I agree with the poster above me. The console will cost between $300 and $350.
Also, Nintendo is not going back to having a dual analog controller as standard on their console as the OP seems to suggest. An improved Wii-Mote and Nunchuk is still going to be their primary controller.
One point of contention I have is this:
"The final major component will be 1GB of RAM. PS360 both have far less than this, but it seems highly likely this is where they will go next as its cost effective and will be needed for next generation of games."
That would only be double what the PS3 and XBOX 360 have and on top of that the 3DS has a whopping 32 times the amount of RAM that the original DS and DS lite had. So while I don't expect 32 times the Wii's RAM (a bit under 3GB), I do expect more, probably 2GB.
Also:
NES: 2KB
SNES: 128KB (NES x 64)
N64: 4MB (SNES x 32)
GCN: 43MB (N64 x ~11)
PS3/XBOX 360: 512MB (GCN x ~11) Though I expect Nintendo would have gone with 256MB or (GCN x ~6)
Next generation: 2GB (PS3/360 x ~4)
I'd expect the multipier to be around 4 as the returns are diminishing over time and I'd expect Nintendo to apply it to the PS3/360 RAM and not what their console would have been (had they made a GCN2 for example) as they are probably targetting a higher price point than what they've ever targetted before.
| Phoeniks.Wright said: Well, since you're hoping for solid responses, here goes, though it will be a long response: -"Wii’s unmatched explosiveness by focusing on a new way to play" --> Nintendo focused on a SIMPLER way to play, and so EASIER, not just NEW way to play. -" with a far inferior base technology (in raw crunching terms), demonstrated you do not need to be cutting-edge to be successful and an industry leader" --> The wii was cutting edge, just not along the traditionnal path of CPU/GPU/etc.. that we've always seen. Putting those acceloremetres at that size really increased the price of the controllers, 50 or 55£ for a "full" controller, instead of just 20-30£? possibly before. -"Nintendo simply gave 3rd parties no reason to spend the costs to produce a lower quality product. 3rd parties knew they had just as much probability to make the same profits on the PS360/PC version of a game as an exclusive Wii version." --> You seem to assume that better technology means better games. That's just wrong. Also, the Wii sold to people with a very different mindset to how a game should be. Even if it was as powerfull as PS360, the wii version of a direct port would probably sell MUCH less than it's counterparts. -"The standard controller will move back to the more standard controller. It will adopt the classic controller pro overall form factor; very similar to the dual shock Sony controller." --> Really, the shape doesn't matter too much, as long as it doesn't have too many buttons. -"Finally, Nintendo gains an ability that was lacking in the Wii/DS era; true compatibility between the devices." --> This really is unimportant, there was only ever 2 games on the Gamecube which did this, and they weren't that popular, so why bother? -"They will strive for something that exceeds PS360, yet will be priced $350-400 with a small profit" --> Why price it so high? That doesn't make sense at all, the price shouldn't exceed 300$ and still, 250$ should be a maximum. -The whole idea of Nintendo teaming upo with Google to run Android apps on their home console is really far fetched: why would I use PHONE apps on a HOME CONSOLE? It seems like a useless thing to do. To finish off, it seems that you want Nintendo's next console to be more like the PS3/360. Fair enough, if you want it, that's fine, but from a business side, that would be terrible: high prices, dumbed down PC games, a focus on non gaming things on a games console, and direct competition with Sony and Microsoft, they would lose badly, I mean, just look at what happened with the Gamecube. The best thing they can do is follow the Blue ocean AND Disruption startegies that gave them success with the DS and especially the Wii. |
Just numbering each quote you made.
1. Wii introduced full motion, while the wiimote is overall easier, its still a new way to play.
2. I specifically mentioned "in raw crunching terms" as I was solely focused on CPU/GPU performance and not all the other enhancements in control.
3. "You seem to assume that better technology means better games." Not even close. I was saying 3rd parties and software developers by large believe this and want this. Why do so many high end publishes automatically shove off Wii? Because they don't want a lower spec'd game. As a developer myself, I know its far more interesting to utilize new tools to do new capabilities than it is to continue making the same old crap. Games have always pushed computer technology, especially graphics, for this specific reason as developers strive for newer capabilities. The Wii went against that as its technology was marginally better than last gen and was far behind the PS360/PC platforms. Then you need to take into account their bosses. Why would put forth R&D to create a new set of tools to get the most out of the Wii platform? Instead, it was far more cost effective to utilize tools they were creating anyways to take advantage of higher end technologies and create games for HD systems, ignoring the Wii. This is the primary reason Wii received no major shift in 3rd party games even though it has dominated the market; completely opposite of every previous generation.
4. Its not the shape or the buttons. Nintendo realizes they need 3rd parties. They've been trying to get them back ever since the N64 days. This gen, they will try to be unique while at the same time have the same base, i.e. similar power and architecture as well as at least the same basic controller option. This is why you'll see a move back to a multi-button having controller that also has a touch screen and alternatively the use of the Wiimote/nunchuk. They have the best of both worlds. Casual games that require less buttons or are enhanced by motion will use what is familiar to the casual base; the wiimote. While, the many core games and high end IPs 3rd parties create will use the newer standard controller with the screen and potential 3D capabilities.
