Well, according to Ubisoft and the CD Projekt guys, they are again after the casuals and the devs don't really care. Not only that but Reggie implied the machine will be not about power, which sounds like it will release outdated as the WiiU did.
So I think we are going to see what will happen to Nintendo.
You'll find more Nintendo data here:Chû Totoro;207889559 said:So people can have some contextual information.
That's not at all what they said.
Edit: Some of you are acting like Nintendo has no idea what they're doing and learned nothing from the Wii U. Wrong. Because of the Wii U they have completely restructured their company. This year they announced they are making a transition to a Company with Audit and Supervisory Committee and introduce an Executive Officer System. Last year they restructured quite a few of their divisions and they are getting way more aggresive with their IPs OUTSIDE of gaming. They cannot compete with Microsoft and Sony currently when 95% of their revenue is from games and they know it. They are in a TRANSISTION PERIOD to a more diverse company.
They will be one step closer to going 3rd party. Or one step closer to exiting the home console business and doing handhelds only.
Just being realistic and rational.
I honestly cant see them doing another home console if it flops tho.
The reason some posters are acting like this is because they (the posters, I mean) really have no idea why the Wii was successful, why the Wii U was a failure, or how Nintendo's design philosophies/approaches affected the outcome of the two consoles and how those philosophies are completely and totally different. I mean, come on, some of these people seriously believe one or more of the following:
(1) ... that the Wii audience jumped ship to mobile games and would never return to a new gaming console aimed at said audience.
(2) ... that the Wii U's problem was that it cost too much or wasn't powerful enough.
(3) ... that going third-party would be in Nintendo's best interest.
(4) ... that "statistical" performance figures on Nintendo's historical consoles are a clear indicator of future performance.
These are sincerely held beliefs that the simple application of logic can't easily dispel, because they are rooted in a long history of confirmation bias, a tunnel vision that only sees Nintendo in the light of the business strategies employed by Microsoft and Sony, and continued exposure to the headlines generated by an overeager Wedbush Securities employee.
If you were to reconstruct the NES-through-Wii U narrative from scratch based on the statements of Nintendo's own executives over the past 12 years -- without all the aforementioned baggage -- it would be obvious that Nintendo has addressed and invalidated each of those beliefs by any reasonable measure.
But when you're (for example) a gamer who's torn between exclusives across two or more consoles and who wants to be discerning with your gaming expenditures, it's all too easy to ignore all that and just assume Nintendo could be successful (and satisfied) with a third-party future. Those aren't Nintendo's values, and I *suspect* that Nintendo believes very strongly that abandoning its first-party roots would actually prevent it from building the gaming experiences that it wants to create.
Probably third party.
It would be really bad for Nintendo
eventually investors will steer the path, they want money.
As soon as NeoGAF catches the faintest whiff of Mario on Sony/MS, people start limbering up for the mental olympics once more.
Then why on earth would they do it?
The majority shareholder of Nintendo is Nintendo.
Is people claiming them going third party intentionally ignoring their portable business?
If the nx home console is going to repeat wiiu numbers the most logical thing is stay and focus on the portable side imho.
Especially if the nx portable is going to repeat the 3ds numbers, that will probably stay over the xbox one numbers in terms of ltd
What don't people get that even if Nintendo is hardly making anything on their hardware they still get to keep everything from the software sales and a cut from third parties? Sharing 20% of game sales profits with Microsoft and Sony and not having their own digital platform where they don't have to pay retailers would take a huge chunk of those potential profits.
They would never reach their former glory as a third party publisher. I don't think share holders would like that either.
GTA 5 sold 65 million copies because it was available on a multitude of platforms. Imagine if the new Zelda was available on ps4/xbone/pc. It would easily sell 25 million. Easily. It would likely sell even more buit instead its going to top out at like 5 million because of the platform. Nintendo Hardware is holding their sales back tremendously. They would likely sell 5 times as much software if they were 3rd party.
It baffles me that people continue to not understand why 3rd parties don't make games for Nintendo consoles. "They just don't like Nintendo," "It's not powerful enough." Etc. While power plays a part (in adopters wanting power, and ease of develpment) the reason is because those games have not been shown to sell. It's that simple.
