Nintendo Confirms New Console, Evidently Powered by AMD

[Frogger]

Hiku said:

1.) Of course, I do regard it as a failure. (Although it's not over yet, but I'm not one of the people who are optimistic about Nintendo turning this around.) That's what I was getting at. When you said "4 years absolutely is plenty of time", it sounds like "normal/acceptable lifespan for a console". Personally as a consumer who's used to at least 5-6 years out of my home consoles (My home console history lifespan: 7.5 > 5.5 > 6.5 > 7.0 > ???, and the 5.5 was even one of the failed consoles, N64) I find 4 or less unacceptable for the expectations I have with the money I invested in it, and see it as a sign of failure.

2.) Well that depends on how many games end up beeing exclusive to the N3DS. If for example it ends up just being 3 games, then it's much more of a non issue than compared to hundreds of games.
Looking at a list real quick, out of 41 3DS games released or announced for release after the launch of N3DS, only one of them (Xenoblade) is exclusive to N3DS so far. And that game is of course Nintendo's own game. I think it will be very difficult for Nintendo to find developers who will willingly forsake a 46M (and growing) install base over a completely new one, just for a bit more advanced graphics. I even question how far Nintendo themselves are willing to push it, seeing as the only announced title for it yet isn't even an entierly new game, but a port.

3.) It's not the shared architecture that made me assume relatively weak hardware, but rather the part about Wii U being able to play toned down versions of Fusion games. As we already established, the Wii U is quite a bit weaker than a PS4. So going up to PS4 standards is already about half a generations leap. Going a full generations leap from the Wii U would land it somewhere in between PS4 and PS5. Since I'm already having difficulty seeing how they would make games like that function on the Wii U as well, I'm thinking they wouldn't go much further than that. Leaving it as 'moderately' to 'significantly' more powerful than a PS4. But also significantly less powerful than a PS5 once that one comes out.
It would create a situation similar to how the Wii U was significantly more powerful than its competition, but only for a year. Then it found itself in a reversed role, where it was significatly weaker than its competition. I was hoping Nintendo wouldn't go for being in the middle of the generational leaps again. Especially if the successors to PS4 and XB1 are only a few years away. Though I agree that a PS5/XB2 doesn't seem likely to happen as earlier than 2010 as things stand today. Though I wouldn't rule it out depending on the advancements of technology during that period.
Though of the games you listed, I do think that one game may be pushing the limits of the console, and that's Smash. Not in an obvious way, but the fact that it's running at 1080p 60fps while allowing 8 characters on the screen at once, using only 1GB of RAM.
Though I get your point, as Nintendo rarely push their hardware to the limit, except for on a few occasions. We can expect titles like Zelda U to do that, etc.

As for PS4 and XB1, they are pretty similar in architecture, but some things separate them, such as how they access their RAM. PS4 has a single large unified pool of RAM, while XB1 has to circumvent resources in a more roundabout way to access all of its RAM. Outside of that, it's mostly their specs that separate them.
One difference between PC games and console games though is that console games are locked to run at specific settings, while PC games allow adjustments. If they didn't lock console games to specific settings though, I'd imagine most XB1 and PS4 would be able to run each others games. But the consoles don't allow any discs to start that don't have the correct ID information that identifies it as a legal game for the console. Even if you burn an identical ISO copy of a game and put it in your console, it won't work. (Unless you've modded the console.)
Allowing any disc to run on their system would cause them some unneccesary problems in regards to liscensing and royalties. The Wii was launched without the ability to play DVD's (to watch movies). Or so Nintendo claimed. But as it turns out, it was fully capable of playing DVD's when you use a homebrew program. They simply locked that feature to avoid liscensing fees.

I really hope Nintendo don't give up on making third party developers a big priority for them. I get that it's tough to compete directly with Sony and MS, but constantly betting so much on the appeal of being unique is very risky as well. If they're going to make a relatively powerful console anyway, it seems like a waste to not make the architecture similar to the competition.
And I say relatively powerful, because compared to PS4 and XB1 it might be. Perhaps not when PS5/XB2 come out, but there should be quite a few years before that happens.

