Support NeoGAF

[dickgumshoe]

Why are people so obsessed with getting another samey console?

Even with the gamepad not having the same impact as the wiimote, it's still nice to have off TV and the inventory / map improvements.

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

Nintendo would have had to have been in the "arms race" to begin with in order to return to it.

Really now? The NES, SNES, N64, and Gamecube were all impressive in their own right at the time they released, and their showcase games were often the best looking of their respective generations . The idea that Nintendo never focused on progressive hardware is a re-write of gaming history. Their approach only really changed following the Gamecube's tepid reception.

 

[Pjsprojects]

No,another Ninty type machine that's nothing like the others with not even a thought to power.

Not a chance in hell I'd buy whatever they make next after buying two WiiU's and seeing how they failed with third party and adverts so hard.

 

[redcrayon]

There is no point in having three consoles with the same multiplats anymore.
I wouldn't mind much more powerful hardware though.

It depends how many consoles people buy per generation. While there is little value for us as heavy gaming consumers in having three consoles to choose from that all have the same games, it would certainly be better for Nintendo if their customers who a) only buy one console and b) their first choice was a Nintendo machine if they had more of the multiplats.

PS3 and 360 shared a huge percentage of their games library and it didn't do them any harm.

Personally I think Nintendo will drift even further away from compatibility with the modern AAA scene (if that's even possible) and try to become self-reliant with a greater output of games across a shared OS between handheld and console variants. I think we'll see Nintendo hardware sticking to a relatively short life cycle too.

 

[Zeyphersan]

While there is little value for us as a consumer in having three consoles to choose from that all have the same games, it would certainly be better for Nintendo if their customers who a) only buy one console and b) their first choice was a Nintendo machine if they had more of the multiplats.

PS3 and 360 shared a huge percentage of their games library and it didn't do them any harm.

I can't even fathom having a Nintendo console be powerful enough to be my primary console. I certainly wouldn't complain if it happened, but it's just not something I can picture.

"Digital Foundry said Watch_Dogs 3 runs best and looks best on the Nintendo 7, guess that's the choice for me!"

 

[Always-honest]

It depends how many consoles people buy per generation. While there is little value for us as heavy gaming consumers in having three consoles to choose from that all have the same games, it would certainly be better for Nintendo if their customers who a) only buy one console and b) their first choice was a Nintendo machine if they had more of the multiplats.

PS3 and 360 shared a huge percentage of their games library and it didn't do them any harm.

Personally I think Nintendo will drift even further away from compatibility with the modern AAA scene (if that's even possible) and try to become self-reliant with a greater output of games across a shared OS between handheld and console variants. I think we'll see Nintendo hardware sticking to a relatively short life cycle too.

True. And yes, i'd be fine with the latter.

 

[AzaK]

They will not enter the arms race. They might release a PS4 or XBO level machine but that's it. They have to be different and profitable. Those two 'must haves' mean they will never enter the arms race in the sense the OP is taking about.

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

I think it's still too early in this gen to really know the best next route to take.

The Nintendo ship is certainly taking on water fast, but hasn't sunk yet. There's been other threads on here listing dozens of ways Nintendo can help/save/salvage the Wii U.

Nintendo will figure it out, even with Iwata.

 

[boltz]

Funny, seeing how they released a console with PS3-level power 6 years into the life of PS3...

And look what good it did them.

 

[Interceptor]

What do you mean by they just shifted the focus?.....

Thats what i said in the second sentence. They are still going and actually never stopped to include the newest tech in their platforms. But in gaming forums an "arms race" is usually just a term to describe a beefy GPU. They still invested tons in R&D and were the first to introduce mass market touch screen gaming, motion controls and now a second screen experience with lag free streaming in 60fps a camera and NFC. This is still an arms race, just not with the focus many people here would like to have it. Which doesn´t mean it comes for "free" or something you could describe to "cheap out" Implementing a laptop gpu is not rocket science. If they want to enter a gpu which could satisfy the "enthusiasts" they could just do that. There is no "race" in consoles. The tech is already dated. Its just a combination of different compromises you get for specific amount of money.

