Home console experiences take a huge part in the 3DS library. Also, the console port Ocarina of Time was a bigger success than handheld-made A Link Between Worlds. Customers outside of Japan also don't care anymore.

 

[Mpl90]

Thraktor reposted something of major interest in the last page, about profits in a model where consoles share games. I'd say it's time to post it again, it's a great analysis on the matter.

Think of it this way: why make two pieces of software when you can make one? Let's do a few calculations:

Let's assume a game costs $X to make for a single device, and an extra 20% for a second device (we're assuming tools and system architecture are designed to make this as simple as possible, so I'd say that's fair). You have two different devices, one with a 50m install base and one with a 20m install base. Let's also assume that Generic Videogame Franchise (GVF) will have about the same sell-through ratio on each device, say A%. And, because there's going to be a high level of crossover of GVF fans between the two devices, let's assume that 50% of the people who buy it for the less popular device will also buy a copy of the more popular device. And we'll say that you make $Y per copy sold for either device.

Therefore, if you make two separate games, one for each device, your total cost is $(2X), and your total revenue is:

$(Y*50m*A/100 + Y*20m*A/100) = $(Y*A*700,000)

Return on investment, then, is:

(revenue-cost)/cost = $([Y*A*700,000 - 2X]/2X) = $([Y*A*350,000 - X]/X)

Now, let's look at making a single game for both devices. Cost here is $(X*1.2), and revenue is:

$(Y*50m*A/100 + Y*20m*A/100 - Y*20m*0.5*A/100) = $(Y*A*600,000)

Then for the return on investment:

(revenue-cost)/cost = $([Y*A*600,000 - X*1.2]/X*1.2) = $([Y*A*500,000 - X]/X)

So, under our assumptions, you would make a 43% higher revenue per dollar invested by making a single game for both devices rather than building two separate games.

The result is surprisingly resilient to changes in my assumptions above, by the way. Even if you assume that a dual-platform game costs 50% more to make than one for a single platform and you assume that 75% of those who buy it for the less popular platform would also buy it for the more popular one, you still end up with a better RoI by making a single game for both platforms.

Furthermore, this misses a number of important aspects of a "cross-buy" scenario for a company like Nintendo. Firstly, as I mentioned previously, it would free up their internal studios to release more games in new franchises, which increases the chances they'll create another "killer-app" a-la Wii Sports. Secondly, Nintendo could use cross-buy as a means to encourage people into purchasing digitally, by only offering it with digital purchases. While I don't have numbers in front of me, I'd be fairly confident in saying that Nintendo would make as much off a single digital purchase as they would off two physical purchases of games, which would make it worth their while even ignoring the above RoI calculations.

Fundamentally, it becomes more profitable for Nintendo to move to a cross-buy model the closer the home console and handheld hardware come to each other, even if a large proportion of customers would otherwise buy both games. With the coming generation, it's entirely feasible for Nintendo to use identical architectures for both CPU and GPU across both their devices, and although performance levels would still differ quite considerably between the two, with appropriate tools the cost of scaling assets down for the handheld version shouldn't be at all prohibitive. I can't really see any scenario where Nintendo wouldn't be more profitable by treating both of their hardware devices as a single platform when it comes to software development.

 

[Oregano]

This is key. Yes, they will likely end up targeting most games at the portable. If they can make the experience prettier for the home console and then come out with a handful of exclusives per year that target the higher spec, it could be enough to convince people to double dip.

I'm not even sure it would be several a year even. I could see the Zelda team and Monolith possibly doing console only releases as well as the occasional second party projects(your Bayonettas and Devils Thirds) but that's about it. Although it would also possibly leave the console open to third party ports like COD.

Of course if they kept the same architecture those console exclusives could then be playable on the next generation portable as we can see with Donkey Kong Coutry Returns and Xenoblade being adapted to the N(3DS).

 

[Mpl90]

If Nintendo actually follow through with the bolded, and purchases are actually carried over between hardware and between generations of products, and I don't need to purchase things I already bought on previous or other hardware - this is a huge sell for me, and I'd be picking up my first Nintendo system in a while. The above issues are what I love with Steam; all value and investments are retained upon changing hardware.

Yeah, which is also the same on iOS / Android devices, after all: once you bought something there, it's yours forever, whatever device you buy. That would be fantastic for a Nintendo ecosystem. Especially when combined with the talk of awarding loyal customers (example: the more you buy, the less you pay).

 

[GhostTrick]

Yep, that myth is dead. Also, the console port Ocarina of Time was a bigger success than handheld-made A Link Between Worlds. People outside Japan also don't care anymore.

I think that the bigger symbol of this, as far as I'm concerned, is Paper Mario and Mario&Luigi.
The first one was the Mario RPG for console while the second one was the handheld one.

 

[Nightbird]

No one gives a shit that 3DS is portable in the west, nor are games showing drastically different design choices anymore. It merely has the games that Nintendo fans want and their actual home console can't offer right now.

This is absolutley true. That "mobile feel" will just make people complain why the Game is 30-40€/$ and not 99ct.
Things have changed, and not in a Way that Nintendo can change back. Portable Experiences are now provided by iOS and Android. The best Nintendo can do now is to adjust their future Handhelds to have a more "Console-like" experience.

