By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Tegra X1 successor Detailed by Nvidia (likely NX SoC)

zorg1000 said:
JWeinCom said:

"Idk Nintendo's indie support has been growing steadily for the last few years, i honestly wouldnt be surprised if they had equel or better indie support than XBO.

As for why i included games based on movies/shows for kids is because one of the 3 categories i said Nintendo gets strong support from is child friendly software. I thought that was kinda self explanatory."

Nah, it's not.  And even further behind PS4.  When you said child friendly software, I assumed you meant things like Kirby or Skylanders, and not shovelware. 

"The reason why i compare it to Wii U/3DS is because this is their successor, it makes more sense to compare games/franchises to their predeccessors. This device would allow for a MASSIVE visual upgrade for games like Pokemon, Animal Crossing, Fire Emblem, etc. and even on the console side thats a pretty nice boost for games like Mario Kart, Smash Bros, Xenoblade, etc.

Its like saying a $500 hybrid tablet/laptop is gimped because its not as capable as a $1000+ desktop, ya i guess thats technically true but they arent meant to compete directly against one another so the point is moot. "

Aside from the Nintendo fans who were already going to buy the system, who's going to be that excited that Fire Emblem looks better? This is about broadening their appeal.  "Our games look better than they used to but still not nearly as good as other games on the market" isn't going to really help.  One of the Wii U's selling points was "now in HD" but it didn't help all that much.

As for the competition... you do realize you're on a site that has the sales of Nintendo's consoles lined up against Microsoft and Sony regularly? This whole site is pretty much based on the context that they are competitiors.  This isn't like the tablet/PC industry where there are dozens of companies and hundreds of models.  Even if Nintendo is doing something unique like the Wii, there's still a pretty large degree of competition, which we can see by the Kinect and the Move.

I agree that their are benefits of a subscription service and that the gaming model could use a shift but from Nintendo's perspective it doesnt make a whole lot of sense for new games. For example, Breath of the Wild has been in development for about 5 years and is one of the most ambitious and most likely expensive games they have ever made, does it really make financial sense to include that in a subscription service?

Why not?  The average gamer is going to buy somewhere around 10 games for their system (typically less for Nintendo).  More like 6 for a handheld.  Assuming those are all full priced retail releases, that's about 600 dollars in revenue.  If you price the subscription at 25 dollars a month (which I think would be fairly reasonable), then that's going to be 300 dollars a year of revenue.  Assuming you can keep them for two years, that's the same amount of revenue. And of course, if you can keep them longer, that's more revenue.

I would literally bet my life that gaming will primarily use service based delivery within ten years.  I don't have the knowledge to get all the details correct, but it's happening, and if Nintendo could get ahead of it, that'd be huge for them.

Outside of not being as powerful as PS4/XBO isnt this device kinda what you just explained? It offers a different experience than tablets as well as a different experience from PS4/XBO. And if the point is to offer a different experience than why does it need to recieve ports? That kinda defeats the purpose of differentiating if the end goal is still to have the same games. And as far as we know, the detachable controllers could be a new type of motion controllers.

I don't see how.  The only thing it would offer different than phones/tablet would be physical controls, which can be done easily enough.  In comparison to the PS4/XBox One it wouldn't do anything all that special except portability, but the games themselves wouldn't be distinct.

It doesn't really defeat the purpose, because nobody said they had to only get ports.  Look at the Wii scenario.  If the Wii had the same horsepower as the other two systems, you'd still (potentially) have the unique games that made the Wii a success, PLUS things like Skyrim and GTA.  It's not an either or situation.  You can have differentiated experiences and ports on the same system.

It's highly doubtful that the detachables will be motion controllers.  If the point is to have it work as a handheld, how can that work with motion controls?  But, like I said before, I'll adjust my opinion as new information comes in. 

Im not gonna argue with you about Nintendo's indie support, 3DS+Wii U has solid indie support, its a fact.

What makes those games shovelware? Because you dont like them? Remember they are for kids, you know like 7 year olds, they arent meant for adults.