 

[Metalingus5150]

If they get the bleeding edge tech for their successor, it'll have Pixar quality visuals.

 

[redcrayon]

I can't even fathom having a Nintendo console be powerful enough to be my primary console. I certainly wouldn't complain if it happened, but it's just not something I can picture.

"Digital Foundry said Watch_Dogs 3 runs best and looks best on the Nintendo 7, guess that's the choice for me!"

Yeah, I see what you're saying. Not everyone chooses their primary console based on power though, if a console is built around the main Nintendo IP but still good enough to have reasonable versions of the multiplats (But probably not the best ones), that might be enough, but, thinking about it, it's absolutely not going to happen after the WiiU.

As much as Nintendo tried to at least gain support from third parties for late-gen 360/PS3 games on the WiiU, it's burnt out pretty fast. There's no reason why Dark Souls 2, Dragon Age 3 etc etc couldn't run on it, the truth is that even if they make a machine that can run multiplats, that's not enough to attract third parties if they believe their audience is elsewhere.

For WiiU, Nintendo didn't realise that the bulk of the audience for those western third party games would be sticking with PS360 and then upgrading in dribs and drabs without needing an intermediate step. The developers of those games are also well aware of this.

For their next console, I can see them just going 'sod it then' and creating something that is designed purely around making it easy for them to get their own games out on a regular basis. That handheld/console parity thing is their last real chance, I think, and one only made possible by their games not needing massively powerful hardware.

I'm not saying it'll work, but it's probably the best option left to them, Western third party relations with Nintendo are irreparable on both sides, due to a complete incompatibility between what they want their games to run on.

 

[lightchris]

If they do return to a powerful console (I don't really see what other choice they have after the failure of WiiU), I wonder if some of the more tech-savvy guys could give an idea of what Nintendo could build in 2016 for $299 ?. Could they double the power of PS4's GPU while keeping the console around that same size as PS4, although I don't think 16GB's of GDDR5 RAM would be feasible even in late 2016 (I could be wrong).

They could easily double the PS4 in late 2016 for 300$ (if they don't go for an expensive controller or something). By then the 20nm process will be mature. Combined with a more efficient architecture (Nvidia's Maxwell implies that there's still a lot potential for AMD even on the same process), twice the performance shouldn't be a problem even with less power draw compared to the PS4.
As for the RAM, I think 8 GB will still be enough, especially if they keep the OS footprint low. GDDR6 might still be expensive though.

 

[liger05]

Iwata will try and find another gimmick. He should speak to third parties to get an idea of what they want but not a chance that will happen.

 

[SerodD]

Haven't you heard the rumors?! They will bring us all that holographic memory, plus 8 gigs of ddr4 and carbon nanotubes processors

Spoiler

LOL!

 

[YoungHav]

Sony and MS are gun manufacturers and Nintendo are swordmakers. 2 different markets.

 

[mrpeabody]

I personally don't think there's room for a third console anymore, but knowing Nintendo they'll give it another go.

What gimmick do we expect from the fertile mind of Iwata? Heartbeat sensor? VR? Smellovision?

 

[Jackano]

Even Yamauchi from where he is doesn't know what they are going to do.

I'm starting to understand the technology BS it is from being PowerPC based since the GC while competitors are x86 based. But for the sake of backward compatibility, they will still need Wii U tech in their next console. My hope and my choice will be to do so.

But my bet is they will try a new class of ships (maybe since the technology did giant improvements since the mobile and tablets era - and idk if this means to maybe be x86 or something else). Will this compete with others? Well it's hard to say from now and they are perfectly capable of doing the Wii U case again by being more or less the same power of the latest gen competitors, and not the nextgen competitors. Meaning ps4 level in 2016-2017. But maybe they will try to show more fire power this time.

 

[Interceptor]

Sony and MS are gun manufacturers and Nintendo are swordmakers. 2 different markets.