But they seem to be are already going that way with the n3DS having more Buttons, and Xenoblade being ported to it.

It will be very intresting to see who they are going chase with the new Products. Is it going to be the Masses, who seem to have found a Home on rheir Phones, or is it the more traditional Gaming-Audience who abandoned them during the Wii Days?

 

[Fourth Storm]

Doing that defeat the purpose of this solution. Also, such a thing is only possible if Nintendo doesn't cheap out on their next handheld.
They need the common denominator to be at least on par with Wii U in terms of horsepower.
Then with the home console, they could target 1080p with good IQ and 60FPS. If Wii U has shown something, it's that Nintendo still get their way with good artstyle in spite of an underpowered hardware.

Their next handheld needs at the very least to be a dual core Cortex A57 with a 128 shader units GPU.

Then again, you still don't eliminate competition between the two. Double dippers isn't a good market to tap in. You still don't eliminate the fact that you need to developp the games, even if assets are done at 80%. And you don't eliminate IP fatigue which could be a problem for Nintendo in the years to come.

There would be some double-dippers among core fans, but it's really more a matter of market preference. The home console needs to offer something more than a portable with an HDMI output could offer. I don't think if Nintendo put out a 3D Mario exclusive to home console (possibly with the handheld getting a different 3D Mario) and a 3D Zelda, and 3D Metroid exclusive to home console that it devalues the IP. Nintendo need to push the boundaries of technology every now and then in order to prove they still have it. Listen to Aonuma and Miyamoto proudly talking about the size of the world in Zelda for Wii U and you can hear that passion still burns.

Even so, I do think the portable will be close to Wii U level if not matching it in every regard. 128 shaders is likely. It's just clockspeed that will be the question and that comes down to what process node they choose and the target format of their next handheld (cell phone sized or tablet sized).

I'm not even sure it would be several a year even. I could see the Zelda team and Monolith possibly doing console only releases as well as the occasional second party projects(your Bayonettas and Devils Thirds) but that's about it. Although it would also possibly leave the console open to third party ports like COD.

Of course if they kept the same architecture those console exclusives could then be playable on the next generation portable as we can see with Donkey Kong Coutry Returns and Xenoblade being adapted to the N(3DS).

Indeed, it could only be maybe 2 big releases a year. They need to have a strong launch title, though, like a groundbreaking 3D Mario, that shows off the potential of the system. And it needs to be strong enough to leave the door open for 3rd party ports if the system does happen to sell well enough.

 

[Oregano]

There would be some double-dippers among core fans, but it's really more a matter of market preference. The home console needs to offer something more than a portable with an HDMI output could offer. I don't think if Nintendo put out a 3D Mario exclusive to home console (possibly with the handheld getting a different 3D Mario) and a 3D Zelda, and 3D Metroid exclusive to home console that it devalues the IP. Nintendo need to push the boundaries of technology every now and then in order to prove they still have it. Listen to Aonuma and Miyamoto proudly talking about the size of the world in Zelda for Wii U and you can hear that passion still burns.

Even so, I do think the portable will be close to Wii U level if not matching it in every regard. 128 shaders is likely. It's just clockspeed that will be the question and that comes down to what process node they choose and the target format of their next handheld (cell phone sized or tablet sized).

The handheld may have the advantage of targetting a lower resolution than the Wii U as well so it might not need to be quite as powerful.

I imagine it will be a similar size to the N3DS. The OG 3DS is very similar in size to the DSi(but inferior in aesthetics).

 

[thefro]

I'm not even sure it would be several a year even. I could see the Zelda team and Monolith possibly doing console only releases as well as the occasional second party projects(your Bayonettas and Devils Thirds) but that's about it. Although it would also possibly leave the console open to third party ports like COD.

Of course if they kept the same architecture those console exclusives could then be playable on the next generation portable as we can see with Donkey Kong Coutry Returns and Xenoblade being adapted to the N(3DS).

Ideally the design would accomplish all three of these:
- The portable and console share the same architecture
- The console is clearly at least a bit more powerful than the PS4 (both processor & GPU)
- The console's architecture is similar enough to the PS4 to make porting games stupid easy and a no-brainer for companies to do (i.e. they load it up and tinker for a day and it looks/run slightly better than the PS4 version).

If they do that right, suddenly you have a ton of games. Downside is I think they have to skip backwards compatibility to make that happen.

 

[DizzyCrow]

The line between handheld game and console game on Nintendo platforms is getting blurry, 2D Mario, 3D Mario, Kirby, Yoshi, Mario Kart, Mario Party, Sports Mario all have handheld and console versions. Smash Bros, Luigi's Mansion, Paper Mario, Xenoblade, DKC, Metal Gear, Tales, Monster Hunter were all console games that were ported or received a new entry on Nintendo handhelds with so much overlap, why spend resources making two of each? The current handheld audience is more than 5 times bigger than the console audience, why hinder the sales potential of one game and have a worse ROI if not for technical reasons? Even if there was a 100% overlap between 3DS and Wii U owners there is still a big audience receiving a lot less games. We are happy that the Wii U may have one big title from Nintendo per month in 2015 while the 3DS only has 4 announced, even if half of the With U titles were also on 3DS it would could easily double the sales.