Nowhere did I say Fire Emblem in HD will in and of itself cause people to go out and buy an NX, you're beginning to use straw man arguments. What im saying is that nobody is going to look at the new Fire Emblem and think its gimped because it doesnt look as good as The Witcher, it will be a huge improvement over previous entries and that is what matters.

Are you going to try claiming that Mario Kart or Smash Bros are gimped on Wii U because its not as powerful as PS4? Probably not, because they are great games with beautiful visuals.

The fact that this site compares Nintendo to Sony/Microsoft is absolutely irrelevent, Nintendo is not trying to compete directly with them and is looking to coexist with them. A random video game site does not change that.

I agree that its possible that the gaming market will change in the next 10 years to allow for a subscription model, but we are talking about a device set to launch in about 7 months, in which case a subscription model for all games is not a viable solution.

Ya, the only thing different from phones/tablets will be physical controls.........and the software......you know the primary reason to own hardware. Same goes for PS/XB, if NX has close to equal suppport as 3DS+Wii U than it will literally have hundreds of games not available anywhere else.

Ya if Wii had the same horsepower as PS3/360 it would have costed $400+ and development times/budgets would be higher and people would still likely have chosen to play those 3rd party games on PS3/360 just like they chose to play multiplats on PS2/XB instead of GC.

Its not impossible to have multiple control schemes, one possible solution is to have touch controls in portable mode and motion controls in console mode for certain games. Or the fact that handheld devices do have motion abilities, 3DS, Wii U gamepad, smartphones, tablets, all have gyroscopes. Just a couple potential ideas.

I don't really buy this. The XBox 360 had a 8GB model for $299.99 on the market for a full year by the time the Wii came out. 

The GameCube at $199.99 just five years prior was a full generation leap over the N64. The N64 was the same over the SNES for the same $199.99. 

So suddenly by 2006, just five years after the GCN, getting a generational leap required $400? Not unless you were doing something stupid like shoving a $300 Blu-Ray drive into the system. 

Nintendo could've easily had a much more powerful system for the Wii. I think in hindsight even they realized this mistake, but fixing it for the Wii U was way too little, too late. 



Around the Network
zorg1000 said:

Im not gonna argue with you about Nintendo's indie support, 3DS+Wii U has solid indie support, its a fact.

What makes those games shovelware? Because you dont like them? Remember they are for kids, you know like 7 year olds, they arent meant for adults.

Nowhere did I say Fire Emblem in HD will in and of itself cause people to go out and buy an NX, you're beginning to use straw man arguments. What im saying is that nobody is going to look at the new Fire Emblem and think its gimped because it doesnt look as good as The Witcher, it will be a huge improvement over previous entries and that is what matters.

Are you going to try claiming that Mario Kart or Smash Bros are gimped on Wii U because its not as powerful as PS4? Probably not, because they are great games with beautiful visuals.

The fact that this site compares Nintendo to Sony/Microsoft is absolutely irrelevent, Nintendo is not trying to compete directly with them and is looking to coexist with them. A random video game site does not change that.

I agree that its possible that the gaming market will change in the next 10 years to allow for a subscription model, but we are talking about a device set to launch in about 7 months, in which case a subscription model for all games is not a viable solution.

Ya, the only thing different from phones/tablets will be physical controls.........and the software......you know the primary reason to own hardware. Same goes for PS/XB, if NX has close to equal suppport as 3DS+Wii U than it will literally have hundreds of games not available anywhere else.

Ya if Wii had the same horsepower as PS3/360 it would have costed $400+ and development times/budgets would be higher and people would still likely have chosen to play those 3rd party games on PS3/360 just like they chose to play multiplats on PS2/XB instead of GC.

Its not impossible to have multiple control schemes, one possible solution is to have touch controls in portable mode and motion controls in console mode for certain games. Or the fact that handheld devices do have motion abilities, 3DS, Wii U gamepad, smartphones, tablets, all have gyroscopes. Just a couple potential ideas.

"Im not gonna argue with you about Nintendo's indie support, 3DS+Wii U has solid indie support, its a fact."

No... that's an opinion.  Unless you have some sort of objective criteria for what "solid support" means.

"What makes those games shovelware? Because you dont like them? Remember they are for kids, you know like 7 year olds, they arent meant for adults."

