Forums - Nintendo Discussion - NX game price if the library is unified?

potato_hamster said:
zorg1000 said:
potato_hamster said:

You do in console development. It's hardware - > engine for the most part (there are some exceptions). Skip the API. You don't seem to understand that.



Why exactly do consoles have an API then?



My apologizes. I have been vague and bit misleading. Consoles do in fact use APIs in similar ways to PCs. However, consoles use two different kinds of APIs. There first kind are lower-level "to the metal" APIs that interact directly with the hardware in a way PCs do not. This is not what most people mean when they refer to APIs. These low-level APIs are more streamlined more effienct, and, are optimized specifically for the single hardware spec. The console also has higher level APIs, which interact with the OS, controllers, networking etc. this is what most people refer to when they talk about APIs.  You can still actually send commands to things like the processor or GPU directly, but this isn't as common as it used to be. I was trying to make it easier and I ended up complicating things.

It was disingenous for me to say that consoles don't use APIs to interact with the hardware. They do. But they're not the same as the APIs that PC engines use and work in a fundamentally different way that calling them APIs in my experience tends to confuse people more than it does when I say they don't really use APIs.

Here's a little blurb on exactly what I'm referring to:

http://www.psdevwiki.com/ps3/RSX#RSX_Libraries

PC APIs are equivalent to the PSGL. Consoles have layers below that, including the ability to program to directly interact with the hardware.



 

The thing is though Nintendo is not beholden to make a platform just one way. Why can't a home platform have an API setup more like the PC if at the end of the day this serves Nintendo's needs of today better? It's not as if the world would stop turning. 

And the PC industry I imagine would be a pretty different place if there were literally just 2-3 different hardware congifurations from the same exact manufacturer too.



Around the Network
Soundwave said:
potato_hamster said:
zorg1000 said:
potato_hamster said:

You do in console development. It's hardware - > engine for the most part (there are some exceptions). Skip the API. You don't seem to understand that.



Why exactly do consoles have an API then?



My apologizes. I have been vague and bit misleading. Consoles do in fact use APIs in similar ways to PCs. However, consoles use two different kinds of APIs. There first kind are lower-level "to the metal" APIs that interact directly with the hardware in a way PCs do not. This is not what most people mean when they refer to APIs. These low-level APIs are more streamlined more effienct, and, are optimized specifically for the single hardware spec. The console also has higher level APIs, which interact with the OS, controllers, networking etc. this is what most people refer to when they talk about APIs.  You can still actually send commands to things like the processor or GPU directly, but this isn't as common as it used to be. I was trying to make it easier and I ended up complicating things.

It was disingenous for me to say that consoles don't use APIs to interact with the hardware. They do. But they're not the same as the APIs that PC engines use and work in a fundamentally different way that calling them APIs in my experience tends to confuse people more than it does when I say they don't really use APIs.

Here's a little blurb on exactly what I'm referring to:

http://www.psdevwiki.com/ps3/RSX#RSX_Libraries

PC APIs are equivalent to the PSGL. Consoles have layers below that, including the ability to program to directly interact with the hardware.



 

The thing is though Nintendo is not beholden to make a platform just one way. Why can't a home platform have an API setup more like the PC if at the end of the day this serves Nintendo's needs of today better? It's not as if the world would stop turning. 

And the PC industry I imagine would be a pretty different place if there were literally just 2-3 different hardware congifurations from the same exact manufacturer, period. 

They can, but they would be throwing away very much needed performance, and limiting the capability of game and engine developers in doing so.

Just because technically can be done, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so. If you have a console that's say 1.5x as poweful as the Wii U but from a development point of view it might barely more capable since their control over the device has to go through a relatively bloated API. Thus the games that come out for sucha  console, might look pretty much the same as Wii U games, aside from a few marginal improvements,  then consumers might have a hard time seeing the point of "upgrading".

Might not be the best move just to make development on multiple platforms easier when there are plenty of other things Nintendo can do to bridge that gap without pulling off such a dramatic move.



potato_hamster said:
zorg1000 said:
potato_hamster said:

You do in console development. It's hardware - > engine for the most part (there are some exceptions). Skip the API. You don't seem to understand that.



