Quantcast
I hope the NX is a 10 year, mega powerful console, that is expensive.

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - I hope the NX is a 10 year, mega powerful console, that is expensive.

Speak your mind...

Ya crazy mon! 209 56.33%
 
I.... this... could.... WORK! 113 30.46%
 
Too busy watching "... 48 12.94%
 
Total:370
JRPGfan said:
rolltide101x said:
I think the exact opposite, Nintendo needs to make a bare bones system that is 250$ Day 1.

 

Wii U GamePad

  • Touch screen: $24.75
  • Main electronic components: $30
  • Battery, wifi chip, plastic casing: $24.50
  • TOTAL: $79.25

Wii U Console

  • Processor/gpu: $40.00
  • Optical drive: $17.00
  • Flash storage: $6.00
  • RAM: $6.00
  • Wifi chip, Bluetooth, plastic casing, other components: $79.38
  • TOTAL: $148.38

GRAND TOTAL: $227.63

 

http://www.gengame.net/2013/03/cnn-estimates-the-cost-of-manufacturing-wii-u-to-be-about-228/

 

Spend 40$ on the CPU&GPU,.... spend 79$ on the gamepad...... makes sense?

 

I feel like Nintendo if they do aim for a 250$ day1 consol, they should drop the gamepad.

Ive said it so many times..... I really hope they do the most sensible thing.

It could have saved the wiiu but nintendo is too afraid/lazy to update every game, but its too late now anyways



Around the Network
Dulfite said:

You heard me right, folks. I know, I know, Nintendo has always tried to sell a cheap piece of hardware. I also know that has worked out for them at points (Wii, 3ds) but it more often has lead to decreased sales from previous generations (N64, Gamecube, Wii U). This is a different age now. The playstation and microsoft devices are increasingly getting geared more towards a longer than 5-6 year life cycle. I suspect the NX won't release until, the earliest, 2017 and, therefore, Nintendo won't be caught up to the competition until then. If, by 2017, the NX launched with similar power capababilities (or even slightly greater), were going to have the same issue with it that we did with the Wii U having similar power to ps3/360. This is why I think it would be best for Nintendo to release a mega console that totally blows the ps4/xbox one out of the water and matches modern ultra powerful pcs.

This sucker needs to have 32 gig ram, at least 3-5 terabytes of hardrive, some chip no one or their mothers has even heard of yet, and anything else that would make this thing advanced as all get out! Yes, it will be expensive, but I have a plan for that too. I think Nintendo should allow their customers to pay $100 a year until it is payed off. This will encourage people to buy their device, even though it will be expensive in the long run (but $100 a year is hardly anything to gamers so it would work out fine). Ultimately, this ultra powerful device would be so much more powerful than the ps4/xbone, that by the time the ps5/xbtwo release they will be either just as powerful or barely more. This device should be powerful enough to last 10 years, which would encourage people to buy them without worry of the device being repleased, encourage developers that their games have a huge potential for legs as well as knowing the hardware won't change so they can really master making games on the device in an efficient way, as well as encourage the shareholders that Nintendo isn't going to bank their company in a new, radical idea every 5-6 years that could, potentially, be a failure as have many of their devices.

Overall:

Mega powerful Nintendo home console that is a 10 year device where you pay $100 a year until it is paid off.

Mega powerful console that last ten years would cost like 4 grand... and might not even last the full 10 years as being considered high-end. That aside... the real issue I have with this is the $100 a year until it is paid off. Do you realize how many people would pay $100 to get it then just stop paying? I mean more than likely a wild ass guess would be 10-20% of people... thats a lot of money lost. I think you might have more faith in people than you should, just saying.

Personally I would like to see a console that is on-par or slightly more powerful than the PS4. Put the thing out there with a regular ass controller and no forced crazy peripheral(looking at you gamepad and kinect), price it around $300 at launch, maybe $350 tops(its been a year and a half since ps4/xbone launched, prices on that tech have gone down), garner 3rd party support once again and proceede with this Nintendo Network overhaul and launch the thing with some seriously killer AAA 1st party games with whatever the latest 3rd party AAA is as well.

I don't think we'll ever see a traditional console platform that last as long as the 7th gen did. PS3/360 were as powerful, maybe even more, than top of the line gaming PC's at the time. The price reflected that, as well as the consoles lifespan. A 5 year console cycle is pretty good imo to keep prices where they should be, and games moving forward and starting to innovate again. Things started to get really stale towards the end of the 7th gen and that has somewhat carried over into the 8th gen.



