Quantcast
The NX needs to be stopped!

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - The NX needs to be stopped!

Your thoughts on the NX?

NX needs to be stopped. W... 52 23.64%
 
Sometimes it's good to u... 168 76.36%
 
Total:220
archer9234 said:

Nothing in the world really says they have to change, how they do things, though. Remember. All the mess ups Nintendo has done. Was known to everyone here. So there was no excuse, from the start, with the Wii U. They intetionally decided to go againts everything they were hearing.

Just because Nintendo messes up with the WII U didn't mean that they didn't have plans to support it for a longer lifespan, like I said plans change ... 



Around the Network

Nintendo is launching a new platform that will presumably have its own gimmick. The only thing out of the ordinary here is they're doing it four years after the debut of the Wii U, which then becomes a legacy platform.

By comparison, the Wii U debuted six years after the Wii.

The big difference between the two platforms was marketshare, as everyone on VGC should know. The Wii was a huge success that ultimately tapered off faster than the PS3 and XB360, but still enjoyed huge first four year sales.

The Wii U really can't be considered anything but a fumble, sales wise, by comparison. The writing was on the wall back in 2013 when the PS4 debuted and at that point Nintendo could either ignore their market position, or proceed with a clean sheet of paper, which they did. There really wasn't any sort of band-aid fix for a platform met with such a lukewarm response. Again, this is in reference to market reception in terms of sales, not as a platform in terms of games.

Yes, a four year product cycle replacement seems a bit premature, but the post four year sales drop off when starting from such modest product life time sales to date make it something of a necessity. The Wii U would only continue to fall further behind in market share and sales, even if no one knew about the impending NX.

To suggest that the NX needs to be shelved or even delayed is simply out of consumer desire to squeeze more life out of a product, while completely understandable, is not something Nintendo, or any other company for that matter, would jeopardize the future of their company over.



archer9234 said:

Twice of what though? There's no generational marker set. So basically the line is endless. Take the iPhone 5 and 6. Between the two. Hardly anything really important, to its normal functions, were improved on.

Why wouldn't there be a generational marker ? 

It's in the developer's best interest to set a baseline from Sony. Just make a PS5 and clarify that it will be the minimum requirement for next gen games to be done with it, not hard ...



fatslob-:O said:
archer9234 said:

Twice of what though? There's no generational marker set. So basically the line is endless. Take the iPhone 5 and 6. Between the two. Hardly anything really important, to its normal functions, were improved on.

Why wouldn't there be a generational marker ? 

It's in the developer's best interest to set a baseline from Sony. Just make a PS5 and clarify that it will be the minimum requirement for next gen games to be done with it, not hard ...

The president himself said he was not sure on PS5. Meaning they can easily get rid of the normal generational markers. And now you just upgrade endlessly.



archer9234 said:

The president himself said he was not sure on PS5. Meaning they can easily get rid of the normal generational markers. And now you just upgrade endlessly.

As long as we haven't pushed the near limits of transistor technology, there will always be next gen consoles ... 

Pushing a new baseline is ideal when attempting to sell new software so it does give Sony an incentive to push next gen platforms since they are getting royalties from the said software ... 



Around the Network

I feel your pain OP.

I would feel cheated in your situation; however, I've never personally purchased a Nintendo system and if rumors are true of the playstation 4.5, I would probably jump into the Nintendo wagon because of Sony's stupid decision making.

Let me explain why I feel it's a similar tale, but at the same time, very different orgins:

The WiiU has been selling misserably, and it hard for a company to change the image of a product once it has taken foot. Nintendo money would be better spent shaping the image of a new product, then to play damage control on one that is not selling and will cost a lot of money to change people's perception of it (talking about the wiiU)

Sony on the other hand is leading the competition; their current console is very profitable, but rumors have been flying that their is a new sku with vital hardware revisions that will make it more powerful than it's preticessor. They do not need to do this. They already have a winning product in their hands, all they need to do is provide a better PSN Service, Great customer care, Diverse memorable gaming experiences, and listen to the demands of PSN community. I would even argue that they don't even need to push PSVR.

I know Nintendo has done a similar move like the NX in the past with the DS, but to a playstation loyal who is not happy with what Sony may be doing, the NX seems like the logical choice. It would open up a new Japanese catalog of games and have similar specs with the Neo (PS4.5). To me it would be the most bang for the money if I were to purchase another console. In fact, I purchased three PS3's back in the previous generation (two for my house, one for my cousin).

I understand your fustration, but I see the NX becoming very popular with people like me if Sony pulls a Neo on us.



vivster said:
Synesthesia said:

THAT. That is what people are currently defending. They defend it against a different system where you just buy a new phone and keep all your stuff and just benefit from the new hardware.

Not going to quote the wall of text there but at-least your replay brings better perspective of your mind set then before.

 

So this is less about pushing the PS neo and more about something you never liked about consoles in the first place... Would come across better if it excluded the agenda pushing through analogy's imo.

Anyway allot of what you seem to have a problem with and what things you like pretty much point that you should want a platform like Steam on PC, but each of the big 3 having their own separate platform in a console form. I really don't see how this would be progress given the consoles plug and play for years style is what popularized them and they are outright dependent on it, multiple sku's with better hardware starts fragmenting this immediately. Not to mention what you want is a dumbed down Steam box.