There's nothing wrong with games being for kids, which is why I brought up Kirby and Skylanders as examples of kids games that are not shovelware.  Now... as for Ninja Turtles... It has 0 reviews on meta critic, meaning activision didn't want it reviewed.  User score is a 3.1, made by an obscure developer, selling for about five bucks.  Yeah, pretty sure it's shovelware.

"Nowhere did I say Fire Emblem in HD will in and of itself cause people to go out and buy an NX, you're beginning to use straw man arguments. What im saying is that nobody is going to look at the new Fire Emblem and think its gimped because it doesnt look as good as The Witcher, it will be a huge improvement over previous entries and that is what matters."

People need to learn what strawman means before they throw it around.  If it wasn't clear, I picked Fire Emblem as an example.  The point, which I explained right afterwards, is that nobody except people who already are interested in these franchises are going to care that they're improved over their predecessor.  Nobody except people who are already Nintendo fans are going to care.  If Nintendo's plan is to only impress those within their fanbase, then they're gonna have a bad time.

"Are you going to try claiming that Mario Kart or Smash Bros are gimped on Wii U because its not as powerful as PS4? Probably not, because they are great games with beautiful visuals."

No, but I am going to claim that the games would have looked better on a PS4.  I'm also going to claim that Nintendo would have far more third party support if they had hardware parity.  

"The fact that this site compares Nintendo to Sony/Microsoft is absolutely irrelevent, Nintendo is not trying to compete directly with them and is looking to coexist with them. A random video game site does not change that."

They are in competition.  They are (likely) similar products targeting a similar audience.  Look at the launch of the Wii U, where Nintendo made a big deal of all the third party games they have, or Sony producing games like PS All Stars Battle Royale, Microsoft buying out rare, and so on.  

When an exec like Reggie says they're not competing, they mean they're using a different strategy than their competitors.  He doesn't mean they don't want people to buy a Nintendo product instead of an XBox One or PS4.  Nintendo is going to focus more on specific demographics, but if they are completely forsaking the 120 million or so people who bought an XBox 360 or PS3, they're in trouble. 

Ya, the only thing different from phones/tablets will be physical controls.........and the software......you know the primary reason to own hardware. Same goes for PS/XB, if NX has close to equal suppport as 3DS+Wii U than it will literally have hundreds of games not available anywhere else.

The need for good software is a given, but we're talking about hardware here, and the possibilities that offers.  The more unique the hardware the more distinct the software could be.

Ya if Wii had the same horsepower as PS3/360 it would have costed $400+ and development times/budgets would be higher and people would still likely have chosen to play those 3rd party games on PS3/360 just like they chose to play multiplats on PS2/XB instead of GC.

Why?  When the Wii was being sold at 250, the 360 was at 300.  In terms of hardware, the Wii was very similar to the Gamecube, which was selling for around 100 bucks.  

The Wii version of COD 3 sold about 2.25m.  The XBox 360 version sold about 2.75m.  The PS3 version sold 150m.  The Wii launched around the same time as the PS3, and the 360 had a one year jump.  The Wii, unlike the Gamecube, had a huge start and a massive install base.  If it had roughly equivelant versions of third party games, they would have sold fairly well. 

"Its not impossible to have multiple control schemes, one possible solution is to have touch controls in portable mode and motion controls in console mode for certain games. Or the fact that handheld devices do have motion abilities, 3DS, Wii U gamepad, smartphones, tablets, all have gyroscopes. Just a couple potential ideas."

It's not impossible, but unlikely.  If the selling point is that the games can be played as a portable/console, making games that are going to have to be played differently would be a weird choice.  By motion controls, I did not mean gyro.

I agree that its possible that the gaming market will change in the next 10 years to allow for a subscription model, but we are talking about a device set to launch in about 7 months, in which case a subscription model for all games is not a viable solution.

There is no technological reason why it couldn't be done in the next year.  The reason I said within ten years, is because the industry is dragging their feet because they want to stick with the current model.

Before the early 2000's, Apple was kind of a niche thing.  There was even a joke on the Simpsons about Homer referencing an Apple computer and a young store clerk not knowing what he was talking about. 