“What I say is, a town isn't a town without a bookstore. It may call itself a town, but unless it's got a bookstore it knows it's not fooling a soul.”  - Neil Gaiman

bunchanumbers said:
Can't be serious. This model nearly killed Sony and PlayStation 3. Billions upon billions lost on this model and same thing for the 360. Its not profitable and it shows because they made sure that profitability was possible on PS4 and X1.

Nearly killed Sony and the PS3?..... Someone call the hyperbole police. The main issue the PS3 had was its unique architecture, and the fact the 360 got a head start.



Don't you think gaming would kind of stagnate after around 6 or 7 years (leaving 4 more entire years until a new console emerges).

Am I the only one who DOES NOT want a gen to last more than 5 or 6 years tops?



rolltide101x said:
bunchanumbers said:
Can't be serious. This model nearly killed Sony and PlayStation 3. Billions upon billions lost on this model and same thing for the 360. Its not profitable and it shows because they made sure that profitability was possible on PS4 and X1.

Nearly killed Sony and the PS3?..... Someone call the hyperbole police. The main issue the PS3 had was its unique architecture, and the fact the 360 got a head start.


The losses were massive. There are tons of sites and figures that back this up. This model would kill Nintendo in a matter of years. In the end, they wouldn't even break even. The same as Sony did with the PS3. Its just a bad model.



Around the Network
bigtakilla said:
Don't you think gaming would kind of stagnate after around 6 or 7 years (leaving 4 more entire years until a new console emerges).

Am I the only one who DOES NOT want a gen to last more than 5 or 6 years tops?


Maybe. 5 or 6 years is too short. They just need to release games in the console gen's later years and I doubt anyone would have any issues with the gen lasting too long.

Aeolus451 said:
bigtakilla said:
Don't you think gaming would kind of stagnate after around 6 or 7 years (leaving 4 more entire years until a new console emerges).

Am I the only one who DOES NOT want a gen to last more than 5 or 6 years tops?


Maybe. 5 or 6 years is too short. They just need to release games in the console gen's later years and I doubt anyone would have any issues with the gen lasting too long.

The last year and a half of the Wii had IMO its best software releases (Pandora's Tower, Xenoblade, The Last Story, Skyward Sword), but I still was very ready for new hardware to hit the market. I understand it's my own personal opinion, but I feel 6 years is pushing it. By then I'm ready for better visuals and performance than what I currently got. Releasing more games will not alleviate the fact that the visuals and performance of said games will remain the same (granted they will improve the first few years while developers are learning the tech, making new game engines, ect).  

Oh, and 5 years is the average console life cycle, why do you feel it is too short? Here is a link to all console gen releases (about 5 years).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_console



Aeolus451 said:
bigtakilla said:
Don't you think gaming would kind of stagnate after around 6 or 7 years (leaving 4 more entire years until a new console emerges).

Am I the only one who DOES NOT want a gen to last more than 5 or 6 years tops?

Maybe. 5 or 6 years is too short. They just need to release games in the console gen's later years and I doubt anyone would have any issues with the gen lasting too long.

I don't know about that. The PS1 and PS2 both had successors ~6 years after their launch and they were perfectly fine. Also, with the rise of cross-gen releases it isn't like the last gen system will suddenly get all support cut off.



TheGoldenBoy said:
Aeolus451 said:

Maybe. 5 or 6 years is too short. They just need to release games in the console gen's later years and I doubt anyone would have any issues with the gen lasting too long.

I don't know about that. The PS1 and PS2 both had successors ~6 years after their launch and there were perfectly fine. Also, with the rise of cross-gen release it isn't like the last gen system will suddenly get all support cut off.


Yeah, I don't think any console has lasted an entire 7th year and I think with good reason. 6 and some change also feels like a drag usually. 



(Sorry my ideas are kind of spaced out throughout, but I'm kind of posting as I go). I also wouldn't want to pay $100 every year for a system near the end of its life when it is selling for around $500 (or less) year 6 or 7. (Assuming $100 a year for a $1000 top shelf spec console.) And what kind of crazy restrictions or rules would apply to a console I don't technically own? Would I have to be always online to register my Nintendo ID with the Nintendo server? If I didn't pay, could they lock my system out? 

I'd rather save $300 - $450 and buy a console outright.