While western support is still doubtful, Japanese support is practically a given unless the entire industry move to mobile the next Nintendo handheld will get support, even more because of the chance the Vita doesn't get a successor. Not every japanese dev want/can make games for consoles, but how many would decline the opportunity to have the same game run on the console PSVTV style or with some tweaks, expanding the reach of their game? It basically guarantees Japanese support for the console.

 

[DizzyCrow]

I think the 3DS XL is the perfect size, it can fit a 5" 16:9 screen in the place of the current 4.88" without effort, the n3DS is too small, the XL version sells more and people got used to bigger screens, the iPhone 6 has a 4.7" screen now and the high end Android phones are all more than 5", they can either remove the touch screen because of the console or since the touch screen has become just a menu/inventory/map reduce it to 3.5" or less to accommodate the second circle pad.

 

[Snakeyes]

In regards to console games on portable Xenoblade 3D is the ultimate testament to Nintendo not really caring any more about what type of games can and cannot be on a portable.

No kidding. It's not like true "handheld-style" games were behind the success of most Nintendo portables aside from the DS;

The Gameboy was carried by Tetris (a PC port), Pokemon (which could easily be played on a console aside from the battling and trading elements) and downscaled versions/spinoffs of established console IPs (Link's Awakening, Mario Land, Mario Bros DX, Metroid 2, Donkey Kong Land, etc)

Aside from Pokemon, most of the GBA's library was made up from 16-bit/early 32-bit console-style games.

The DS did have a solid lineup of high-profile software that could only be done in a portable format with the Touch Generations series, but those type of games have now moved on to mobile. The rest of the system's library consisted of 32-bit console-style games and point-and-click adventure games.

To me, the "handheld experience" always felt like an excuse for the massive power gap between Nintendo's consoles and handhelds more than anything else.

 

[DizzyCrow]

No kidding. It's not like true "handheld-style" games were behind the success of most Nintendo portables aside from the DS;

The Gameboy was carried by Tetris (a PC port), Pokemon (which could easily be played on a console aside from the battling and trading elements) and downscaled versions/spinoffs of established console IPs (Link's Awakening, Mario Land, Mario Bros DX, Metroid 2, Donkey Kong Land, etc)

Aside from Pokemon, most of the GBA's library was made up from 16-bit/early 32-bit console-style games.

The DS did have a solid lineup of high-profile software that could only be done in a portable format with the Touch Generations series, but those type of games have now moved on to mobile. The rest of the system's library consisted of 32-bit console-style games and point-and-click adventure games.

To me, the "handheld experience" always felt like an excuse for the massive power gap between Nintendo's consoles and handhelds more than anything else.

Indeed, also with the sleep mode you can stop playing and get back to your game at any time and let's not forget the suspend feature that, so useful in RPGs.

 

[chaosblade]

I can only speak for myself, but it sure would be awesome to not feel the need to buy a portable to play certain games. Hate playing on them.

 

[Aostia]

I still have doubts, but if they will offer cross buy and save, low entry price like ds and wii did and more games, I will be very happy. I also thinj they should start with wiiu and 4ds, and after that put the next home in the loop

 

[EdwardTeach]

Nintendo fans currently buy a similar game twice, mario on handheld and console, smash on handheld and console etc. Do you think it would really be in Nintendo interest for their fans to only need to buy 1 game rather than 2? It is also much less likely that people will feel the need to buy both devices if all the games can be played on either one.
No harm re-using assets and sharing development, but 2 skus makes much more sense financially.

 

[tim_pkmn89]

In regards to console games on portable Xenoblade 3D is the ultimate testament to Nintendo not really caring any more about what type of games can and cannot be on a portable.

Except that's Monolith Soft, not Nintendo

 

[GhostTrick]

Except that's Monolith Soft, not Nintendo

Monolith Soft is owned by Nintendo. Monolith Soft IS Nintendo.

 

[chaosblade]

Nintendo fans currently buy a similar game twice, mario on handheld and console, smash on handheld and console etc. Do you think it would really be in Nintendo interest for their fans to only need to buy 1 game rather than 2? It is also much less likely that people will feel the need to buy both devices if all the games can be played on either one.
No harm re-using assets and sharing development, but 2 skus makes much more sense financially.

The problem is that it ties up their development teams. They have limited resources and having a team that does Mario Kart portable -> Mario Kart console -> Mario Kart portable etc is, frankly, a waste of resources when they could be working on something else that could appeal to a different audience between Mario Kart entries.

Not only that, but the shared (or at least semi-shared) library would mean a more full release schedule.

It addresses two of Nintendo's biggest weaknesses while potentially increasing the revenue and profit per game. Focusing on just appealing to their existing fanbase isn't going to take them anywhere, giving their teams more opportunities to do new and different things means more opportunities to draw in a bigger audience.

 

[DizzyCrow]

Nintendo fans currently buy a similar game twice, mario on handheld and console, smash on handheld and console etc. Do you think it would really be in Nintendo interest for their fans to only need to buy 1 game rather than 2? It is also much less likely that people will feel the need to buy both devices if all the games can be played on either one.
No harm re-using assets and sharing development, but 2 skus makes much more sense financially.

