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

Another poor argument by vivster trying to attach strings where they don't belong.

The Nintendo NX has been looked at as a whole new system from the beginning. Rumors seem to be hinting it will have its own gimmick too. Even when it comes down to the games we are hearing that games will be ported to the NX rather then having an upgraded WiiU. To boot the WiiU has sold horribly and it was no surprise at any point that they would want to replace it sooner rather then later. Given part of their aim is to get 3rd party's back suggests an architecture change with hardware competitive to Sony and Microsoft for easier development...

It's clear you are trying attach some kind of similarity to the PS NEO and Nintendo NX but as of yet the situations are completely different with you mindlessly grasping onto poorly thought out attempted analogy's. Do you have anything that suggests it's the same situation?



Around the Network
vivster said:
Mr.GameCrazy said:

Kind of hard for Nintendo to stick with the Wii U when it's been selling very bad this gen. It's Nintendo's worst selling system since the Virtual Boy.

Besides, it's been known for a while that Nintendo is going to releasing the NX soon.

So Nintendo is fine with treating Wii U owners like second class citizens just for more sales? Well that excuses them of course, if it's for money.

Citizens of what? You don't have a right here. I owned a Wii U. Had fun with it, the userbase sucked. As a result, the games dried up. Felt let down as it is. Moved country, sold it. Feeling more or less the same as I did about buying an NX or Wii U again. If I still owned a Wii U, I would be just as likely to buy an NX as a PS4.



Synesthesia said:
Another poor argument by vivster trying to attach strings where they don't belong.

The Nintendo NX has been looked at as a whole new system from the beginning. Rumors seem to be hinting it will have its own gimmick too. Even when it comes down to the games we are hearing that games will be ported to the NX rather then having an upgraded WiiU. To boot the WiiU has sold horribly and it was no surprise at any point that they would want to replace it sooner rather then later. Given part of their aim is to get 3rd party's back suggests an architecture change with hardware competitive to Sony and Microsoft for easier development...

It's clear you are trying attach some kind of similarity to the PS NEO and Nintendo NX but as of yet the situations are completely different with you mindlessly grasping onto poorly thought out attempted analogy's. Do you have anything that suggests it's the same situation?

It's not the same situation. The situation with the NX(or any generation change for that matter) is even worse because it's a completely new eco system that renders the previous hardware iteration obsolete.

Consumer advocates should be furious that with each new console generation, the situation changes completely. Older consoles becoming completely obsolete due to incompatability with the new system and games.

The PS4K does nothing to the PS4. It's still gonna be supported massively, everything can be exported to the new console, no need to buy previously bought games new, no exclusive games that basically force an upgrade, you can keep all your peripherals.

Compare that with the NX. Everything is new, older games are ported to the system and have to be bought again, no backwards compatibility, new peripherals, new online ecosystem(for which you probably have to register again). Wii U is not gonna be supported anymore, Wii U owners are left in the dust.

So in what universe is a regular generation change with all its drawbacks better than what Sony is trying to achieve with the PS4K? The truth is that all generation changes should happen like the PS4K. A console should be built upon and not completely reitterated every few years to force the consumer to buy new hardware and peripherals just to not miss out any games. Isn't longevity the stronghold of all console gamers?

That's why I make these threads, because people are behaving irrational just because of "tradition". A full generation change is inherently consumer unfriendly and that is what people are currently defending against a hardware upgrade that has all the benefits of a generation change and none of its drawbacks.

Imagine Google releasing Google 2.0 and Android 2.0. They will drop all support for regular Google and android, never update it again. Then you have to register for all their new services which are basically the same but require new registration and do not import all your previous data you created or purchased. Also it will not run on old phones and tablets, you will have to buy a new one.

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.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

To the post above you obviously drank the kool-aid... 



Did all the iterations of the DS split....agh, fuck it. whats the point. I just don't know anymore.



 

Everything in the above reply is my opinion, from my own perspective and not representative of reality outside of my own head!

-Android user, please be gentle with critique on my spelling.

Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:

The way I see it people need to stop saying that a short console lifespan support or incremental hardware updates are screwing people over because that's on the BUYER since THEY KNOW what their getting into ...