Compatibility despite being something we'd all like and yes I know it's something often complained about not having backward compatibility. Does not justify the thoughts of having 2-3 year cycles. The big problem with this is that unlike PC consoles have predefined hardware its not an upgrade. You will have to buy a whole new PS4 if you want a PS neo. So the idea of progress goes out the window for these being anything other then a shitty closed PC (note PC as a better alternative) that ironically in time become MORE costly then having gotten a PC. If they wanted to start a cycle of compatible systems this is not the way to do it imo. 

If they wanted to start systems that were easily compatible like this, they could easily have done it with the base PS4 an continued after 5 or so years with a PS5. Putting in low end CPU's overclocked or not with a GPU upgrade with a whole new box after so little time is what id consider anti-consumer. This isn't an upgrade like PC. Trying to push demand for a more powerful box when they have barely started with the base PS4 and then demanding games have a a mode for both is craziness. The base model within 1 or 2 years will be pushed down while the toxicity of buying a brand new box continues. Support for the games will only diminish not stay the same and it wont get better. Performance and games will suffer. Ever hear us PC folks complain about shitty ports. I bet you have. Except the base PS4 has a set standard while PC games are all over the place. Sacrifices will happen to hit the required targets. Even though requiring a brand new system isn't needed for this direction (PC proves this).

 

It seems to me the part that you are missing is the toxcity behind the way its BEING done and how soon its being done. Making references to other products doesn't hold up depending on the reasons for it. It's a toxic road Sony are heading down. Thats why people don't like this. Unlike back when I only laughed at Microsoft for trying to make people pay to play online, they ended up succeding. This time I'll actually voice an opinion of concern.

Perhaps now you understand atleast a little bit better why some of us are not happy? I made my attempt to reason with you. =



Synesthesia said:

I really don't see how this would be progress given the consoles plug and play for years style is what popularized them and they are outright dependent on it, multiple sku's with better hardware starts fragmenting this immediately.

I wouldn't really call the consoles "Plug and Play" anymore.
You need to constantly update. It's constant. It's insane... Because games out of the box are often buggy and unplayable.
Wouldn't be so bad if a patch was only a few hundred megabytes in size... But some patches are 10's of Gigabytes.

Some games also require you to download a part of the game to get the entire thing. (e.g Halo: MCC)

And sometimes a game will force you to get an update to the OS before you can play it as it might rely on a specific feature or firmware/driver/API version.

It's really no more plug and play than my PC, Steam does a better job of managing and updating my library though.



Pemalite said:
Synesthesia said:

I really don't see how this would be progress given the consoles plug and play for years style is what popularized them and they are outright dependent on it, multiple sku's with better hardware starts fragmenting this immediately.

I wouldn't really call the consoles "Plug and Play" anymore.
You need to constantly update. It's constant. It's insane... Because games out of the box are often buggy and unplayable.
Wouldn't be so bad if a patch was only a few hundred megabytes in size... But some patches are 10's of Gigabytes.

Some games also require you to download a part of the game to get the entire thing. (e.g Halo: MCC)

And sometimes a game will force you to get an update to the OS before you can play it as it might rely on a specific feature or firmware/driver/API version.

It's really no more plug and play than my PC, Steam does a better job of managing and updating my library though.

Well not what I meant when I said that but you are right... Incidently thats why I pointed out PC being proof that this direction is toxic. PS4 Neo is using the same foundations as PS4 for example. Which means had they designed the system with easy to do upgrading it wouldnt require a new box with added costs. On the flip side that means... Steam Box but a far more restricting platform. I'm just keeping in mind the ease of use for people not like me who love tinkering around with PC components.

TBH the updates kill me each month because of bandwidth caps here. if I get 2 games in a month. I know ill be paying extra that month. :(



Pemalite said:
Synesthesia said:

I really don't see how this would be progress given the consoles plug and play for years style is what popularized them and they are outright dependent on it, multiple sku's with better hardware starts fragmenting this immediately.

I wouldn't really call the consoles "Plug and Play" anymore.
You need to constantly update. It's constant. It's insane... Because games out of the box are often buggy and unplayable.
Wouldn't be so bad if a patch was only a few hundred megabytes in size... But some patches are 10's of Gigabytes.

Some games also require you to download a part of the game to get the entire thing. (e.g Halo: MCC)

And sometimes a game will force you to get an update to the OS before you can play it as it might rely on a specific feature or firmware/driver/API version.

It's really no more plug and play than my PC, Steam does a better job of managing and updating my library though.

A large part of this has to do with individual user internet access and data plans.

In most US markets, home internet data services generally don't have any caps, barring use that extends into the extreme range (if user was running a home based server using their non-commercial connection and or constantly downloading and transfering large files and streams). 

I can't speak for other markets in terms of home internet connection data restrictions, but I can relate to the limitations of data restrictions due to the same structuring used for mobile data plans.

But with regards to home internet connections without restrictions, I set all updates to apply automatically and as my PS4 is always in standby mode, everything installs when I'm not actively using the console, ready for use when I wake it up to play. Rarely do I have to wait to play anything. 

In other words, the updating process is virtually invisible to me as an end user. 

On PC, I have to leave Steam running to get those automatic updates on my software. I'm not sure whether those updates can download while my PC is in sleep mode because I don't run Steam unless I'm playing a game. 

For users such as myself, Steam, while convenient in automatically updating games (Steam client has to update a good percentage of the times I launch Steam as well although this can usually be suspended until the end of my game session), it's not invisible. Leaving Steam running in the background 100% of the time my PC is running is not a viable solution as that diverts resources away from other apps and functions.