5. Yes, this is a minor feature. However, by having a controller like this it becomes a very easy to implement feature and with the larger range of media capabilities, it becomes a good feature.
6. Its not so much that a phone's app seems bad on a TV as it does all the other apps that make perfect sense. Keep in mind tablets exist too. They also have a larger screen. There are thousands upon thousands of apps and Google is already in the TV space on their own boxes as well as other manufacturers TVs, DVDs, and even Sony's future game consoles. The content is there now and will only continue to expand.
For Nintendo to ignore this emerging home/TV experience when it will become dominate, would be stupid. Especially considering it comes at almost no cost as Android is free and they only need to make sure android apps work, not the OS itself.
7. I only want the continuation of Nintendo's amazing software and innovation. The OP was my thoughts on what Nintendo is doing and planning based on rumors, known company statements, and the 3DS. Nintendo isn't a stupid company and anyone who has taken a good look at the current market can see the Wii's faults and what should be expected by Nintendo to capitalize on what Wii did great as well as where it fell short. 3rd party support is very important for Nintendo and they will want to make changes they know the 3rd parties want. With that, it does mean the next system will be more like the next MSony systems in base scenario, however, it doesn't mean it won't be clearly Nintendo. I think I've shown enough in the OP to demonstrate this uniqueness and continued expansion of innovation only Nintendo achieves.
| Play4Fun said: I agree with the poster above me. The console will cost between $300 and $350. Also, Nintendo is not going back to having a dual analog controller as standard on their console as the OP seems to suggest. An improved Wii-Mote and Nunchuk is still going to be their primary controller. |
I think $350 is probably right, I know I focused a lot on $400, but this may be the number Nintendo believes MSony will achieve and then shoot for $350 themselves.
Rumors so far suggest a move to dual analog as the base of the controller. I think this makes sense as they will want to do anything possible to ensure 3rd parties can easily make games for their system.
So, this means a dual analog controller, with a HD 3D screen (same as the 3DS), and full support of the existing wiimote plus/nunchuk controller as well.
| HappySqurriel said: Looking at the 3DS it is fairly clear that augmented reality is on Nintendo's mind, and one of the biggest things missing from most of the rumours is any indication of Nintendo bluring the line between digital and physical space. In fact, for years it has been clear that Nintendo wants to expand videogames into the physical world more and more; after all, that is (effectively) what Wii Party is. It would seem to me that, while we should look for improvements in the Wiimote or controller in general, the advancement Nintendo will be pushing is probably more conceptually complicated than a widget on a controller. Certainly, it might involve widgets on controllers (like cameras on controllers or even something like an LCD screen) but it is much more likely that these are just components of the larger concept. To understand what I mean consider the motion controller in the 3DS, on its own it is only a widget but it is an essential component to producing the AR games in the 3DS. |
I like your reasoning. Fits in with what I mentioned perfectly well. Except, a wiimote with a large screen on it is not usable like a wiimote now. This is why I think the wiimote/nunchuk will simply be utilized as an option just as devs can currently make games that use wiimote, classic, or even a gamecube controller. Difference is the new controller will be in the box along with a wiimote. Both will be standard to ensure every owner has one. Of course the existing controllers will work as well.
The new controller, with dual analog and touch/3D screen could very well have motion capabilities as well. This would be good for headtracking and various other games as well.
| puffy said: One point of contention I have is this: "The final major component will be 1GB of RAM. PS360 both have far less than this, but it seems highly likely this is where they will go next as its cost effective and will be needed for next generation of games." That would only be double what the PS3 and XBOX 360 have and on top of that the 3DS has a whopping 32 times the amount of RAM that the original DS and DS lite had. So while I don't expect 32 times the Wii's RAM (a bit under 3GB), I do expect more, probably 2GB. Also: NES: 2KB SNES: 128KB (NES x 64) N64: 4MB (SNES x 32) GCN: 43MB (N64 x ~11) PS3/XBOX 360: 512MB (GCN x ~11) Though I expect Nintendo would have gone with 256MB or (GCN x ~6) Next generation: 2GB (PS3/360 x ~4)
I'd expect the multipier to be around 4 as the returns are diminishing over time and I'd expect Nintendo to apply it to the PS3/360 RAM and not what their console would have been (had they made a GCN2 for example) as they are probably targetting a higher price point than what they've ever targetted before. |
Maybe. 2GB, or even 4, isn't that much of a cost difference, so yeah that's doable.
while I think this is good conceptually, I'm not so sure as to how developers would support this products (with regards to the controls)
if you had the same Wiimote from the Wii, then you'll have a large market of this controller already and developers will look to utilize this, and at the same time, the controller with a screen in it doesn't look the most user friendly, so I doubt casuals would take to it as easily as the Wii so they'd stick to what they know
this would mean casuals would stick to the Wiimote, and hardcore gamers the new controller, developers would notice this and games released may not support one of the controllers as there is a splintered market
i agree with most of what your saying but i do think it will have an sd card slot simply so you can play your old saves. if its going to be backwards compatible it would be kind of foolish not to let you use your old save files.
| Nyeguy81 said: i agree with most of what your saying but i do think it will have an sd card slot simply so you can play your old saves. if its going to be backwards compatible it would be kind of foolish not to let you use your old save files. |
But a lot of the old saves are non-copiable (anything that really has online play as a factor is locked), while i agree it'll probably have an SD Slot just because that seems to be technology Nintendo prefers, Nintendo's going to have to implement some sort of system to copy Wii files over wholesale, and also something similar to what they're going to do with DSiWare transfer.