Only a small subset of Nintendo fans have both devices and even less buy both versions, so why develop two of the same game if the vast majority will only buy one of them? Nintendo can't rely on third parties so all the resources spent making the second game can be used to make a new game of another franchise or a entirely new franchise, reducing the droughts and adding variety to the lineup.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

Only a small subset of Nintendo fans have both devices and even less buy both versions, so why develop two of the same game if the vast majority will only buy one of them? Nintendo can't rely on third parties so all the resources spent making the second game can be used to make a new game of another franchise or a entirely new franchise, reducing the droughts and adding variety to the lineup.

Exactly. They need more games, and more variety in game types, if they're going to get more people outside their fanbase to buy their hardware. Third parties are unlikely to help--even if they came back in force it would just be ports that most core gamers play on their Xbox or Playstation.

So they really have three paths to try and improve/expand their exclusive library.

1. Unify games across handheld and console (or go to one hybrid platform) and free up their existing development teams to make more games, create new IPs.

2. Money hat some exclusives from indies and small developers.

3. Buy some developers. Ideally western ones to add variety to their library, and offer some exclusves in genres that appeal to core/mainstream gamers.

All that should improve sales, if for no other reason than making it a more appealing second console choice to core gamers.

 

[Fourth Storm]

Only a small subset of Nintendo fans have both devices and even less buy both versions, so why develop two of the same game if the vast majority will only buy one of them? Nintendo can't rely on third parties so all the resources spent making the second game can be used to make a new game of another franchise or a entirely new franchise, reducing the droughts and adding variety to the lineup.

Or DLC, which would be available to the combined userbase. It is a much more logical system of development. It will just be interesting to see the implementation. My only worry is that the handheld holds back the home console versions, but perhaps they can treat more games like they did Smash. In Mario Kart, for example, each version would have its own unique tracks, but also share some tracks and have the same roster/gameplay. They could offer the handheld version for like $8 if you already bought the home version and vice versa. As has been said, you still have to develop for each system in cases like this, but it is a hell of a lot more economical that developing 2 completely different games.

 

[DizzyCrow]

Or DLC, which would be available to the combined userbase. It is a much more logical system of development. It will just be interesting to see the implementation. My only worry is that the handheld holds back the home console versions, but perhaps they can treat more games like they did Smash. In Mario Kart, for example, each version would have its own unique tracks, but also share some tracks and have the same roster/gameplay. They could offer the handheld version for like $8 if you already bought the home version and vice versa. As has been said, you still have to develop for each system in cases like this, but it is a hell of a lot more economical that developing 2 completely different games.

Yeah, that's what I meant, like how part of the MK team still is developing the DLC while most already moved to the next project.

We also have to see how they will handle the launch of these platforms, it can't be like 3DS/Wii U because who would buy a console to play largely the same games that were released in the previous year for the handheld? Ideally they would launch at the same time but this would quite a logistical task unless just the handheld had physical games so it would take the shelf space from the 3DS and its games while the console would have the small space reserved for the Wii U and its games just for itself. The most probable is repeat what they did with GBA/GC with the handheld releasing a few months before. The lineup could be ports from Wii U, remakes, smaller titles like Pilotwings and Steel Diver and other indie/third party games, with the first big titles being released at the console launch.

 

[wildfire]

That's not what I'm proposing at all. Them sharing the same library is closer to what Sony did with PS3 and Vita. That's the point I was making.

What is being said is that the architectures will be similar to allow for easy asset sharing and easy porting if the developer wants it. That doesn't mean that's all it'll be, it means that it makes it easier for the developer if they want it to be on both platforms, like Shovel Knight.

It would reduce revenue streams because rather than having a handheld line and a home console line with their own exclusives and maybe two SKUs if a game does happen to be on both, they'd just have the one and if that one bombs, they're absolutely screwed

You are overestimating the risk.

Based on Nintendo's hardware reports they have been selling more handhelds than consoles on average year by year. So that is their dominent platform.

Nintendo Handhelds have far more exclusives these days in terms of 3rd parties. Nintendo gets support they wouldn't get on their console even during the more popular Wii era.

These devs will continue to support Nintendo because selling on handhelds over phones gives you high enough profit margins to not be concerned about the lower install base.

So this is a net gain for Nintendo and everyone else interested in their console but wanted to see better 3rd party support.

If a game that would've been exclusive to the handheld fails, it's a failure that represents no lost sales on the console due to the above.


In addition Nintendo now doesn't have to worry about making 2 SKUs from scratch. Now they can make 1.5 SKUs and all those saved man hours can be used to making even more games increasing their distinct software output by at least 25%. Considering how many games were duplicates the actual software increase could get as high as 30%.

More unique software from Nintendo is net gain for both platforms because the increased variety in games reduces their risk of a failed game bringing them down.

Your idea of failure hurting their revenue only works for 3rd party devs making games on their console which we already know now that without the smaller indie devs Nintendo's support wouldn't look healthy at all. There is nothing to be gained by not making it easier for 3rd parties to port up from the handheld to the console. Nintendo certainly isn't losing anything from them by giving them the option unless they try to make draconian rules demanding they make a game for both platforms even though there is still a high enough cost to make smaller dev teams not want to do that.