Why exactly do consoles have an API then?



My apologizes. I have been vague and bit misleading. Consoles do in fact use APIs in similar ways to PCs. However, consoles use two different kinds of APIs. There first kind are lower-level "to the metal" APIs that interact directly with the hardware in a way PCs do not. This is not what most people mean when they refer to APIs. These low-level APIs are more streamlined more effienct, and, are optimized specifically for the single hardware spec. The console also has higher level APIs, which interact with the OS, controllers, networking etc. this is what most people refer to when they talk about APIs.  You can still actually send commands to things like the processor or GPU directly, but this isn't as common as it used to be. I was trying to make it easier and I ended up complicating things.

It was disingenous for me to say that consoles don't use APIs to interact with the hardware. They do. But they're not the same as the APIs that PC engines use and work in a fundamentally different way that calling them APIs in my experience tends to confuse people more than it does when I say they don't really use APIs.

Here's a little blurb on exactly what I'm referring to:

http://www.psdevwiki.com/ps3/RSX#RSX_Libraries

PC APIs are equivalent to the PSGL. Consoles have layers below that, including the ability to program to directly interact with the hardware.



 

So you intentially mislead the situation to attempt to red herring your way through a debate. Interesting, I'm not shocked.

For the record I've always been genuine, which is why I give specific and legitimate examples to prove my point. Also the level of abstraction has closed with the creation of newer APIs like Mantle, Vulkan and DX12, which will all run on Windows 10 and all but definitely onwards. Games are going to be made for that, to work across the very complex environment that I used as my example of why multiple types of hardware and performance scaling of games is not going to be an issue for Nintendo and NX.

PC would actually be a more worse case scenario and it's already outright proven to not require porting between X spec to Y PC spec, it just works, provided vendors for processing tech support those games. In the case of NX it would be Nintendo adding their own devices and drivers for that into the OS.

It would actually be simpler than supporting individual platforms as they do now, because these devices and their one OS are made to work this way from day one and not built with their own development environments. No porting is needed, just driver updates and within those driver updates Nintendo optimizes their own software features for the API.

With DX11 developers can interact with the hardware on a much closer level to the hardware, if they choose, it's just that this introduces issues for the developers, like giving them tonnes of extra work, because it's not an automated thing and DX11 wasn't designed to make this easy for all developers, DX12 and others like it change this by the API being written to be much thinner and include dedicated libraries to basically do this extra work for developers. No specific writing is needed to take advantage of more efficient programming techniques and as a result performance is gained.

 

Using a PS3 comparison to PC doesn't work for the here and now, because things have changed this generation and new APIs were designed to close the gap in API efficiency.

Anyway having a few specs, with the same architecture doesn't prevent optimization to get the most out of those platforms. Hell platform holders have to optimize their APIs and work on their development tools anyway. Bringing the handheld and console together basically makes this easier because the API developers are working with the same architecture. The handheld is using the same type of CPU and GPU core tech, it's just a portion of it's bigger brother. The OS incorporates both devices or any others Nintendo adds to it. Nintendo's API developers remove any roadblocks for game developers to make their games simply to work unimpeded on both and they just finalize the end settings that feel fits best for each game.



potato_hamster said:
Soundwave said:
potato_hamster said:
zorg1000 said:
potato_hamster said:

You do in console development. It's hardware - > engine for the most part (there are some exceptions). Skip the API. You don't seem to understand that.



Why exactly do consoles have an API then?



My apologizes. I have been vague and bit misleading. Consoles do in fact use APIs in similar ways to PCs. However, consoles use two different kinds of APIs. There first kind are lower-level "to the metal" APIs that interact directly with the hardware in a way PCs do not. This is not what most people mean when they refer to APIs. These low-level APIs are more streamlined more effienct, and, are optimized specifically for the single hardware spec. The console also has higher level APIs, which interact with the OS, controllers, networking etc. this is what most people refer to when they talk about APIs.  You can still actually send commands to things like the processor or GPU directly, but this isn't as common as it used to be. I was trying to make it easier and I ended up complicating things.

