NX power

[potato_hamster]

zorg1000 said:

potato_hamster said:

If it is so simple, then the vast majority of games available for the apple tv would be available for the iPod touch and vice versa. But their marketplaces are dramatically different, and there's a varitey of legitimate reasons why. For one, the controls for each are dramatically different - ipod touch with its touchscreen, apple tv with a remote. Secondly one is a handheld device vs something designed to be viewed on a television 6-8 feet away, which means you have to redo a huge chunk of the UI, and I haven't even gotten into accomodating the differences in the hardware - an extra GB of RAM when it comes to consoles can make a dramatic difference.

Regarding controls, there's been talk about ditching the double screen of the DS, and going to a touch screen, which means accomodating that, but you're right - they could be very similar, and it could be a minimal issue. But if there is any variance you're obviously adding additional development cost.

It's all fine and dandy that you really don't see the difference between a PC game engine and a console game engine. A PC game engine communicates with the system's OS, which controls/APIs which control the CPU, RAM, GPU etc. The PC game engine never sends instructions to hardware itself. It communicates through the OS which handles communicating with the processor, and whatnot. Because of this, you can get endless compatibility, because the hardware manufacturers just need to develop drivers/apis that tell the OS how to communicate with the hardware. Consoles on the otherhand don't really communicate with the hardware in the same way, yes, there's an OS that handles things like menu systems, online networking, cameras, controllers etc, and there are sections of the hardware such as the CPU, GPU and RAM that are dedicated to OS use, and are off-limits to the game engine. Aside from that, the Game engine communicates directly with the processor, gpu, etc, and of course use the API for higher level commands. As a result, you can get more out of the hardware, because you can optimize for that specific processor, and that specific hardware configuration. If there's a bottle neck in that specific hardware specification, you can accomodate that.  For the most part, you have a level of control with the hardware that is a tier greater than you have with a PC. As a result you can get significantly better performance out of a console than you could with a PC with identical specs.

As I said, Nintendo could go in this direction, make more or less the Nintendo version of Android, give developers PC-style access to the hardware, and keep those costs down, but in doing so they would be putting heavy constraints on what can be done on the hardware. Games would perform worst than people expect in nearly every way you can think of. Third parties or anyone developing an engine would have less control, and as a result, would have to work closer with Nintendo to work through issues related to the Operating System, API, etc in a similar way to how nVidia or ATi works with Microsoft to develop their drivers and APIs. I really doubt that kind of change would be welcomed by traditional game developers, but it may attact the iOS/Android development crowd, as that is the type of relationship they are used to having with hardware manufacturers.

If that is the case, then you need to ask yourself if you think the world would embrace Nintendo's more powerful version of the Ipod touch and apple tv.

Well to be fair, the peticular iPod model I'm talking about just came out 2 months ago and the Apple TV model I'm talking about releases next month with previous Apple TV models not even having access to games unless streamed through a separate iOS device so there is really no way to compare the amount of cross-device support or marketplaces.

I'm not simply asking about the difference between PC and consoles, I'm asking how is it possible that developers are able to make a single game that runs on a dozen or so separate pieces of hardware? Let's take Skylanders Superchargers for example, it's on PS3/PS4/360/XB1/Wii U/iPod/iPhone/iPad/Apple TV, that's 9 platforms, more if u include the various different iPhone/iPad models that it's compatible with. So why can a developer make a single game run on a dozen plus separate devices that have a huge range in power, different operating systems and different architectures without any problems but somehow it's way too costly/time constraining for a developer to make a single game available on 2 Nintendo platforms that share a common architecture/operating system and have similar specs?

As for ur last paragraph, that's exactly what I think Nintendo should release. A handheld and a console with similar specs that share the same architecture/operating system/online infrastructure/account system with most games being available on both devices and allows for cross-buy/play/save. There is also the new membership/rewards program that will make software more affordable. Then there is the mobile games/apps, theme park attractions, IP licensing that they are set to roll out in the near future.

Significantly reduced cost of entry into the Nintendo ecosystem+significantly increased software output+significantly increased brand awareness combined has the potential attract more people than 3DS/Wii U were able to.

Skylanders probably isn't the best example to use. The game is basically shovelware, made as cheaply as possible, with little to no depth, with the main purpose being to sell little statues. That game makes money by being as cheap as possible to make while having a huge mark up on the cost of figures. Supporting all those platforms is extremely expensive for activision, but it really doesn't matter if they sell enough of those high-margin figures to justify it. But again, that is Skylanders. That is the the most widely available game ever made to sell more plastic figures. You take away those figures and the Skylanders game doesn't get made, much less for 9 different platforms.

For example, a better example might be  is not Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain. That game is on the PS4/X1/PC/PS3/X360.  That sounds expensive, doesn't it? It was - one of the most expensive video games ever made. That game cost Konami $80 million just to develop, and was so expensive they broke part of the game off as a separate retail title called "Ground Zeroes". To get the "full game", gamers were spending $100 retail for it. They did this because they can, because it's Metal Gear Solid, because it's an established brand, because they had a good idea on how much it would sell.  Even with all that, rumors are swirling that the game was unfinished, and rushed out the door, that Kojima quit/was fired over how much that game was costing. Would Kojima have opted to just have the game on PS4/X1/PC and focus the budget otherwise spent on supporting other platforms on making the game better? Undoubtedly. Remember MGS4 came out for one platform, and one platform only, and it cost far less to develop.

As for the NX, why do I think third parties won't support it? There are a number of reasons:

Because it will be more expensive to support it than any other platform on the market, and that's obvious. No one should be arguing agsint the fact that supporting multiple specifications in a single platform has to be more expensive than supporting a single specification on a single platform. It's added complexity. It will require specification-specific changes. It will require specification-specific testing. There are no two ways around it. The NX will cost more to develop for than developing a single game for PS4 or a single game on Xbox One.

Because there is little to no reason to expect third party games to sell well on a Nintendo platform. They simply don't sell well, and never have. There are rare exceptions, but take the Wii as an example- an install base of over 100 million wiis world-wide. The five highest selling third party Wii games combined solid about as well as Super Smash Brothers, which was the 8th best selling Wii game. That is not good. The Wii U and Gamecube have even worse third party numbers. What makes anyone think any third party game will sell well on the NX?

So you're the head of a video game studio, and you plan on making a multi-platform game. Your market analysis and experience tell you if you develop a game for the PS4 and X1 it will cost you $3 million total, and you can expect to get 1.5 million in sales between the platform. Now you're deciding whether you want to add NX to the mix. You crunch the numbers and you figure it's going to cost you an additional $1.5 m to develop it for the NX, considering the arcitecture isn't X86, you'll have to do significant work to re-work the engine to support that platform, you'll have to redo all of the art and audio assets to not only be optimized for the NX's hardware, you'll have to do all of that extra work to support the extra specification, etc, but the gameplay mechanics, story, ui and animation can all be carried over with little re-work. So now your budget just blew up by over 30%. At the very least you should expect another 30% in sales to make it worthwhile. So, do you think your game, which will sell 850k on PS4, and 650k on X1 is going to sell 500k on NX? probably not. History certainly hasn't shown as much. In the meanwhile you've got half the money you need for the sequel on PS4 and X1, which will more than likely generate more money than it would if it was invested in porting a multi-platform game over to NX. So again, why would I bother?

As for my last paragraph, If that's what you want, I wish Nintendo the best of luck going up the likes of Apple and Google. If you think Microsoft and Sony were stiff competition, you haven't seen anything yet.