That's not totally true. Neo wasn't announced at the start. It's the same with companies announcing a director's cut edition, 2 years later. How were we suppose to know about that? When a product is known. Take the Extended Edition of Lord Of The Rings, on BD. The threatical versions were released first. But since we knew the Extended ones for years. The Threatcial versions sold really bad. And forced the company to release the EE versions faster then they wanted. If I knew a newer version was gonna be made. I would of waited till now.

If this becomes a norm. I'll simply wait for a upgrade I deem worthly. Since now I know that 2-4 years, new update will be a normal occurance. It eventually goes back to roughly what we use to do. Anyone can say: "Well, I don't need this upgrade." And just wait 5 years. Skipping 1-2 upgrades. This works with phones. Because it's pratically a life requirement. VS consoles. Upgrading the hardware. Isn't just gonna increase the userbase of gaming. It will just make more people decide on when and how many times they get the revisions.

Now, people can say. "Each revision will include massive and impressive things!" That won't be the case, in say 20 years. What happens to consoles when major upgrades are done. And I mean, 8K gaming. And graphics that have improved so far, nothing looks better anymore. The companies will be stuck at what do.



archer9234 said:

That's not totally true. Neo wasn't announced at the start. It's the same with companies announcing a director's cut edition, 2 years later. How were we suppose to know about that? When a product is known. Take the Extended Edition of Lord Of The Rings, on BD. The threatical versions were released first. But since we knew the Extended ones for years. The Threatcial versions sold really bad. And forced the company to release the EE versions faster then they wanted. If I knew a newer version was gonna be made. I would of waited till now.

You can only guarantee what software is already released on a platform and the promised software the developers will bring, nothing more ... 

Neither Sony or Nintendo expected to release new and updated platforms from the start since plans practically change a large part of the time ...



fatslob-:O said:
archer9234 said:

That's not totally true. Neo wasn't announced at the start. It's the same with companies announcing a director's cut edition, 2 years later. How were we suppose to know about that? When a product is known. Take the Extended Edition of Lord Of The Rings, on BD. The threatical versions were released first. But since we knew the Extended ones for years. The Threatcial versions sold really bad. And forced the company to release the EE versions faster then they wanted. If I knew a newer version was gonna be made. I would of waited till now.

You can only guarantee what software is already released on a platform and the promised software the developers will bring, nothing more ... 

Neither Sony or Nintendo expected to release new and updated platforms from the start since plans practically change a large part of the time ...

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.



archer9234 said:

If this becomes a norm. I'll simply wait for a upgrade I deem worthly. Since now I know that 2 years, new update will be a normal occurance. It eventually goes back to roughly what we use to do. Anyone can say: "Well, I don't need this upgrade." And just wait 5 years. Skipping 1-2 upgrades. This works with phones. Because it's pratically a life requirement. VS consoles. Upgrading the hardware. Isn't just gonna increase the userbase of gaming. It will just make more people decide on when and how many times they get the revisions.

Now, people can say. "Each revision will include massive and impressive things!" That won't be the case, in say 20 years. What happens to consoles when major upgrades are done. And I mean, 8K gaming. And graphics that have improved so far, nothing looks better anymore. The companies will be stuck at what do.

I highly doubt it will become a normal occurance since hardware progress is pretty much tied to transistor technology and that's been slowing down a lot ... 

You'll get maybe two upgraded SKUs ... 



fatslob-:O said:
archer9234 said:

If this becomes a norm. I'll simply wait for a upgrade I deem worthly. Since now I know that 2 years, new update will be a normal occurance. It eventually goes back to roughly what we use to do. Anyone can say: "Well, I don't need this upgrade." And just wait 5 years. Skipping 1-2 upgrades. This works with phones. Because it's pratically a life requirement. VS consoles. Upgrading the hardware. Isn't just gonna increase the userbase of gaming. It will just make more people decide on when and how many times they get the revisions.

Now, people can say. "Each revision will include massive and impressive things!" That won't be the case, in say 20 years. What happens to consoles when major upgrades are done. And I mean, 8K gaming. And graphics that have improved so far, nothing looks better anymore. The companies will be stuck at what do.

I highly doubt it will become a normal occurance since hardware progress is pretty much tied to transistor technology and that's been slowing down a lot ... 

You'll get maybe two upgraded SKUs twice ... 

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.