It was disingenous for me to say that consoles don't use APIs to interact with the hardware. They do. But they're not the same as the APIs that PC engines use and work in a fundamentally different way that calling them APIs in my experience tends to confuse people more than it does when I say they don't really use APIs.

Here's a little blurb on exactly what I'm referring to:

http://www.psdevwiki.com/ps3/RSX#RSX_Libraries

PC APIs are equivalent to the PSGL. Consoles have layers below that, including the ability to program to directly interact with the hardware.



 

The thing is though Nintendo is not beholden to make a platform just one way. Why can't a home platform have an API setup more like the PC if at the end of the day this serves Nintendo's needs of today better? It's not as if the world would stop turning. 

And the PC industry I imagine would be a pretty different place if there were literally just 2-3 different hardware congifurations from the same exact manufacturer, period. 

They can, but they would be throwing away very much needed performance, and limiting the capability of game and engine developers in doing so.

Just because technically can be done, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so. If you have a console that's say 1.5x as poweful as the Wii U but from a development point of view it might barely more capable since their control over the device has to go through a relatively bloated API. Thus the games that come out for sucha  console, might look pretty much the same as Wii U games, aside from a few marginal improvements,  then consumers might have a hard time seeing the point of "upgrading".

Might not be the best move just to make development on multiple platforms easier when there are plenty of other things Nintendo can do to bridge that gap without pulling off such a dramatic move.

 

I think Nintendo is well past the point of needing the make dramatic changes to their hardware, and unifying the portable and console is no longer even a choice. They can't support two distinct platforms like that any longer (nor would Sony or MS be able to do it, Sony basically bailed on the Vita and MS isn't even trying to make a portable, both have huge problems getting PS4/X1 games "finished" on time and unlike Nintendo they don't have a portable to support). 

Developers can make the game for the portable first and foremost, those devs that want to take greater advantage of the console's higher specs can do so, but this can be done on a case by case basis. 

Why does the console have to be "only" 1.5x a Wii U? There are mobile chips today that likely have performance beyond a 1.5x Wii U already. 



potato_hamster said:
Soundwave said:
potato_hamster said:
zorg1000 said:
potato_hamster said:

You do in console development. It's hardware - > engine for the most part (there are some exceptions). Skip the API. You don't seem to understand that.



Why exactly do consoles have an API then?



My apologizes. I have been vague and bit misleading. Consoles do in fact use APIs in similar ways to PCs. However, consoles use two different kinds of APIs. There first kind are lower-level "to the metal" APIs that interact directly with the hardware in a way PCs do not. This is not what most people mean when they refer to APIs. These low-level APIs are more streamlined more effienct, and, are optimized specifically for the single hardware spec. The console also has higher level APIs, which interact with the OS, controllers, networking etc. this is what most people refer to when they talk about APIs.  You can still actually send commands to things like the processor or GPU directly, but this isn't as common as it used to be. I was trying to make it easier and I ended up complicating things.

It was disingenous for me to say that consoles don't use APIs to interact with the hardware. They do. But they're not the same as the APIs that PC engines use and work in a fundamentally different way that calling them APIs in my experience tends to confuse people more than it does when I say they don't really use APIs.

Here's a little blurb on exactly what I'm referring to:

http://www.psdevwiki.com/ps3/RSX#RSX_Libraries

PC APIs are equivalent to the PSGL. Consoles have layers below that, including the ability to program to directly interact with the hardware.



 

The thing is though Nintendo is not beholden to make a platform just one way. Why can't a home platform have an API setup more like the PC if at the end of the day this serves Nintendo's needs of today better? It's not as if the world would stop turning. 

And the PC industry I imagine would be a pretty different place if there were literally just 2-3 different hardware congifurations from the same exact manufacturer, period. 

They can, but they would be throwing away very much needed performance, and limiting the capability of game and engine developers in doing so.