More like the others make tanks while Nintendo shifted to helicopters. While pretty effective, the Tank crowd is very emotional about this and still pissed. Despite having a huge success in the helicopter market, Nintendo decided shifting again to flying tank snowmobiles. Fun as hell but everyone is just like "wtf" Nintendo.

 

[burst]

How would nintendo entering the arms race make a difference?

The problem with Nintendo is the console purchasing publics perception of them.

They are a console for children, neogaf users and nintendo die hards.

I own a Wii U.

 

[Converse]

That will be their first mistake.

Learn how to work with it? It's a standard Tri-Core PowerPC design, almost identical to the one in the Xbox 360. Developers have been programming for that exact tech for years already. Nothing is difficult about the technology, it's things like the Nintendo SDK that are a mess. I just imagine their Game Dev Kits are the puzzle boxes from Hellraiser. The problem now is that we have the Wii U with a dated Tri-Core PowerPC CPU, going up against Playstation 4 and Xbox One which have Octa-Core x86 AMD CPU's, the difference is like night and day, and a huge factor as to why developers can't just easily port between the 3.

Man, I apologize, but I won't get into a Wii U tech debate here. It's been done to death, and it's not on-topic -- it's the opposite of on-topic, in fact, considering that Iwata essentially said "our next platform will pretty much use Wii U architecture." Which you're free to not like.

What I will say is that, though I'll concede "drastically," my conclusion (and the conclusions of others in these three threads ) is that I do believe the Wii U's memory configuration is significantly different from its competitors. As for learning to work with the system -- and you very well may be right about the SDK, I don't have much knowledge there -- surely you understand that I have to give statements from folks like Slightly Mad Studios and Shin'en more credence than yours.

That said, I agree with what lots of posters are saying here -- creating a platform with similar architecture and horsepower to its competitors is mostly important to third party relations, and I predict that Nintendo will continue to de-prioritize third parties, focusing more on increasing its own output and the outputs of its partners, as well as acquiring exclusives and continuing to bolster indie relations. Again, this reflects the company's mantra of differentiating itself from its competitors, and -- with the right amount of content -- makes a theoretical new platform more appealing, as it offers largely exclusive experiences.

There is no way in hell Nintendo will compete with any of those companies, because they fail to provide value the way they do. Steam offers games for dirt cheap, something Nintendo is vehemently against since they think it "diminishes the value of intellectual property", and people use it because they can get games for great prices. Netflix is similar, it offers craploads of Television Programs and Movies for dirt cheap, something Nintendo just doesn't want to do. I'm not certain how PlayStation Now works but I imagine it's Gaikai, so same problem as above, Nintendo doesn't want to give people tons of games for no/a low cost. They consider their intellectual property too valuable, that's why their Virtual Console environment is full of 30+ year old games selling for $8-10.

As has been said here, Nintendo is not out to compete; it's out to profit. Note that I said "in the ballpark of" -- whatever its new gen plans are, Nintendo surely won't just slap its logo onto a platform identical to Steam, Netflix or PlayStation Now. But I believe, based on all of the stuff I posted earlier plus the recent spikes in digital sales, that like these platforms, we will see a focus on allowing users to build an easily accessible digital library across devices. If I had to guess, I'd speculate it won't be a subscription service, per say, but more based on individual purchases, with incentives and deals. But as I said, view this as a foundation for what to expect; exactly how it's executed will be unpredictable.

As for your feelings on Nintendo's approach to value and intellectual property, I don't think they're as inflexible as you make it out -- or at least, I'm already seeing moves toward less draconian views on (digital) software value. Let's look at the past few years for examples. The company offers about four free games a month via (the woefully under-publicized) Club Nintendo (I haven't bought a crazy amount of Nintendo games in the past 12 months, but I've received about 10 free digital games). They're taking a much more liberal approach to DLC and free-to-play titles than other companies (see Steel Diver: Sub Wars and their dirt cheap/often free DLC) and they throw out programs such as the 3DS Ambassador promotion and the Wii U Famicom Anniversary promotion. Further, they're the only one of the "Big Three" that paid any mind whatsoever to allowing customers to transfer their last-generation libraries -- digital and physical -- over to their next-generation consoles completely in-tact.