If Nintendo made Battlefield, they would get Call of Duty. If Nintendo made Assassin's Creed, they would get 3rd person action games. If they made Grand Theft Auto, they would get Mafia III. It's that simple. They have to have a user base who buys these games. Whether that's creating it themselves or getting key third party support. But it has to be consistent so people who like those game buy the system (and it's a system they want to buy, but usually that comes with having the games). That's the main thing.
Honestly overall Nintendo has been saying all the right things, just a lot of people here don't seem to be listening.
Maybe they should stop saying and start doing. They'll hobble on for decades but the Wii and DS days are long gone.
Obviously they need to start doing, yes. But the NX hasn't even been officially revealed yet. We can't know what they have been doing over the past 4 years until it is.
The reason some posters are acting like this is because they (the posters, I mean) really have no idea why the Wii was successful, why the Wii U was a failure, or how Nintendo's design philosophies/approaches affected the outcome of the two consoles and how those philosophies are completely and totally different. I mean, come on, some of these people seriously believe one or more of the following:
(1) ... that the Wii audience jumped ship to mobile games and would never return to a new gaming console aimed at said audience.
(2) ... that the Wii U's problem was that it cost too much or wasn't powerful enough.
(3) ... that going third-party would be in Nintendo's best interest.
(4) ... that "statistical" performance figures on Nintendo's historical consoles are a clear indicator of future performance.
These are sincerely held beliefs that the simple application of logic can't easily dispel, because they are rooted in a long history of confirmation bias, a tunnel vision that only sees Nintendo in the light of the business strategies employed by Microsoft and Sony, and continued exposure to the headlines generated by an overeager Wedbush Securities employee.
If you were to reconstruct the NES-through-Wii U narrative from scratch based on the statements of Nintendo's own executives over the past 12 years -- without all the aforementioned baggage -- it would be obvious that Nintendo has addressed and invalidated each of those beliefs by any reasonable measure.
But when you're (for example) a gamer who's torn between exclusives across two or more consoles and who wants to be discerning with your gaming expenditures, it's all too easy to ignore all that and just assume Nintendo could be successful (and satisfied) with a third-party future. Those aren't Nintendo's values, and I *suspect* that Nintendo believes very strongly that abandoning its first-party roots would actually prevent it from building the gaming experiences that it wants to create.
Nintendo would go third party.
What's odd to me is the shocking lack of advertisement for anything but the largest 3DS titles. Wii U ads were abysmal and they haven't even tried to move units after the initial launch flop.
It's almost as if they immediately gave up and started working on something else. That's fine I guess but it's not exactly confidence inspiring to customers and investors.
Is that you, Kimishima?
Seriously though, great post. Some of the arguments against Nintendo carrying on in the industry make me want to gouge my eyes out, and you're spot on with the transition period.
Everything Nintendo has said so far regarding the NX shows that they are fully aware of the flaws with the Wii U's release. I think the NX is going to be a big hit.
Of course it will be weaker than Scorpio, that thing is a monster. Neo seems to be only a little upgrade like the New 3DS.
NX will be somewhere around PS4/XOne level.
I wonder how much MS or Sony would pay for marketing rights to Mario.
Third party please!
Imagine Zelda on Neo and Scorpio!!
I guess Nintendont like $
It's not a hybrid.
I'm just wondering about Nintendo's next handheld. The 3DS has reached its limit.
She went out of her way to emphasize that those comparisons were based on raw power rather than real world performance. If we also adopt the Nvidia rumor in addition to the Emily Rogers rumor then that muddies the comparisons.
I still believe LCGeek's leak is the most trustworthy because it's not super vague and it comes from someone who has had access to such private information in the past. A >>>XB1/PS4 CPU wouldn't make all that much sense without a similarly powered GPU.
I vote for 3rd party... I would love Mario Galaxy 4 in 4K or VR on PS Neo
I vote for 3rd party... I would love Mario Galaxy 4 in 4K or VR on PS Neo