Just because technically can be done, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so. If you have a console that's say 1.5x as poweful as the Wii U but from a development point of view it might barely more capable since their control over the device has to go through a relatively bloated API. Thus the games that come out for sucha  console, might look pretty much the same as Wii U games, aside from a few marginal improvements,  then consumers might have a hard time seeing the point of "upgrading".

Might not be the best move just to make development on multiple platforms easier when there are plenty of other things Nintendo can do to bridge that gap without pulling off such a dramatic move.

 

Nintendo wouldn't be throwing anything away, they'd be gaining so much more, because resources aren't dedicated to making games for 2 or more separate platforms.

Also you're ignoring DX12, Vulkan and Mantle, all of which are not bloated APIs, rather they're all low level and you know what? It's not necessarily the level of abstraction that brings performance gains anyway, it's the ability for all CPU cores to be able to freely talk to the GPU as and when they need to, rather than each core having to wait it's turn to speak or for all CPU cores to speak through a single thread.

Also there's the matter of a HSA set-up reducing the need for excess reads and writes, along with newer Asynchronous Compute tech allowing developers to make better use of GPU time.

Developers would literally only have to pick settings for each platform, when they optimize their game. No one is saying that Q&A testing isn't going to happen or that optimization to make sure things run as they should isn't going to happen here, but you're essentially trying to invent a problem where there isn't one.

Having to optimize for 2 platforms, with the same OS/API, development tools and architecture would be very easy. Hell Nintendo's own tools would likely undergo much quicker improvements because they're not having to divide their teams between 3DS and Wii U, with each existing in a vacuum.



Around the Network

Please, can someone explain to me what's exciting about a "unified library". Nintendo never had a problem supporting 3DS, because handheld games are cheap to make: smaller, less ambitous, less cutting edge technically. The platform they struggled making content for is Wii U. So if that's the problem a unified library is supposed to fix, it can only mean we're getting more handheld quality games for the next home console. Yaay?

I don't even get what's in it for Nintendo. This industry has always been about software sales, the hardware being just a vehicle. So in the future they won't sell 1x Mario Land + 1x Mario Bros to you, but 1x Universal Mario. That's half the software sales. Yay?

Then Nintendo has always argued that they prefer tailor-making games to the strengths of each system. Scratch that, too.

Really, I'm puzzled. But I am puzzled about most of what Nintendo is doing recently.
Slightly off-topic, anybody care to hear what IMO is the one big mistake they made with Wii U, which led to all the other issues we always talk about?

It's the one year headstart. Iwata panicked and preponed the launch. As a result they didn't have a system seller, no decent launch lineup, 3rd parties didn't have time to prepare anything and decided to wait instead. Nintendo caught 3rd parties one year before they were ready to transition to the next gen, so there was no chance of receiving crucial multiplatform titles. Miyamoto's ideas were still tech demos - many still not released today, some of them became the anemic joke that is Nintendoland. So as Nintendo's own sparse lineup bombed and 3rd parties waited before even starting any projects, Wii U was done within a few months. The headstart was an awful, awful decision.

So here we are, Nintendo makes DLC figurines, announces F2P smartphone games, covers up the most barren release schedule ever with re-releases, NX looks like a cost-cutting measure... and you're excited about that?



OneTwoThree said:

Please, can someone explain to me what's exciting about a "unified library". Nintendo never had a problem supporting 3DS, because handheld games are cheap to make: smaller, less ambitous, less cutting edge technically. The platform they struggled making content for is Wii U. So if that's the problem a unified library is supposed to fix, it can only mean we're getting more handheld quality games for the next home console. Yaay?

I don't even get what's in it for Nintendo. This industry has always been about software sales, the hardware being just a vehicle. So in the future they won't sell 1x Mario Land + 1x Mario Bros to you, but 1x Universal Mario. That's half the software sales. Yay?

Then Nintendo has always argued that they prefer tailor-making games to the strengths of each system. Scratch that, too.

Really, I'm puzzled. But I am puzzled about most of what Nintendo is doing recently.
Slightly off-topic, anybody care to hear what IMO is the one big mistake they made with Wii U, which led to all the other issues we always talk about?