The simplest thing with the locked save files i suppose would be to issue a Wii-side firmware update making all files copiable...
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
| superchunk said: Just numbering each quote you made. 1. Wii introduced full motion, while the wiimote is overall easier, its still a new way to play. 2. I specifically mentioned "in raw crunching terms" as I was solely focused on CPU/GPU performance and not all the other enhancements in control. 3. "You seem to assume that better technology means better games." Not even close. I was saying 3rd parties and software developers by large believe this and want this. Why do so many high end publishes automatically shove off Wii? Because they don't want a lower spec'd game. As a developer myself, I know its far more interesting to utilize new tools to do new capabilities than it is to continue making the same old crap. Games have always pushed computer technology, especially graphics, for this specific reason as developers strive for newer capabilities. The Wii went against that as its technology was marginally better than last gen and was far behind the PS360/PC platforms. Then you need to take into account their bosses. Why would put forth R&D to create a new set of tools to get the most out of the Wii platform? Instead, it was far more cost effective to utilize tools they were creating anyways to take advantage of higher end technologies and create games for HD systems, ignoring the Wii. This is the primary reason Wii received no major shift in 3rd party games even though it has dominated the market; completely opposite of every previous generation. 4. Its not the shape or the buttons. Nintendo realizes they need 3rd parties. They've been trying to get them back ever since the N64 days. This gen, they will try to be unique while at the same time have the same base, i.e. similar power and architecture as well as at least the same basic controller option. This is why you'll see a move back to a multi-button having controller that also has a touch screen and alternatively the use of the Wiimote/nunchuk. They have the best of both worlds. Casual games that require less buttons or are enhanced by motion will use what is familiar to the casual base; the wiimote. While, the many core games and high end IPs 3rd parties create will use the newer standard controller with the screen and potential 3D capabilities. 5. Yes, this is a minor feature. However, by having a controller like this it becomes a very easy to implement feature and with the larger range of media capabilities, it becomes a good feature. 6. Its not so much that a phone's app seems bad on a TV as it does all the other apps that make perfect sense. Keep in mind tablets exist too. They also have a larger screen. There are thousands upon thousands of apps and Google is already in the TV space on their own boxes as well as other manufacturers TVs, DVDs, and even Sony's future game consoles. The content is there now and will only continue to expand. For Nintendo to ignore this emerging home/TV experience when it will become dominate, would be stupid. Especially considering it comes at almost no cost as Android is free and they only need to make sure android apps work, not the OS itself. 7. I only want the continuation of Nintendo's amazing software and innovation. The OP was my thoughts on what Nintendo is doing and planning based on rumors, known company statements, and the 3DS. Nintendo isn't a stupid company and anyone who has taken a good look at the current market can see the Wii's faults and what should be expected by Nintendo to capitalize on what Wii did great as well as where it fell short. 3rd party support is very important for Nintendo and they will want to make changes they know the 3rd parties want. With that, it does mean the next system will be more like the next MSony systems in base scenario, however, it doesn't mean it won't be clearly Nintendo. I think I've shown enough in the OP to demonstrate this uniqueness and continued expansion of innovation only Nintendo achieves. |
At 3, sorry for that, but then I just repeat, that means that 3rd parties have it all wrong, horribly wrong. You talk about the R&D into making new tools, but the ones for Gamecube/PS2/Xbox were good enough, all you needed was to slightly improve them at little cost to make up for the slight increase in power and motion controls. Best part is you could then have smaller teams making more games on the wii, and so more money. Easy.
Also, you must realise that just because you, as a developper, want to use new intersting tools to do new things, you shouldn't assume that people, as gamers, will like it automatically.
Going on, it's not Nintendo that needs 3rd parties, but 3rd parties that need Nintendo. On all Nintendo consoles, as well as Sega ones, the idea was for the 1st party to make the hardware sell, and so allow 3rd parties to have a big install base to sell their games. This changed with the PS1 because Sony wasn't a video game company, but a technology company, and continued with Microsoft for the same reasons. True, Nintendo needs 3rd parties to have an overall good library of games, but not as much as you're implying at all.
As for the home/TV experience you mention, it only makes sense if Nintendo wants to move away from just Video games. Otherwise, it's useless. Games won't get better thanks to apps.
Unfortunately, as you mention, Nintendo seems to be heading in this direction, as much as that's a terrible idea, so I can only argue as to waht they should do and not what they're going to do. It just shows that Nintendo can be a very stupid company.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