Apple changed their fortunes because of the iPod.  While the music industry was doing everything in their power to keep music as a physical based industry, Apple was developing a product to take advantage of the shift and an online store to sell music digitally.  They got ahead of the change and used it to turn them into the world's largest electronic company.

If Nintendo (or any other company) can do something similar, they could also completely change their positioning.  



bigtakilla said:
Werix357 said:

I personally think te NX was meant come out late next year but Nintendo pushed the release forward because of poor Wii U sales and stagnating 3DS sales

Fair enough, but a lot of people also think it was pushed back from holiday this year, making it even worse. 

Heck, they could still always push it back.

Its very unlikely that NIntendo aimed for Q1 launch, most likely they aimed holiday 2016. but probably they need more time to prepare games or maybe they waited for some hardware part (Tegra X2 maybe).



zorg1000 said:
JWeinCom said:

Its like saying a $500 hybrid tablet/laptop is gimped because its not as capable as a $1000+ desktop, ya i guess thats technically true but they arent meant to compete directly against one another so the point is moot. "

Aside from the Nintendo fans who were already going to buy the system, who's going to be that excited that Fire Emblem looks better? This is about broadening their appeal.  "Our games look better than they used to but still not nearly as good as other games on the market" isn't going to really help.  One of the Wii U's selling points was "now in HD" but it didn't help all that much.

As for the competition... you do realize you're on a site that has the sales of Nintendo's consoles lined up against Microsoft and Sony regularly? This whole site is pretty much based on the context that they are competitiors.  This isn't like the tablet/PC industry where there are dozens of companies and hundreds of models.  Even if Nintendo is doing something unique like the Wii, there's still a pretty large degree of competition, which we can see by the Kinect and the Move.

I agree that their are benefits of a subscription service and that the gaming model could use a shift but from Nintendo's perspective it doesnt make a whole lot of sense for new games. For example, Breath of the Wild has been in development for about 5 years and is one of the most ambitious and most likely expensive games they have ever made, does it really make financial sense to include that in a subscription service?

Why not?  The average gamer is going to buy somewhere around 10 games for their system (typically less for Nintendo).  More like 6 for a handheld.  Assuming those are all full priced retail releases, that's about 600 dollars in revenue.  If you price the subscription at 25 dollars a month (which I think would be fairly reasonable), then that's going to be 300 dollars a year of revenue.  Assuming you can keep them for two years, that's the same amount of revenue. And of course, if you can keep them longer, that's more revenue.

I would literally bet my life that gaming will primarily use service based delivery within ten years.  I don't have the knowledge to get all the details correct, but it's happening, and if Nintendo could get ahead of it, that'd be huge for them.

Im not gonna argue with you about Nintendo's indie support, 3DS+Wii U has solid indie support, its a fact.

What makes those games shovelware? Because you dont like them? Remember they are for kids, you know like 7 year olds, they arent meant for adults.

Nowhere did I say Fire Emblem in HD will in and of itself cause people to go out and buy an NX, you're beginning to use straw man arguments. What im saying is that nobody is going to look at the new Fire Emblem and think its gimped because it doesnt look as good as The Witcher, it will be a huge improvement over previous entries and that is what matters.

Are you going to try claiming that Mario Kart or Smash Bros are gimped on Wii U because its not as powerful as PS4? Probably not, because they are great games with beautiful visuals.

The fact that this site compares Nintendo to Sony/Microsoft is absolutely irrelevent, Nintendo is not trying to compete directly with them and is looking to coexist with them. A random video game site does not change that.

I agree that its possible that the gaming market will change in the next 10 years to allow for a subscription model, but we are talking about a device set to launch in about 7 months, in which case a subscription model for all games is not a viable solution.

Ya, the only thing different from phones/tablets will be physical controls.........and the software......you know the primary reason to own hardware. Same goes for PS/XB, if NX has close to equal suppport as 3DS+Wii U than it will literally have hundreds of games not available anywhere else.

Ya if Wii had the same horsepower as PS3/360 it would have costed $400+ and development times/budgets would be higher and people would still likely have chosen to play those 3rd party games on PS3/360 just like they chose to play multiplats on PS2/XB instead of GC.