It's the one year headstart. Iwata panicked and preponed the launch. As a result they didn't have a system seller, no decent launch lineup, 3rd parties didn't have time to prepare anything and decided to wait instead. Nintendo caught 3rd parties one year before they were ready to transition to the next gen, so there was no chance of receiving crucial multiplatform titles. Miyamoto's ideas were still tech demos - many still not released today, some of them became the anemic joke that is Nintendoland. So as Nintendo's own sparse lineup bombed and 3rd parties waited before even starting any projects, Wii U was done within a few months. The headstart was an awful, awful decision.

So here we are, Nintendo makes DLC figurines, announces F2P smartphone games, covers up the most barren release schedule ever with re-releases, NX looks like a cost-cutting measure... and you're excited about that?

 

Handheld games are getting more expensive to make, crossing the threshold from PS2 level graphics to close to/better than PS3 graphics with the 3DS successor is likely a big turning point for Nintendo, there's no way they can continue to support progressively more advanced portables while doing the same with consoles forever. 

It also begs the question if the Nintendo portable can basically run very good looking versions of any Nintendo IP, even the extremely big scope titles like Zelda 3D and Xenoblade ... then what really is the draw for the console ... that it has good-er-er graphics? This is also a problem, most consumers will buy the portable and say that's "good enough" to get their Nintendo fix. 

The days where you *needed* a Nintendo console to play "real" Nintendo games like Mario 64 and GoldenEye and Zelda: Oot, because you could only play basic rudimentary 2D games on the Nintendo portable are long over. 

The reason for wanting to unify is fairly obvious for other reasons too ... 4/5 people buying Nintendo hardware don't buy Nintendo consoles in 2 of the last 3 generations. That means the vast majority of their userbase never plays the games they put the highest budget/most dev time (mostly) into. This generation Nintendo will sell 85 million pieces of hardware, but 70+ million of those are not a Wii U. 

That is an insanely stupid way to run your business for one. Imagine if we're running say a fast food business like McDonalds and the Big Mac (the "flagship sandwhich) is only available at 1 out of every 4 restaurants. 



JustBeingReal said:
potato_hamster said:
Soundwave said:
potato_hamster said:
zorg1000 said:
potato_hamster said:

You do in console development. It's hardware - > engine for the most part (there are some exceptions). Skip the API. You don't seem to understand that.



Why exactly do consoles have an API then?



My apologizes. I have been vague and bit misleading. Consoles do in fact use APIs in similar ways to PCs. However, consoles use two different kinds of APIs. There first kind are lower-level "to the metal" APIs that interact directly with the hardware in a way PCs do not. This is not what most people mean when they refer to APIs. These low-level APIs are more streamlined more effienct, and, are optimized specifically for the single hardware spec. The console also has higher level APIs, which interact with the OS, controllers, networking etc. this is what most people refer to when they talk about APIs.  You can still actually send commands to things like the processor or GPU directly, but this isn't as common as it used to be. I was trying to make it easier and I ended up complicating things.

It was disingenous for me to say that consoles don't use APIs to interact with the hardware. They do. But they're not the same as the APIs that PC engines use and work in a fundamentally different way that calling them APIs in my experience tends to confuse people more than it does when I say they don't really use APIs.

Here's a little blurb on exactly what I'm referring to:

http://www.psdevwiki.com/ps3/RSX#RSX_Libraries

PC APIs are equivalent to the PSGL. Consoles have layers below that, including the ability to program to directly interact with the hardware.



 

The thing is though Nintendo is not beholden to make a platform just one way. Why can't a home platform have an API setup more like the PC if at the end of the day this serves Nintendo's needs of today better? It's not as if the world would stop turning. 

And the PC industry I imagine would be a pretty different place if there were literally just 2-3 different hardware congifurations from the same exact manufacturer, period. 

They can, but they would be throwing away very much needed performance, and limiting the capability of game and engine developers in doing so.

Just because technically can be done, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so. If you have a console that's say 1.5x as poweful as the Wii U but from a development point of view it might barely more capable since their control over the device has to go through a relatively bloated API. Thus the games that come out for sucha  console, might look pretty much the same as Wii U games, aside from a few marginal improvements,  then consumers might have a hard time seeing the point of "upgrading".