My (rambling-ass) point is that Nintendo seems to be loosening up on that front and moving toward that unified digital ecosystem. We also have Iwata emphasizing, "We are thinking about a new business structure," and promising a unified account system, which are both signs of impending change on a large scale.

I mean, we can check back on this thread in five years and see what's what, but I think that's the way the wind is blowing.

 

[Jaxar]

Sony and MS are gun manufacturers and Nintendo are swordmakers. 2 different markets.

Correct. Gun manufacturers and swordmakers who both make their money from video games.

Wait..

 

[The Maverick]

Thats what i said in the second sentence. They are still going and actually never stopped to include the newest tech in their platforms. But in gaming forums an "arms race" is usually just a term to describe a beefy GPU. They still invested tons in R&D and were the first to introduce mass market touch screen gaming, motion controls and now a second screen experience with lag free streaming in 60fps a camera and NFC.


This is still an arms race, just not with the focus many people here would like to have it. Which doesn´t mean it comes for "free" or something you could describe to "cheap out" Implementing a laptop gpu is not rocket science. If they want to enter a gpu which could satisfy the "enthusiasts" they could just do that. There is no "race" in consoles. The tech is already dated. Its just a combination of different compromises you get for specific amount of money.

I'm going to let you have touch screen gaming and motion controls, because Nintendo innovated games with that technology. Nothing about the Wii U is in that class. They didn't disrupt the market this time. Just misread it.

To that second half, what you describe is not an arms race. A race implies competition. Nintendo is walking alone around a track and you're trying to convince me that it's a race. Part of making a good console is combining parts to entice a buyer to pick up your product. Operating systems, GPUs, CPUs, are all there to provide a sense of value to the consumer. Nintendo did not provide that value to consumers this go around, and the numbers reflect that accordingly.

 

[neurosisxeno]

They could easily double the PS4 in late 2016 for 300$ (if they don't go for an expensive controller or something). By then the 20nm process will be mature. Combined with a more efficient architecture (Nvidia's Maxwell implies that there's still a lot potential for AMD even on the same process), twice the performance shouldn't be a problem even with less power draw compared to the PS4.
As for the RAM, I think 8 GB will still be enough, especially if they keep the OS footprint low. GDDR6 might still be expensive though.

Maxwell is very impressive when it comes to energy efficiency, but AMD has historically been a little less interested in power consumption than Nvidia and Intel. Maybe they will start paying attention to it, but I have my doubts. As for 20nm, I'm thinking 2015 we will start seeing the first consumer products with 20nm chips. TSMC and GF are having a ton of problems getting it production-ready, and are already woefully behind schedule. As for GDDR6, doubtful. I can't find a single valid source from even the past year that indicates it's anywhere near production-ready. The intended specifications are kind of crazy, and I imagine if anything GDDR6 will be a more energy-efficient variant of GDDR5, not necessarily much faster though.

Sony and MS are gun manufacturers and Nintendo are swordmakers. 2 different markets.

Except going by this analogy they are both trying to sell you Guns.

Paragraph 1-3

I don't understand how talking about the technical side of the Wii U doesn't play into talking about whether or not Nintendo will shoot for the same tech level as Sony and Microsoft, but whatever. The hard facts are on a hardware level, the Xenon and Espresso chips aren't nearly as different as even the Xenon and Cell, or any one of those to the AMD APU's in the new consoles. The are IBM Power Architecture, which means they use the Power Instruction Sets (when we get to the nitty gritty of coding to the metal). Any other pains would be from the Pandora's Box that is Nintendo's SDK.

I don't disagree that Nintendo has to differentiate themselves somehow, but making consoles that are different in every way imaginable and abandoning third party developers is not going to help them in the long run. They need to make their systems appealing to the people that want Mario games as well as the people that want Call of Duty. The gaming market has shifted since the rise of smart phones and tablets, and a lot of those people who bought $250 Wii's and $100 worth of games are now getting phones and spending that money on Apps.