I think what the NX will be compared to will depend on how Nintendo markets it, if they market it primarily as a mobile gaming device then it wil be compared with the 3DS, Vita and iPad (and its clones).

And comparing movie and music subscription services with games doesn't quite work as subscription services for movies music etc, can be accessed through a multitude of devices where games are limited to certain devices.



JEMC said:
FunFan said:

Not on the handheld space, they haven't.

And the 3DS doesn't use custom hardware either.

3DS hardware is semi-custom, which means Nintendo still did some form of customization. I never say Nintendo did full-custom chips, just that Nintendo likes customizing them and that has been either 100% true, or close to, through it's history. Point is that if Nintendo uses any Nvida chip it most probably wont be a simple "Parker".

Also, technically, Nintendo actually only worked with AMD itself in the design of 2 out of 6 consoles and that resulted in Nintendos weakest hardware designs in history.



“Simple minds have always confused great honesty with great rudeness.” - Sherlock Holmes, Elementary (2013).

"Did you guys expected some actual rational fact-based reasoning? ...you should already know I'm all about BS and fraudulence." - FunFan, VGchartz (2016)

Around the Network
Miyamotoo said:
bigtakilla said:

Fair enough, but a lot of people also think it was pushed back from holiday this year, making it even worse. 

Heck, they could still always push it back.

Its very unlikely that NIntendo aimed for Q1 launch, most likely they aimed holiday 2016. but probably they need more time to prepare games or maybe they waited for some hardware part (Tegra X2 maybe).

^  Case and point.



FunFan said:
JEMC said:

And the 3DS doesn't use custom hardware either.

3DS hardware is semi-custom, which means Nintendo still did some form of customization. I never say Nintendo did full-custom chips, just that Nintendo likes customizing them and that has been either 100% true, or close to, through it's history. Point is that if Nintendo uses any Nvida chip it most probably wont be a simple "Parker".

Also, technically, Nintendo actually only worked with AMD itself in the design of 2 out of 6 consoles and that resulted in Nintendos weakest hardware designs in history.

Can you please give me a link to see the customisations Nintendo did to the 3DS hardware? I'd appreciate that as I've only seen the 3DS using a couple of regular ARM11 chips, plus an ARM9 for DS backwards compatibility, and a PICA200 GPU, nothing customised.

As for Nintendo only going with AMD on 2 consoles, while it's technically true, it's also true that AMD bought the companies that developed the prior chips (as has been said in either this thread or its sibling "Who will provide the NX GPU?"), which is why many of us simply say that they have always worked with AMD.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

JWeinCom said:


A large quantity, many of which that are also of high quality. Reasonable enough definition?

Alright, that peticular game may be shovelware but doesnt really change my overall point.

How are you going to claim a game cant attract new players by improving, to keep Fire Emblem as an example you do realize the 3DS entries have sold over double the amount of any of their predeccessors?

Yes, and Uncharted 4/Halo 5 would have looked better if PS4/XBO were as powerful as high end PCs, i guess those systems/games are gimped as well.

Nintendo wants to sell their hardware to as many people as they can but they dont care if people also own a seperate device. Nintendo isnt going to try stealing sales from iPhone or PS4, they are going to try getting iPhone/PS4 owners to also get an NX. Coexist, not compete.

360 was supposedly sold for a big loss initially, early estimates put it at about $125 loss per unit back in 2005. So yes Nintendo would have had to sell Wii for $400+ if it had comparable hardware to 360.

If you really believe that Nintendo releasing PS4 level hardware while using a subscription service for their entire library is a viable option 7 months from now than go for it, im sure 3rd parties will totally get behind that idea for all their new games.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Werix357 said:

I think what the NX will be compared to will depend on how Nintendo markets it, if they market it primarily as a mobile gaming device then it wil be compared with the 3DS, Vita and iPad (and its clones).

And comparing movie and music subscription services with games doesn't quite work as subscription services for movies music etc, can be accessed through a multitude of devices where games are limited to certain devices.