Might not be the best move just to make development on multiple platforms easier when there are plenty of other things Nintendo can do to bridge that gap without pulling off such a dramatic move.

 

Nintendo wouldn't be throwing anything away, they'd be gaining so much more, because resources aren't dedicated to making games for 2 or more separate platforms.

Also you're ignoring DX12, Vulkan and Mantle, all of which are not bloated APIs, rather they're all low level and you know what? It's not necessarily the level of abstraction that brings performance gains anyway, it's the ability for all CPU cores to be able to freely talk to the GPU as and when they need to, rather than each core having to wait it's turn to speak or for all CPU cores to speak through a single thread.

Also there's the matter of a HSA set-up reducing the need for excess reads and writes, along with newer Asynchronous Compute tech allowing developers to make better use of GPU time.

Developers would literally only have to pick settings for each platform, when they optimize their game. No one is saying that Q&A testing isn't going to happen or that optimization to make sure things run as they should isn't going to happen here, but you're essentially trying to invent a problem where there isn't one.

Having to optimize for 2 platforms, with the same OS/API, development tools and architecture would be very easy. Hell Nintendo's own tools would likely undergo much quicker improvements because they're not having to divide their teams between 3DS and Wii U, with each existing in a vacuum.

I'm not inventing a problem where there isn't one. I'm taking a very pracitcal stance to this, and while none of what you're saying is false per se, it's very let's say "theoretical" in the sense that it looks good on paper, but not in the real world. This is a legit concern that you're completely undermining. You're downplaying how difficult such a thing would be to do. It absolutely isn't trivial. It certainly isn't "very easy". It might be "theoretically possible" but Nintendo has to execute this idea of yours. Nintendo has to develop an API that is not only super low-level, but incredibly powerful so that developers can just "pick the settings" (making it very high level) but all of the calculations that involve executing these settings have to be carried out on an a razor thin API using little to no processing time or resources (otherwise it's not low level). Are you seeing a problem here? Sure it might "be possible" but it certainly isn't practical.

On top of that, the team that would be doing it is Nintendo. Have you ever had to work with Nintendo? Used their Dev kits or test kits? Used their developer tools? Called up Nintendo developer support? I have. Let me tell you - They are about a decade behind where Sony and Microsoft are right now in terms of making developer tools that are actually useful compared to Sony and MS's offerings. I'm not joking - the original Xbox's developer tools are better and more powerful than the Wii U's in a lot of ways. And now you're going to take a team that for all intents and purposes has been mailing it in for generations, and now make the most advanced, sophisticated, yet light weight and easy to use API the video game development world has ever seen. And you tell me it will be "easy" for them? Sorry. It isn't easy. It's not trivial. Not for anyone, and not for Nintendo.

In an ideal world, sure developers would "only have to choose" x or y to get their game running on a different spec console, and the lightweight API would just make the magic happen, and *poof* game on new platform with minimal testing. But realistically, you and I both know that would be an incredible achievement, would likely win Nintendo dozens of engineering and desgin awards world-wide if they pulled it off. I do not have that confidence in them. Its fine that you think that Nintendo can pull that off, but I'm taking a far more realistic and grounded approach.


P.S. I also love how you act as if this isn't the funamental issue, but and then chalk it up to something that from what I can see, cannot be solved with an API. The ability for CPU core to send and recieve commands from the GPU simultaneously little to do with the API, and far more to do with the hardware design itself. No amount of API coding is going to get around a hardware bottleneck, and create new physical communcation channels where there are none. But I suppose you think that's trivial as well - making super lightweight ultra powerful APIs getting hardware to do something it's not designed to do. Maybe it's theoretically possible, but in the real world, a team actually has to program it to work that way, and that would not be trivial.



Soundwave said:

1) Handheld games are getting more expensive to make, crossing the threshold from PS2 level graphics to close to/better than PS3 graphics with the 3DS successor is likely a big turning point for Nintendo, there's no way they can continue to support progressively more advanced portables while doing the same with consoles forever. 