 

[DizzyCrow]

You are overestimating the risk.

Based on Nintendo's hardware reports they have been selling more handhelds than consoles on average year by year. So that is their dominent platform.

Nintendo Handhelds have far more exclusives these days in terms of 3rd parties. Nintendo gets support they wouldn't get on their console even during the more popular Wii era.

These devs will continue to support Nintendo because selling on handhelds over phones gives you high enough profit margins to not be concerned about the lower install base.

So this is a net gain for Nintendo and everyone else interested in their console but wanted to see better 3rd party support.

If a game that would've been exclusive to the handheld fails, it's a failure that represents no lost sales on the console due to the above.


In addition Nintendo now doesn't have to worry about making 2 SKUs from scratch. Now they can make 1.5 SKUs and all those saved man hours can be used to making even more games increasing their distinct software output by at least 25%. Considering how many games were duplicates the actual software increase could get as high as 30%.

More unique software from Nintendo is net gain for both platforms because the increased variety in games reduces their risk of a failed game bringing them down.

Your idea of failure hurting their revenue only works for 3rd party devs making games on their console which we already know now that without the smaller indie devs Nintendo's support wouldn't look healthy at all. There is nothing to be gained by not making it easier for 3rd parties to port up from the handheld to the console. Nintendo certainly isn't losing anything from them by giving them the option unless they try to make draconian rules demanding they make a game for both platforms even though there is still a high enough cost to make smaller dev teams not want to do that.

This guy gets it.

 

[GameGuru59]

I can only speak for myself, but it sure would be awesome to not feel the need to buy a portable to play certain games. Hate playing on them.

This so much. I will buy into the "platform" at launch if this is indeed the case.

Frankly, this is a brilliant move for Nintendo. It solves multiple problems they've had with one stone, and could be a key to finally making them an industry leader once again. In arguing the points about whether the system will be unified (as should now be clear- it is likely a unified system that will allow games to run across multiple pieces of hardware). I think we're missing alot of the potential of such a system:

I think its pretty clear that Nintendo wants to create a situation where developers can make a game for both the portable system and the console at the same time. That in and of itself is great. As has already been shown, this move reduces the costs of game development, increases software output, and increases the install base of both platforms.

However, this also means that Nintendo could potentially release a myriad of systems at different power scales to suit player (and developer) needs. Many of us lament the fact the Wii U is under-powered compared to the PS4 and X1, but we also understand that Nintendo is in a way forced to make this compromise because of their desire for innovative game play and a low cost system. The Wii U, like all of its predecessors, is a compromise between an appropriate amount of graphic horsepower, and cost. With this coming "Nintendo OS," this will no longer need to be the case.

I imagine we could potentially see two consoles released by Nintendo. One that is intended to be affordable for Nintendo's core audiences, costing $300 and slightly more powerful than the PS4; and another that is $400-$450 that is at power parity with PS5 and Nextbox (and WiiU/3DS backwards compatible?). Assuming they're going with an x86 AMD based PC type solution, this nets Nintendo the best of both worlds- and affordable console for families, and a power console for more hardcore gamers. Ports from western 3rd parties should be a no-brainer because of architecture similarity. Moreover, the ability to port all the way down to the mobile platform will be attractive to 3rd parties because of the relative difficulty porting between ARM and AMD based systems.

The way I see it Nintendo could release 3 SKUs to satisfy their market. Mobile, standard console, and high-end console. As long as its properly advertised and distributed correctly, I think it could work extremely well for Nintendo.

 

[Trevelyan9999]

This so much. I will buy into the "platform" at launch if this is indeed the case.

Frankly, this is a brilliant move for Nintendo. It solves multiple problems they've had with one stone, and could be a key to finally making them an industry leader once again. In arguing the points about whether the system will be unified (as should now be clear- it is likely a unified system that will allow games to run across multiple pieces of hardware). I think we're missing alot of the potential of such a system:

I think its pretty clear that Nintendo wants to create a situation where developers can make a game for both the portable system and the console at the same time. That in and of itself is great. As has already been shown, this move reduces the costs of game development, increases software output, and increases the install base of both platforms.

However, this also means that Nintendo could potentially release a myriad of systems at different power scales to suit player (and developer) needs. Many of us lament the fact the Wii U is under-powered compared to the PS4 and X1, but we also understand that Nintendo is in a way forced to make this compromise because of their desire for innovative game play and a low cost system. The Wii U, like all of its predecessors, is a compromise between an appropriate amount of graphic horsepower, and cost. With this coming "Nintendo OS," this will no longer need to be the case.

I imagine we could potentially see two consoles released by Nintendo. One that is intended to be affordable for Nintendo's core audiences, costing $300 and slightly more powerful than the PS4; and another that is $400-$450 that is at power parity with PS5 and Nextbox (and WiiU/3DS backwards compatible?). Assuming they're going with an x86 AMD based PC type solution, this nets Nintendo the best of both worlds- and affordable console for families, and a power console for more hardcore gamers. Ports from western 3rd parties should be a no-brainer because of architecture similarity. Moreover, the ability to port all the way down to the mobile platform will be attractive to 3rd parties because of the relative difficulty porting between ARM and AMD based systems.

