Prediction: "Cartridges" will return for the Nintendo home console

[DanneSandin]

RolStoppable said:

DanneSandin said:

This could also simply mean that they'll make it a lot easier to port between the two consoles; you mention Smash Bros 3DS/Wii U, and that's almost two different games. I'm not even sure they're running on the same engine. Maybe they're aiming at using the same engine for both devices to shorten development time, but that doesn't mean you'll have the same game on both systems, or that you'll be able to actually continue your play session on either devices.

I hope you're right, I'd love for this concept to be true! But the question is, which scenario would Nintendo make the most money from? Make one game to switch between two devices, release one game on two different devices with no save transfer without double dipping (essentially porting the games between the devices), or have the same engine working on both consoles but developing different games for each device.

All three scenarios have their pros and cons, but which one makes Nintendo the most money?

Indeed, Super Smash Bros. 4 doesn't run on the same engine on both devices. But the two versions certainly share a lot of similarities; they aren't as distinct from one another as Mario Kart 7 and Mario Kart 8. In the next generation the gap in processing power between the home console and handheld will be smaller than between the Wii U and 3DS, and Nintendo is certainly aiming for a development environment where the same engine can be used for both devices, so Super Smash Bros. 4 in a more refined form is what we should expect. Like I said in the OP of this thread, I don't expect the games to be exactly the same on both systems, so assets, features and options will be accessed depending on which hardware you play on; an obvious example is that a game like Mario Kart wouldn't feature splitscreen multiplayer on both the home console and the handheld. However, when it comes to singleplayer content, it can be expected that you'll be able to continue your play session on the other device.

The first of your three scenarios is the one that will make the most money in the long run. It raises the chances for a steady flow of high quality releases significantly (scenario 3 fails here) which in turn makes the hardware more attractive to purchase; the more hardware Nintendo can sell, the more software will be sold. Nickling and diming potential double dippers (that's scenario 2) would make some extra money, but I don't think that the small pool of people who actually double dips on games is valuable enough to risk a negative impact on Nintendo's image; beyond that, if it's possible to purchase once and play on two devices, that's an incentive to entice non-double dippers to buy more software as the perceived value of games will be higher than otherwise.

I agree with both you and Wyrdness; this would be the smarter option to go for, for Nintendo. But will they? Just think about how many people how have bought BOTH ersions of SMash, Mario Kart or whatever else. That's a pretty big revenue Nintendo would loose; the double dippers. Is your argument that this would be made up for with more games being produced and thus sold? I think Nintendo would rather sell Mario Kart two times (one time for each system) and sell about 15m of that game, instead of selling 10m MK games and make a Kirby game that sells 2m.... That's the biggest concern I have with the Fusion concept. I'd love to just have ONE Mario Kart per gen, ONE Smash bros, ONE NSMB etc for BOTH consoles, but would Nintendo be happy with not selling as many games from their biggest franchises? Would the quantity of new/other games being made make up for those lost sales?