As has been said here, Nintendo is not out to compete; it's out to profit.

Which they are basically failing to do with the Wii U. It is so far a commercial failure--as apparent by the fact that it became one of the few systems (the only one not made by Sega in fact) to fail to outdo its first year sales the second year.

Paragraphs 4-6

It's a nice theory, but I have my doubts Nintendo will be able to pull it off successfully. They have continued to drop the ball when it comes to the Internet in general, and need a massive overhaul of their system just to catch up to where the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 were in that aspect. I don't foresee them catching up to someone like Steam for at least a decade, maybe longer. If the Wii U doesn't pan out, and they spend a ton of money building a huge network infrastructure and it doesn't bring them a massive wave of business, the infamous Nintendo coffers will be in a sad state, and the board of directors will not be happy. They will have almost no choice but to directly compete with Sony and Microsoft.

 

[cartman414]

Some good points here, but

1. Nintendo at its "best" was never this. NES was weaker than the Master System and later on the Genesis. SNES came two years after the Genesis and besides a few features didn't showcase the difference in years between the two. Additionally, there were many more consoles that were more powerful and released around the same time. N64, if you consider it their best era, is the only place your point is proven, but even there the PS outclassed it in a few areas. Portable has always been pretty far behind.

The MS, aka Mark III, actually trailed it by 2 years. The console Sega released the very same day as the Famicom, the SG-1000, was much less powerful, basically MSX/Colecovision tier.

 

[Castef]

Do you think they will go for another gimmick controller / USP console or do you think that after the failure of titles like Wii Party and Wii Fit U they will finally see that the casual Wii audience has moved onto smart phones and tablets and again return to the so called console 'arms race'.

No way they are going to return to the "arms race". Last time they did it it was with the Gamecube and they got a beating even by the newly arrived Xbox.

They just have to focus on good games and fresh experiences, trying to re-create the nice balance of game output they managed to achieve during years 2-4 of Wii.

 

[ecosse_011172]

Iwata has repeated many times, also recently that under no circumstances will Nintendo do what their rivals are doing. Unless there's a management change, expect future consoles to be underpowered and include some sort of hardware gimmick/differentiation.

 

[kinggroin]

I expect the next console to be insanely cheap and based on the same HW architecture the next handheld is built around (ARM, or x86).

Power wise, it'll be maybe 50-60% more powerful than Wii U.


Their achiles heel post 3rd party exodus, is the anemic 1st party support. That needs to be solved 100% so we are seeing one or two games from them every month to keep HW sales momentum going.

In the end, if played right, Nintendo will have carved out a smallish, but profitable market for itself.

 

[Mlatador]

In my opinion, they don't even need to engage in an "arms race". Diminishing returns are here. The Wii U is already a capable enough console (at least to my tastes). If the Wii U 2 ends up having graphical capabilities compared to the PS4, that'd be more than enough.

Much more important than the "hardware power" is gonna be the price. Their next console should be 249 to 299 at max. And it needs a complete redesign and a much much better name, something like "Wii Next", "Wii Neo", "Super Wii" or maybe a completely different name, like "Nintendo Next", "Nintendo Neo".

 

[cartman414]

Even Yamauchi from where he is doesn't know what they are going to do.

I'm starting to understand the technology BS it is from being PowerPC based since the GC while competitors are x86 based. But for the sake of backward compatibility, they will still need Wii U tech in their next console. My hope and my choice will be to do so.

But my bet is they will try a new class of ships (maybe since the technology did giant improvements since the mobile and tablets era - and idk if this means to maybe be x86 or something else). Will this compete with others? Well it's hard to say from now and they are perfectly capable of doing the Wii U case again by being more or less the same power of the latest gen competitors, and not the nextgen competitors. Meaning ps4 level in 2016-2017. But maybe they will try to show more fire power this time.

PowerPC doesn't scale well performance wise with respect to power/temp IIRC, which led to Apple ditching it for Intel x86. IBM has been too concentrated on the mainline POWER architecture.

No way they are going to return to the "arms race". Last time they did it it was with the Gamecube and they got a beating even by the newly arrived Xbox.