The way I see it Nintendo could release 3 SKUs to satisfy their market. Mobile, standard console, and high-end console. As long as its properly advertised and distributed correctly, I think it could work extremely well for Nintendo.

Aren't the new AMD x86 & ARM processors going to share similarities by 2016? I thought this is what AMD was shooting for. This would make porting from PS4 a lot easier.

 

[chaosblade]

More than two SKUs seems kind of iffy to me, too many and you lose some of the benefits the approach would allow for. Iwata did say it was a possibility though.

 

[DizzyCrow]

This so much. I will buy into the "platform" at launch if this is indeed the case.

Frankly, this is a brilliant move for Nintendo. It solves multiple problems they've had with one stone, and could be a key to finally making them an industry leader once again. In arguing the points about whether the system will be unified (as should now be clear- it is likely a unified system that will allow games to run across multiple pieces of hardware). I think we're missing alot of the potential of such a system:

I think its pretty clear that Nintendo wants to create a situation where developers can make a game for both the portable system and the console at the same time. That in and of itself is great. As has already been shown, this move reduces the costs of game development, increases software output, and increases the install base of both platforms

However, this also means that Nintendo could potentially release a myriad of systems at different power scales to suit player (and developer) needs. Many of us lament the fact the Wii U is under-powered compared to the PS4 and X1, but we also understand that Nintendo is in a way forced to make this compromise because of their desire for innovative game play and a low cost system. The Wii U, like all of its predecessors, is a compromise between an appropriate amount of graphic horsepower, and cost. With this coming "Nintendo OS," this will no longer need to be the case.

I imagine we could potentially see two consoles released by Nintendo. One that is intended to be affordable for Nintendo's core audiences, costing $300 and slightly more powerful than the PS4; and another that is $400-$450 that is at power parity with PS5 and Nextbox (and WiiU/3DS backwards compatible?). Assuming they're going with an x86 AMD based PC type solution, this nets Nintendo the best of both worlds- and affordable console for families, and a power console for more hardcore gamers. Ports from western 3rd parties should be a no-brainer because of architecture similarity. Moreover, the ability to port all the way down to the mobile platform will be attractive to 3rd parties because of the relative difficulty porting between ARM and AMD based systems.

The way I see it Nintendo could release 3 SKUs to satisfy their market. Mobile, standard console, and high-end console. As long as its properly advertised and distributed correctly, I think it could work extremely well for Nintendo.

What would be the point of a more "high-end" version of the console if it will play the same games as the cheaper version? Console players aren't like PC players who don't have problems in paying $100+ more just for slightly better textures and effects(Nintendo games will be 60FPS anyway) and you're crazy if you think they will make games exclusively for the higher spec and leave the bigger part of the install base out, because that would be the exact opposite of what Nintendo supposedly wants.

 

[Omnii-chan]

This sounds terrible.
I like that the 3DS and Wii U have exclusive games. It makes each system unique and worth owning.

My bet is the next handheld will be able to stream games from their next console and still be it's own thing, with its own library of exclusives.

 

[Extra Sauce]

 

[DizzyCrow]

This sounds terrible.
I like that the 3DS and Wii U have exclusive games. It makes each system unique and worth owning.

My bet is the next handheld will be able to stream games from their next console and still be it's own thing, with its own library of exclusives.

Imagine how much more worth they would be if they could play each other games?

 

[ProtomanNeo]

http://www.idigitaltimes.com/new-nintendo-3ds-release-date-rumors-sharp-ces-2015-press-conference-touts-circular-404393

Sharp was showing off its "circular display" today that supposedly has ties to the next handheld. If this is true I wonder what implications it could have.

 

[DizzyCrow]

http://www.idigitaltimes.com/new-nintendo-3ds-release-date-rumors-sharp-ces-2015-press-conference-touts-circular-404393

Sharp was showing off its "circular display" today that supposedly has ties to the next handheld. If this is true I wonder what implications it could have.

I think it's just the "free form" technology, because Nintendo would have to be extremely stupid to sell a portable with a circular screen.

 

[chaosblade]

This sounds terrible.
I like that the 3DS and Wii U have exclusive games. It makes each system unique and worth owning.

My bet is the next handheld will be able to stream games from their next console and still be it's own thing, with its own library of exclusives.

But clearly most people don't feel that way, otherwise Wii U sales wouldn't be what they are.

 

[DizzyCrow]

But clearly most people don't feel that way, otherwise Wii U sales wouldn't be what they are.

Not only that but even the vast majority of 3DS owners aren't interested on the Wii U either, using October numbers if all 3DS owners were also Wii U owners the overlap would be around 16%, that's the maximum possible and I don't see this number getting bigger any time soon. So why build two unique libraries if most people will only experience one of them?

 

[Calamari41]

I have been a huge fan of this idea from the first time I heard it.