People are already comparing it to the XBox One and PS4.  Nintendo has been in the dedicated console market so long that it'd be hard for people not to view it as a competitor.  It's possible, but Nintendo would have to work really hard to change the perception that it's a PS4/XBox One rival.  

I don't think the fact that it's one device really makes a difference.  Obviously the model will have to be different, but it's very possible, and it will happen sooner or later.

zorg1000 said
JWeinCom said:


A large quantity, many of which that are also of high quality. Reasonable enough definition?

Alright, that peticular game may be shovelware but doesnt really change my overall point.

How are you going to claim a game cant attract new players by improving, to keep Fire Emblem as an example you do realize the 3DS entries have sold over double the amount of any of their predeccessors?

Yes, and Uncharted 4/Halo 5 would have looked better if PS4/XBO were as powerful as high end PCs, i guess those systems/games are gimped as well.

Nintendo wants to sell their hardware to as many people as they can but they dont care if people also own a seperate device. Nintendo isnt going to try stealing sales from iPhone or PS4, they are going to try getting iPhone/PS4 owners to also get an NX. Coexist, not compete.

360 was supposedly sold for a big loss initially, early estimates put it at about $125 loss per unit back in 2005. So yes Nintendo would have had to sell Wii for $400+ if it had comparable hardware to 360.

If you really believe that Nintendo releasing PS4 level hardware while using a subscription service for their entire library is a viable option 7 months from now than go for it, im sure 3rd parties will totally get behind that idea for all their new games.

A large quantity, many of which that are also of high quality. Reasonable enough definition?

It's reasonable, but not objective.  Large and high quality are subjective terms.  For opinions, it works fine.  If you want to say it's a fact, it doesn't work.

How are you going to claim a game cant attract new players by improving, to keep Fire Emblem as an example you do realize the 3DS entries have sold over double the amount of any of their predeccessors?

We were talking about strictly improving visuals.  Fire Emblem has gone through other changes to make it more accessible, and it had much better marketing.  I don't think people bought it for the improved graphics.  Path of Radiance had much better graphics than its predecessors, as did Shadow dragon and it didn't help either of them too much.

Moreover, we're talking about selling consoles, and not games.  Convincing someone who already plays games like Zelda to spend 40 dollars to try fire emblem is one thing.  Convincing someone who doesn't play Nintendo games to spend 3-400 dollars on a new console is another matter.  

Yes, and Uncharted 4/Halo 5 would have looked better if PS4/XBO were as powerful as high end PCs, i guess those systems/games are gimped as well.

Eh... bad analogy, but let's roll with it.  Do you expect the NX to be several hundred dollars cheaper than the XBox One or PS4?

Nintendo wants to sell their hardware to as many people as they can but they dont care if people also own a seperate device. Nintendo isnt going to try stealing sales from iPhone or PS4, they are going to try getting iPhone/PS4 owners to also get an NX. Coexist, not compete.

I don't know how you can make a system that is appealing to the PS4's market without competing with it.  If the NX is appealing to current PS4 owners, then it should also be appealing to perspective PS4 owners, and those people would have to make a choice.  

360 was supposedly sold for a big loss initially, early estimates put it at about $125 loss per unit back in 2005. So yes Nintendo would have had to sell Wii for $400+ if it had comparable hardware to 360.

Nope.  The figure you're using only refers to the version of the 360 with a harddrive.  It was more like 75 for the others.  But, this was at launch, which was a year before the Wii came out.  By the time the Wii came out, Microsoft was actually making money on the 360.  About 75 dollars for the version with a harddrive (without factoring in shipping and labor).  That means probably around 100 for the harddriveless version.  

So, Nintendo could have pretty easily sold it for 300.  They could have even still sold it for 250 if they were willing to take the hit, and by a year or so they'd be making a profit.  They would have sacrificed a big chunk of the profit they made during the Wii era, but they would have had a much stronger foothold among "hardcore" gamers. 

If you really believe that Nintendo releasing PS4 level hardware while using a subscription service for their entire library is a viable option 7 months from now than go for it, im sure 3rd parties will totally get behind that idea for all their new games.