They just have to focus on good games and fresh experiences, trying to re-create the nice balance of game output they managed to achieve during years 2-4 of Wii.

No, no and no. As mentioned before, the Cube launched a year after the PS2 which had too much momentum by then. Plus, their 3rd party relations were still a little lacking, they were facing a kiddie stigma especially with the "lunch pail" design, and the system couldn't play DVDs, which at the time was an asset.

I expect the next console to be insanely cheap and based on the same HW architecture the next handheld is built around (ARM, or x86).

Power wise, it'll be maybe 50-60% more powerful than Wii U.


Their achiles heel post 3rd party exodus, is the anemic 1st party support. That needs to be solved 100% so we are seeing one or two games from them every month to keep HW sales momentum going.

In the end, if played right, Nintendo will have carved out a smallish, but profitable market for itself.

This.

 

[Aostia]

I think...no

 

[neurosisxeno]

I expect the next console to be insanely cheap and based on the same HW architecture the next handheld is built around (ARM, or x86).

Power wise, it'll be maybe 50-60% more powerful than Wii U.

I doubt you will see ARM in a major companies console for a really long time. ARM just like PowerPC doesn't scale upwards well. x86's power efficiency is getting kind of ridiculous. As it is, I think the Jaguar cores in the Xbox and PS4 only use a few Watts each, most of the power consumption is actually from the GPU.

Their achiles heel post 3rd party exodus, is the anemic 1st party support. That needs to be solved 100% so we are seeing one or two games from them every month to keep HW sales momentum going.

In the end, if played right, Nintendo will have carved out a smallish, but profitable market for itself.

Can Nintendo even maintain 1-2 games a month? That's basically asking for 4 Mario Games, 2 Luigi Game, 2 Donkey Kong Country Games, A Zelda, A Metroid, and 2 Kart Racing games a year considering the IP's they have been favoring for the past couple years. There's no way the public will go for that...

 

[Coolwhip]

There is no point to be in the 'arms race'. It brings you nothing but losses.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I can't even begin to speculate what is going on in Nintendo HQ regarding their future plans. I know what I'd like them to do, which is to try to start over as quickly as possible with a competitive box in 2016 or thereabouts. A 4 year WiiU lifecycle would be a mercy kill, really. But I have no idea what they will do, and what I think they "should" do is just my opinion as somebody with no real business experience.

Network infrastructure, account features etc are things that they should have nailed with the 3DS and reasonably mature by the WiiU launch. It's not that they are existentially necessary for a platform to sell, but their infantile / nonexistent state hurts their desirability for certain rather important demographics. The WiiU itself came too close to the competitor's new systems and did not present a significant leap over what was already available. The perception that it was a "current gen system 6 years late to the party" probably did more damage to its public perception than the guys in charge realized at the time. The slow, painful death of Wii software support was doing it no favors either. The gamepad totally failed to capture the public's imagination like the Wii remote did in 2006. Nintendo should have realized this was going to happen with internal testing, focus groups or whatever other methods they have for gauging public reaction to things, but at this point I wouldn't be surprised if Iwata was making strategic business decisions by analyzing bird entrails. Whatever the case, having failed to recapture the non-gamer successes of the Wii, and having failed to improve upon or even match what their competitor's were doing in the previous generation, they obviously failed to catch on much with the core gamer crowd too.

The question of whether a future console needs to "return to the arms race" is a simplification in my mind. I could argue that Sony and Microsoft both abandoned the arms race with their 8th gen consoles. The PS4 and XBO are not cutting edge, high power hogs that cost ungodly sums to manufacture. Adjusting for inflation, the PS3's launch cost was $692.17 in 2013 dollars. Going the other way, the PS4's 2013 price launching in 2006 would be roughly equivalent to $345.29. That's really cheap, and we don't have any indications that Sony or Microsoft are taking a beating selling these consoles at a loss. They could have produced more poweful and more expensive machines. There is a huge gulf that exists between "200W+ console as powerful as we can possibly make it" and "35W console that is barely more powerful than what you had 6 years ago". Nintendo chose one extreme of design, but her competitors did not choose the other. Nintendo could have chosen to produce something significantly more powerful than it did without significantly increasing the price of the box. The technology to produce all this stuff was not invented by Sony and Microsoft in the year 2013, it was developed by companies that Nintendo also buys their chips from.