It is especially important during generational switchovers. A common OS where you just buy games period, and the graphics are better or worse depending on which system you own, will have profoundly positive effects on both hardware and software. For hardware, buying a new console at launch will no longer mean that you are basically stuck with the handful of games that launch with the system, waiting months for the catalogue to fill out. As for software, what would have been a launch game constrained by the actual launch sales of the new system is now available for all Nintendo systems. Imagine if New Super Mario Bros U were available for the Wii and DS/3DS as well as the Wii U at launch. It wouldn't be sitting at around 4-5 million units sold right now, that's for sure. And just think: if Nintendo had implemented this years ago, the Wii U could have launched a year earlier with Mario Kart 7, Mario 3D Land, and Skyward Sword.

They basically did a tiny version of this at the Wii launch with Twilight Princess. Imagine that with all of the games, or at least most of them. Very exciting possibilities.

 

[stan423321]

All right.

As an amateur (so far) programmer, I have certain reasons to believe the "cross-platform" is not really what Nintendo plans to do, although it most certainly ain't impossible. A much more mundane possibility is they'll release two platforms with extremely similar architectures, and then make porting extremely simple... but then they will still make handheld-only and console-only titles, only taking technical advantage to not waste time with engineers learning about both systems too much.

I'm not saying "the DiiS" would be a bad idea, it's glorious in fact. But Nintendo is Nintendo, pessimism never hurts.

The post about cross-generational cross-play though... This is fairly more problematic than you probably imagine, especially from the business stand point, but from technical one too. Not impossible - PC does it all the time, with some extra madness even - but quite a mess.

 

[megasus]

Wouldn't performance difference hinder the quality of the console games, because they would have to be built in mind to also run on weak hardware?

I don't think it would work for every game to be cross-platform, without making some compromises.
Just like how most of PS4/XONE titles won't come out for last gen consoles.

Aren't people already complaining about cross-gen titles effecting the quality of the more performance-heavy releases.

 

[Calamari41]

The post about cross-generational cross-play though... This is fairly more problematic than you probably imagine, especially from the business stand point, but from technical one too. Not impossible - PC does it all the time, with some extra madness even - but quite a mess.

Yeah, definitely. I don't have any training in this area... I just know that I bought Half-Life 2 on Steam in 2004 and I can still play it on my 2013 rig. I would think that if Nintendo focused on making it work, they could do it... but again, yeah. It's just a dream, not based on any technical understanding.

 

[Flappy]

I think it would be a great idea.

However, it would basically be a powerful handheld and an underpowered console. As I can't see them making a handheld even at the same power as a Wii-U. A compromise would have to be made.

 

[z0m3le]

All right.

As an amateur (so far) programmer, I have certain reasons to believe the "cross-platform" is not really what Nintendo plans to do, although it most certainly ain't impossible. A much more mundane possibility is they'll release two platforms with extremely similar architectures, and then make porting extremely simple... but then they will still make handheld-only and console-only titles, only taking technical advantage to not waste time with engineers learning about both systems too much.

I'm not saying "the DiiS" would be a bad idea, it's glorious in fact. But Nintendo is Nintendo, pessimism never hurts.

The post about cross-generational cross-play though... This is fairly more problematic than you probably imagine, especially from the business stand point, but from technical one too. Not impossible - PC does it all the time, with some extra madness even - but quite a mess.

Obviously the problem occurs if you code to metal, but even Wii U is using an abstract layer so the problems you are talking about no longer exist. I also code, Javascript and c# on various platforms including Android and Pc, lately I've been using Unity with c#. This can be done directly on the SDK, where it would auto compile your code for different devices that use NintendOS.

The target devices could easily handle the scaling as long as you either base your game on the lowest spec and allow an auto settings to target different resolutions and toggle on effects. Targeting the console would be less automatic for developers as they would need to draw back the game to get the performance for play, however this is not a long process and could be done by a single person tweaking the settings for a day or two.

Sorry just had to point out that the problem doesn't apply to a game coding on a thick layer like directx or opengl or in this case, Nintendo's API.

 

[D3VI0US]

Nintendo isn't trying to compete with Sony or MS on hardware power. Their games already look amazing on Wii U, it's software, services, and online infrastructure where they are lagging behind. They don't have the internal development bandwidth to support both a handheld and a console, both would benefit from being a single platform.

Sure they make more money with everyone buying Smash 3DS for $40 and then Smash Wii U for $60 for the people that actually do that. Yeah they're probably too greedy to do actual cross buy when that would eliminate a revenue stream. They could charge extra for a universal app, lets say $80 for Smash, if they don't make more revenue by doing that I don't think they'd lose that much money.

I have always disliked handheld gaming, I hate the small screens, small buttons, and often inferior experiences. I do miss out on some great games though, I would play Link Between Worlds, Mario and Luigi RPGs, Mario 3D Land, Fire Emblem, etc. I'm just not going to buy a dedicated handheld to do it. I believe Nintendo will make more money and have less droughts in their schedule if their games were cross buy and cross play because they can sell all their games to all their fans.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

Wouldn't performance difference hinder the quality of the console games, because they would have to be built in mind to also run on weak hardware?

I don't think it would work for every game to be cross-platform, without making some compromises.
Just like how most of PS4/XONE titles won't come out for last gen consoles.

Aren't people already complaining about cross-gen titles effecting the quality of the more performance-heavy releases.

I wouldn't think so if they're the same architecture, with just the portable less powerful. I don't see why it wouldn't just be like a PC game that could run at max graphics settings on a top tier gaming PC, but still run a play fine with a lot lower graphic settings on a mid tier PC.