Why wouldn't they?   If Nintendo's business was like Netflix, then they wouldn't be selling their games to consumers.  They would instead be paid a licensing fee directly from Nintendo.  That means that they can guarantee themselves a profit regardless of whether or not anyone buys their games.  The risk of porting a game would be basically non-existent.  As for whether it's viable, that depends.  If Nintendo woke up this morning and had the idea, no.  If they'd been working on it for a few years behind the scenes, then yes.

 Again, I'm not an expert on the business, so maybe there is something I am missing that would present an issue.  At the very least, it would attract a lot of attention.  If they could secure third party support, which I don't think would be an issue, even Sony and Microsoft fans would have to consider it.



JWeinCom said:

We were talking about strictly improving visuals.  Fire Emblem has gone through other changes to make it more accessible, and it had much better marketing.  I don't think people bought it for the improved graphics.  Path of Radiance had much better graphics than its predecessors, as did Shadow dragon and it didn't help either of them too much.

Moreover, we're talking about selling consoles, and not games.  Convincing someone who already plays games like Zelda to spend 40 dollars to try fire emblem is one thing.  Convincing someone who doesn't play Nintendo games to spend 3-400 dollars on a new console is another matter.

Eh... bad analogy, but let's roll with it.  Do you expect the NX to be several hundred dollars cheaper than the XBox One or PS4?

I don't know how you can make a system that is appealing to the PS4's market without competing with it.  If the NX is appealing to current PS4 owners, then it should also be appealing to perspective PS4 owners, and those people would have to make a choice. 

Nope.  The figure you're using only refers to the version of the 360 with a harddrive.  It was more like 75 for the others.  But, this was at launch, which was a year before the Wii came out.  By the time the Wii came out, Microsoft was actually making money on the 360.  About 75 dollars for the version with a harddrive (without factoring in shipping and labor).  That means probably around 100 for the harddriveless version.  

So, Nintendo could have pretty easily sold it for 300.  They could have even still sold it for 250 if they were willing to take the hit, and by a year or so they'd be making a profit.  They would have sacrificed a big chunk of the profit they made during the Wii era, but they would have had a much stronger foothold among "hardcore" gamers. 

Why wouldn't they?   If Nintendo's business was like Netflix, then they wouldn't be selling their games to consumers.  They would instead be paid a licensing fee directly from Nintendo.  That means that they can guarantee themselves a profit regardless of whether or not anyone buys their games.  The risk of porting a game would be basically non-existent.  As for whether it's viable, that depends.  If Nintendo woke up this morning and had the idea, no.  If they'd been working on it for a few years behind the scenes, then yes.

 Again, I'm not an expert on the business, so maybe there is something I am missing that would present an issue.  At the very least, it would attract a lot of attention.  If they could secure third party support, which I don't think would be an issue, even Sony and Microsoft fans would have to consider it.

Ok, so Awakening/Fates were able to increase the appeal of the franchise even without being visually better than Dawn/Path of Radiance. Isnt that proof that visuals really arent that big of a factor and future games wont be seen as gimped?

Its hard to convince anybody to buy any device for a single game, its going to be the overall software library, system features, price, marketing, etc. that convince people to buy it. If NX gets those things right than it will probably do well, if they mess up on one or more of those categories than they will struggle.

No, it wont be several hundred dollars cheaper, but it will be a seperate type of device with different software and hardware features, just like PS4/XBO vs PC.

If i recall, data from last generation showed that a large number of PS3/360 owners had a Wii and vice versa. Wii was not competing directly with them yet they were able to appeal to many of the same people.

Im not buying those numbers, they simply dont add up. How did they go from losing about $100 per unit to gaining $100 per unit in the matter of a year?

What im getting at is Nintendo would have to pay each 3rd party a percentage of the revenue for making their games a part of the service instead of receiving a royalty fee from them because 3rd parties sure as hell are going to want to get paid. So what % of this $25 subscription service would be a profit for Nintendo, $5?

Plus the fact that no subscription service starts out with massive numbers, Xbox Live, PS Plus, Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, Spotify, etc. all of these services needed years to build up and become the services they are now. If Nintendo were to go with a subscription model, it would need to be introduced and given time to grow before it became a massive money earner for them.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.