For Nintendo's next system, it is my opinion that they should produce a more competitive system. They should not be afraid of making something in the ~100W ballpark. They should not be afraid of abandoning backwards compatibility which forces them to keep using an old architecture. But this does not mean they have to go crazy with spec wars. This is only one part of their problems, and is not a solution by itself. But it's part of one.

 

[kinggroin]

I doubt you will see ARM in a major companies console for a really long time. ARM just like PowerPC doesn't scale upwards well. x86's power efficiency is getting kind of ridiculous. As it is, I think the Jaguar cores in the Xbox and PS4 only use a few Watts each, most of the power consumption is actually from the GPU.



Can Nintendo even maintain 1-2 games a month? That's basically asking for 4 Mario Games, 2 Luigi Game, 2 Donkey Kong Country Games, A Zelda, A Metroid, and 2 Kart Racing games a year considering the IP's they have been favoring for the past couple years. There's no way the public will go for that...

Your new name is Mr. Assumption Man.

 

[AniHawk]

i don't see what they would have to gain by entering a smaller and much more expensive market versus the one they left, while also being far behind the competition. if nintendo's doing consoles in the future, they will probably attempt to be the affordable family alternative.

 

[Phediuk]

No, they'll stubbornly release another underpowered console and flounder again, unless they come up with some mainstream hook like with the Wii, but I'm skeptical they'll ever get that kind of interest again.

 

[mclem]

You can't tell me if a system like the PS4 was made for Nintendo, had all the support from EA/Activision/Ubisoft and had Mario and Zelda games, you would refuse to play it.

Of course not, but that doesn't make it a realistic value proposition.

I've seen Wii U's selling on eBay for $80 used without the gamepad.

But... that doesn't make *sense*.

 

[Easy_D]

Would it make sense for Nintendo to release "in between" consoles?

Like a release a console that's halfway to next-gen in the middle of a generation.

 

[neoanarch]

The emphasis on what they'll do regarding hardware specs is misplaced. I don't think specs matter to anyone but enthusiasts and even then I think that crowd isn't as concerned as they appear. If hardware really mattered that much to enthusiasts they would be on the PC mainly or requesting new systems every 2 years.


I think the real arms race from now on is in the user experience. Not only in how good it looks, but how quick it is to navigate, how easy it is to interact with your friends, how good the storefront is to use, and how many features it provides.


They also need to make it easier for developers to work on the system. I don't think that necessarily means they have to do like Sony and Microsoft and use PC friendly hardware. They might go to an environment closer to IOS/Android.

 

[mclem]

Iwata will try and find another gimmick. He should speak to third parties to get an idea of what they want but not a chance that will happen.

I suspect what third parties want is "enough rope"

 

[Ansatz]

There is absolutely no chance Nintendo will invest to establish franchises such as GTA, CoD, Fifa, Assassin's etc. on a Nintendo platform. Therefore, it will not be a powerhouse console.

The only way to get retail 3rd party support is to create a new blue ocean and if the install base explodes they'll put out equivalent games as those from Nintendo. I'm not gonna speculate what that could be, although we can state it's not quality of life improving software which was the basis for the Wii and DS audience expansion. It's something else entirely that might require a new business model and/or hardware gimmick.

 

[rokero]

I don't think Nintendo is interested in being the most powerful and there's no problem with that they do their own thing but looking at WiiU and how underpowered it is compared to PS4/Xbone I don't think Nintendo wants this kind of situation to repeat itself so their Next console will definitely be the less powerful of the PS5/NextBox generation but not outrageously so

 

[Tevious]

I think it'll be too little too late for Nintendo to release a PS4/XBO level console by then. Nintendo would need to do it either this year or next to compete, but they would piss a lot of Wii U supporters off. So its unlikely they'll do it.