2) It also begs the question if the Nintendo portable can basically run very good looking versions of any Nintendo IP, even the extremely big scope titles like Zelda 3D and Xenoblade ... then what really is the draw for the console ... that it has good-er-er graphics? This is also a problem, most consumers will buy the portable and say that's "good enough" to get their Nintendo fix. 

The days where you *needed* a Nintendo console to play "real" Nintendo games like Mario 64 and GoldenEye and Zelda: Oot, because you could only play basic rudimentary 2D games on the Nintendo portable are long over. 

3) The reason for wanting to unify is fairly obvious for other reasons too ... 4/5 people buying Nintendo hardware don't buy Nintendo consoles in 2 of the last 3 generations. That means the vast majority of their userbase never plays the games they put the highest budget/most dev time (mostly) into. This generation Nintendo will sell 85 million pieces of hardware, but 70+ million of those are not a Wii U. 

That is an insanely stupid way to run your business for one. Imagine if we're running say a fast food business like McDonalds and the Big Mac (the "flagship sandwhich) is only available at 1 out of every 4 restaurants. 

1) It's always been like this. Nintendo was wise enough to keep all their handhelds lo-tech, and they sell regardless. 

2) Why? Why should there be no market for epic cutting-edge AAA games when PS4 and PC are hugely successful with exactly these? How are an Ocarina port and a Xenoblade port proof that you don't need a powerful home console for new big Nintendo games? *I* know I want the next Zelda, and I want it to be as epic and beautiful as it can be.

3) You're looking at it backwards. Of course it makes no sense right now - because Wii U already flopped! But the reason is not that there's no demand for AAA games. It's because they messed up the time schedule to build momentum, causing a devil's circle of no software -> no install base -> no new developments -> repeat. 



OneTwoThree said:

Please, can someone explain to me what's exciting about a "unified library". Nintendo never had a problem supporting 3DS, because handheld games are cheap to make: smaller, less ambitous, less cutting edge technically. The platform they struggled making content for is Wii U. So if that's the problem a unified library is supposed to fix, it can only mean we're getting more handheld quality games for the next home console. Yaay?

I don't even get what's in it for Nintendo. This industry has always been about software sales, the hardware being just a vehicle. So in the future they won't sell 1x Mario Land + 1x Mario Bros to you, but 1x Universal Mario. That's half the software sales. Yay?

 

They have struggled to supply 3DS with adequate software at times as well. Remember the post-launch drought in 2011? 2012 wasn't really a killer year in terms of Nintendo-published titles either. 2014 & 2015 both saw summer droughts. This will continue to get worse as their devices get more powerful and require longer dev cycles and larger budgets. Let's say, the 3DS successor is above Vita level & the Wii U successor is around PS4 level. Do u think they can supply either device with a steady supply of software? Probably not.

Look at 2015, 3DS lacked really big software titles but had a solid amount of small/mid size titles while Wii U had a few really big games but lacked in quantity. The combined output was pretty solid throughout with a nice range of small/medium/large games.

February-The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask 3D+Kirby & the Rainbow Curse+Pokémon Shuffle

March-Codename STEAM+Fossil Fighters: Frontier+Mario Party 10+Mario vs Donkey Kong: Tipping Stars

April-Pokemon Rumble World+Boxboy!+Xenoblade Chronicles 3D

May-Stretchmo+Puzzles & Dragons: Super Mario Edition+Splatoon

June-Art Academy: Home Studio+Dr. Mario: Miracle Cure

September-Super Mario Maker+Animal Crossing: Happy Home Designer

October-Chibi Robo: Zip Lash+Yoshi's Woolly World+The Legend of Zelda: Triforce Heroes

November-Nintendo Badge Arcade+Animal Crossing: Amiibo Festival+Mario Tennis: Ultra Smash+Pokémon Super Mystery Dungeon

December-Pokemon Picross+Xenoblade Chronicles X

A bit of a summer drought in there but with a unified platform they can afford to spread things out a bit more resulting in an average of 2-3 Nintendo games per month.



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