I was going to say that it sounds like it would be difficult to force third party developers to always design the game to work properly on 3 different consoles, if they're more interested in making a single game as good as it possibly can be.
I didn't expect you would say that they wouldn't share libraries completely though, nor that missing some features would be ok. I guess that would solve the problem. Just not sure how appealing the Fusion will be if not every game is required to function on all three platforms.

1) But that's what I'm getting at. For a console that's failing the way the Wii U has, four years is completely within the realms of acceptability. The XB, a far more successful console, only had 4 years, and people were fine with it because the next thing was better. People will be even more fine with this because of it's BC.

2) That's true, but that works in the Wii U successor's favor. Having that same kind of cross platform support makes the transition much easier. It takes the pressure to upgrade immediately off the consumer.

3) I keep going to my Wii U/3DS comperison, though. Much weaker hardware, but plays many of the same type of games as the Wii U. Mario Kart 7 and 8. Smash Bros Wii U and 3DS. Tekken 3DS and Tag Tounament. 3D Land vs 3D World. And plenty more. There are so many games that could be easily scaled down with a power gap far more servere than anything well see in the Wii U to it's successor.

The Wii U was released two years too late, not one year too early. So much of it's demise came from this as well as the $350 price tag. A big reason the Wii U failed is because Nintendo gave the Wii a much longer lifespan than it should have gotten.

I'm not saying that Nintendo doesn't make games that push their hardware, but that the foundation those games are built on don't need that extra power to be good. Smash Wii U pushes the Wii U, but Smash 3DS proves that most of what pushes the Wii U version aren't necessary for a great game experience. Those are the kinds of downgrades I expect. The Wii U version may have less features and all that jazz, but it will still make for a great game that doesn't impede on the quality of it's successor.

I don't think that all games will be required to work on all three, but I think that most 3rd parties will try to get them to work on both the handheld and new console. They won't see them as saparate audiences anymore, so many will do the appropriate downgrades with ease. Remember, the tech the new systems will be base on makes porting between the two a breeze, so they won't need to think much when making downgrades.

I think the issue will come from pricing. We're used to portable games being $40 and console games being $60, but if they are part of the same library, how will they be priced? Will the different versions be priced differently with a cost to upgrade if you got the handheld version first, but no price to downgrade if you got the console version first? Will they both be priced at $60? $40? Meet in the middle at $50? What about games with/very little differences between versions like with indie games, VC games, or games with mere graphical upgrades between versions like with REvelations? I think that's were the true tension will lie.

I just don't see Nintendo using x86 and giving up BC. Honestly, x86 isn't what will bring 3rd party over. They need to cultivate an audience who wants those games on their systems. They can only do that by making their own exclusive AAA IPs that cater to those gamers. Xenoblade will do amazing things for people who like JRPGs. That SMT x FE game should be doing the same thing once it comes out. Those are games that will get people who love JRPGs to want to buy a Wii U so that when 3rd party JRPGs come out for the thing, they know theres an audience for them. Having a game like Bayonetta 2 will do wonders for games like Devil May Cry. Even Pokken Tournament could do wonders for fighting games on the Wii U.

There's none of that for western games. Need for Speed won't sell because no one has a reason to buy a racer like that on the Wii U. Sony has Gran Turismo and Microsoft has Forza. Call of Duty won't sell on the Wii U for the same reason. Sony has Killzone and Microsoft has Halo and Gears of War. Nintendo needs more IP, yes, but Nintendo particularly needs more western IP. Like, an almost equal amount to what they have in Japan. I don't care how good Splatoon ends up being; it's not getting anyone who loves Destiny buying a Wii U. If Nintendo isn't going to make new studios to do this, they need to hire studios to create these new Nintendo owned IP for them. That's what will bring 3rd party games back to Nintendo.