I think now that Nintendo should just get into the tablet business. If they can make a tablet that's slim, powerful (like the Vita or better), has a quality screen, and has buttons (like a 3DS with dual circle-pads), then that would be appealing. Especially if they can get it to display on TVs with a cable or something. They can have all their Quality of Life apps on it or whatever and have it do many things besides just gaming.

If Nintendo wants to continue making console games, they can just stick it out with the Wii U and hope things get better (with price reductions) over time. OR they could go third party on consoles.

 

[Converse]

They have continued to drop the ball when it comes to the Internet in general, and need a massive overhaul of their system just to catch up to where the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 were in that aspect. I don't foresee them catching up to someone like Steam for at least a decade, maybe longer.

Oh my goodness. Come on now, this is some pretty solid hyperbole.

Aside from that (and your conservative assessment of Nintendo's "coffers" -- as of 2012, they had enough money in the bank to lose $257 million a year every year until 2052), here's why I don't think we're on the same page, and here's what has become a trend in this thread: people love to say what Nintendo "needs" to do and what Nintendo "should" do. We basically have a daily thread in which GAF waves its fists in the air and tells Nintendo these things. It's like a weird group therapy session.

Meanwhile, I'm not making assumptions about what the public will go for, or what will help Nintendo or what Nintendo "needs" to do to profit or to compete -- I don't run their business. What I am doing is speculating on whether or not Nintendo will return to the "arms race," and what its next platform will be, based on the statements of the company's CEO, its history and its recent actions. Will the new direction tank? Is it what Nintendo "should" do? Will it "help" Nintendo? Don't know. But I've seen the signs, and this is how I read them.

 

[SparkTR]

Stakes are way higher, it'll probably bankrupt them. They still have a warchest left, better to make good financial decisions based on market conditions than a high end console in an industry that's turning into a money sink.

 

[shakin_haitian]

Really now? The NES, SNES, N64, and Gamecube were all impressive in their own right at the time they released, and their showcase games were often the best looking of their respective generations . The idea that Nintendo never focused on progressive hardware is a re-write of gaming history. Their approach only really changed following the Gamecube's tepid reception.

Don't you mean the lukewarm response of the SNES, and tepid responses of the N64 and GCN?

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

Don't you mean the lukewarm response of the SNES, and tepid responses of the N64 and GCN?

None of their failures had to do with a lack of power, it was usually some other feature they chose to ignore, or bad relationships with devs, that sank them.

 

[Mlatador]

The question is whether the established "AAA" business-model is going to be the only driving factor in this industry. "AAA" games become more and more the same, this is no secret. Too many of them follow the same cinematics & presentation first design philosophy with simplified gameplay mechanics to make sure the average 18 to 35 male mainstream gamer gets to see the ending.

During the PS360Wii era the market was expanded by to 2 groups: the blue ocean crowed/casual gamers and the 18 to 35 male mainstream gamers. The last group was and is the "target" of most - if not all "AAA" effords. It also seems that a lot of formerly PC only gamers joined this group, otherwise the sheer amount of FPS games wouldn't be explainable.

If you asked the big publishers how their ideal console would look like, they all would probably say, something that could run run their "AAA" games with not much efford and just a simple gamepad. No innovation, just better specs.

I personally find that super boring and can't immagine this to be the right way for every console generation from now on, especially with graphics hitting the diminishing returns point.

Nintendo is still counting on children, casuals and "gameplay first" gamers a lot and I don't think that should change much. Of course they could try another Gamecube situation, where they are on the same hardware level as the others and see how that goes, but then their console would be too expensive and anthing above PS4 levels of graphics would just be a waste of money.

I don't really know. All I know is I'll be supporting the console that supports my tastes best, that provides me with most of the "gameplay first" games and variety, and with the least amount of "cinematic" games, because I cannot stand them.

 

[Into]

They won't

The original Wii was such a high for them that they will try their best replicate its success. Like a junkie who still remembers his first shot in his viens