If nothing else, if the architectures are similar it would make up or down ports much easier and just a matter of enhancing or downgrading graphics.

 

[evilchicken]

No, Jesus fucking Christ for the last time they wont, Nintendo isnt gonna take two streams of revenue, turn it into one and potentially risking bankruptcy by having it all fail.

Are you suggesting it's a common/profitable occurrence for someone to buy the same game for both Wii U and 3DS? I think that owning on both with one purchase doesn't really mean they lose sales of a specific game. If anything I'd think it would go up.

Smash is an exception, not a rule.

 

[DizzyCrow]

Are you suggesting it's a common/profitable occurrence for someone to buy the same game for both Wii U and 3DS? I think that owning on both with one purchase doesn't really mean they lose sales of a specific game. If anything I'd think it would go up.

Smash is an exception, not a rule.

Yep, someone buying both 3DS and Wii U already isn't a common occurrence.

 

[z0m3le]

Nintendo isn't trying to compete with Sony or MS on hardware power. Their games already look amazing on Wii U, it's software, services, and online infrastructure where they are lagging behind. They don't have the internal development bandwidth to support both a handheld and a console, both would benefit from being a single platform.

Sure they make more money with everyone buying Smash 3DS for $40 and then Smash Wii U for $60 for the people that actually do that. Yeah they're probably too greedy to do actual cross buy when that would eliminate a revenue stream. They could charge extra for a universal app, lets say $80 for Smash, if they don't make more revenue by doing that I don't think they'd lose that much money.

I have always disliked handheld gaming, I hate the small screens, small buttons, and often inferior experiences. I do miss out on some great games though, I would play Link Between Worlds, Mario and Luigi RPGs, Mario 3D Land, Fire Emblem, etc. I'm just not going to buy a dedicated handheld to do it. I believe Nintendo will make more money and have less droughts in their schedule if their games were cross buy and cross play because they can sell all their games to all their fans.

They could increase the price of the games to $60 across their handhelds and make up that money, it wouldn't need to be $80. They have a market over 5X larger on their handheld over their console, so if they increase the price of software there by 50% they are making far more money than the possible 100% Wii U owners buying both versions of the software at $100.

The above is especially true if they only have to develop the game once, have more resources to produce more games and only have to release half as many games to fill out a console's library each year. There is a huge responsibility to their customers every time they launch a system, that responsibility is greater on Nintendo than Sony or Microsoft because Nintendo has to carry their platform, by the end of the console's life, if it doesn't have a great library to that customer who bought that device, the customer won't return.

Nintendo pushing all their software onto one platform is going to allow them to satisfy those customers like never before, and if they can release new franchises, not only will they make more money with this combined ecosystem, they will increase their customers with each completely new game.

This is before you look at 3rd parties jumping on a 50m+ user market in it's 3rd year, that is comparable to PS4's trajectory right now, and it is a run away success, indies will be happier and the Japanese market will have a home console they can safely target by developing for a handheld system capable of 3DS and Vita type games as well as Wii U type full console style games.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

I think that they will use the same base character models, game engine, and source code, but the end product will take advantage of console graphics or handheld console graphics.

So there will in effect be two systems, but less cost and time involved if they want to do dual versions like Smash Bros 3DS.

 

[sörine]

I think that they will use the same base character models, game engine, and source code, but the end product will take advantage of console graphics or handheld console graphics.

So there will in effect be two systems, but less cost and time involved if they want to do dual versions like Smash Bros 3DS.

There can still be console or handheld specific games with a shared ecosystem though. Most games being cross compatible doesn't rule out a console only Wii Fit (due to interface) or Xenoblade (due to fidelity) for example. iPad has plently of unique games you can't get on your iPhone or iPod Touch.

 

[EnergizerFellow]

I take it nobody in this thread is a PC gamer or software developer?

Releasing a single application package for systems with vastly different hardware performance has been a thing in the PC gaming world since forever and a day. Since the "4DS"/"Wii3" will almost certainly be running the same hardware architecture and OS, it would be like running the same Windows game at 1280x720 w/ "Low" settings vs 2560x1440 w/ "Ultra" settings. Same binaries, same install media, etc, but with run-time changes like low/hi-res texture packs, draw distance changes, simplified lighting, fewer in-game objects, etc.

As for the hardware itself, I have a strong feeling the 4DS/Wii3 will be flash cartridge based and use the same physical cart between console and handheld. Home console will come with something that looks a lot like the Wii U Pro controller, but the handheld can be used exactly like the Wii U's gamepad is today (primary/secondary screen streaming, etc). The Wii3 supporting any arbitrary combination of 4-8 regular controllers and 4DS units seems a given in my book. In terms of general industrial design of the console itself, I expect something that looks a lot like a love child of the Wii U, Dreamcast, and PCE Duo RX (a Game Boy Player style add-on containing Wii U hardware would sell millions I think, but I just don't see it happening...).

Not like the unified portable/console is unprecedented in console games either... Anybody remember the NEC TurboExpress (TG16/PCE), Sega Nomad (Genesis/MD), or Sega Game Gear (SMS)?