I expect them to have about 2-3 new IPs to appeal to casuals. They will launch them and have a new Brain Age to appeal to casuals. Now what about the core?

They are building a new R&D center in Kyoto. A big one, though whether that will entail more game development capacity or just more R&D (which at the end of the day is just higher operating expenses in the short term) remains to be seen

I've heard of Xenoblade but what the hell is Soma Bringer? Is that some Japan only game or something?

If I haven’t seen them or heard about them then they do not exist ;)

I think they should bring the brain age type of games and of course keep on making the hardcore games they are bringing us now.

Focusing on just the hardcore is stupid!   

i'll be interested to see what they come up with. wii sports, wii fit, brain age, nintendogs were obviously massively successful last gen while wii music certainly was not. ..so a new genre isn't guarenteed to mean success but it should at least be something worth paying attention to.

It'll be interesting to see what they come up with. New genres aren't exactly easy to come up with nowadays, especially with so many games incorporating multiple genres at once.

Wow this is a very warped sense of major. UbiSoft and Sega have both publically said if a title breaks the 500,000 mark it is considered a success. High Voltage talked of how The Conduit was a success and several other publishers and developers have named major IP which barely go over the million mark.

By your standards Fable isn't a major franchise for Microsoft either Forza 3 is the first title to come near to 5-mill, Resistence, MotorStorm, Killzone, Ratchet & Clank, God Of War,  Socom, Jak and Daxter. According to you Sony only has about 3 major franchises and all the rest of their games are meh or failures. lol

Accordning to you third parties don't have many "Major" franchises either. In fact if we limited the third party software to a single platform which would make it a fair comparison to first party software. There are almost no "major" games. A major success is 1-million in sales and higher depending on the development budget. If the game is an insainly expensive title then it isn't a major success at one million but for the most part the majority of software is a success if it sells more then a million copies.

When considering something a major franchise you must again include factors like hardware numbers. Animal Crossing on DS sold more then any of the GameCube games to date.

It seems you have diluted yourself to the fact that only big budget 5-20 million selling games are important or major. That is a very flawed idea. Yes of course every publisher drives for that one franchise that breaks 5-million or so copies but in all honesty the majority do not and those titles are still major titles! I mean Street Fighter, Tekken in fact even big titles like Metal Gear Solid don't consistantly sell 5-million copies the third didn't make it far past 4-mill.

As for me mocking you, yah I only said lol to show how radiculous your statement was and not to actually mock you. Fact is every title I listed as being major were most definitly major. In fact considering the sales of the GameCube hardware each of those titles that sold more then a million copies were very much major titles to Nintendo.

As for Nintendogs, no its not a major franchise. It had one majorly successful title but you can't classify an IP based on a single title being successful. The franchise needs to prove it can deliver and is important to Nintendo. Nintendo thought exactly the way you do and launched Nintendogz+Catz thinking it was a major title. But guess what that major title is sitting at the one million mark with three versions on the market many consumers even buying two to all three versions themselves. This shows that yah Nintendogs is a major franchise by my definition (Selling a million copies or more) but by your definition it is an epic failure.

Another flawed statement. What sequels to GameCube games are you refering to when you say this holiday Nintendo isn't doing anything right to secure its base? What GameCube sequels are you refering too? I am trying to think and I can't think of any GameCube sequels on 3DS that came out this year or are coming out soon.

Then your statement that I am living in the past and GameCube/N64 titles are not good for the future of Nintendo. Nintendo needs to work on its successful DS and Wii franchises. You mean like Animal Crossing (DS sold over 11-million copies) or how about the N64 classic SuperMario64:DS which sold nearly 10-million copies. Or how about far less popular titles like WarioWare which sold over 2-million copies on DS. Or what about SmashBros a franchise that began on N64 and bloomed during GameCube. Or MarioParty?

I am not living in the past I am looking towards the future. The Nintendo franchises Nintendo established during the N64 and GameCube generations are some of their strongest properties.

P.S- I'd love to point out a little more hypocracy you clearly state in your reply "the core gets redefined with every passing generation." yet you have claimed that 2D Mario is the core for Nintendo which would appear to suggest that it is consistent from generation to generation. You have also made comments about how Nintendo's changing to much and that Nintendo fans want the old core games. But if the core changes with each generation why would Nintendo release the old core games?

Why do I have such admiration for GameCube? Because Nintendo survived, Sega bit the dust Sony grew its market share by one third and Microsoft entered the industry actually beating Nintendo's hardware sales. Nintendo systems were actually being pulled by some retailers the year after launch because the console was crashing so badly. But Nintendo turned the console around and made it successful , so much so that during that generation Nintendo profitted more then the PS2 profitted Sony. Nintendo's first party software proved that those games could actually sell the hardware.

GameCube had almost no third party support it was all up to Nintendo's first party titles to make the console a success. Nintendo's first party titles on GameCube were some of the best titles Nintendo has made. Nintendo proved they could release a high quality product and survive the biggest blow to a manufacturer since the 80's.

Then as you admit those GameCubesequelsplayed a massive role in selling Nintendo Wii and DS. Nintendo's franchises don't often go belly up if they were successful. GameCube/N64 generation games are a huge factor determining much of the future of Nintendo as are new games and classic games. Ignoring the GameCube generation specifically because the software doesn't live up to your insanly unrealistic sales expectations is moronic.

*** PS my use of Moronic and lol are meant to outline how outlandish your statements have been not to personally insult you!

Yah I was aware of that, however I am sceptical as to whether that facility will be used to develop games. Nintendo changed most of its game R&D facilities name to EAD or other studio names rather then using R&D in the majority of them.  Of course five of the six EAD divisions are in Kyoto. So this new R&D facility could be an addition to EAD which would be amazing.

This new R&D facility is supposedly going to house 1,500 employees while the current facility houses only 500. Now the question is are these 1,000 employees going to be new to the company? New assets or will Nintendo simply be moving a ton of their operations to this new facility?

If the facilities primary goal is the creation of software then this would be great. A little late but very good none the less, Nintendo could produce almost 2/3rds more games from its EAD division assuming the majority of the facility was to work on software.

Maybe they'll introduce the 3DS Vitality Sensor for these new genres.

lol this drive to point out your mistakes is because you are always striving to point out mine. If you weren't always out to get me I wouldn't have a need to point out your flaws. Not to mention a lot of flaws you find in my posts and I find in yours are entirely opinion based and often not 100% factual. In the end your never going to completely agree with my posts and I won't with yours. But constantly trying to find faults in every topic I create does make me more critical of yours. I usually don't pick out all the faults of users beliefs because they are for the most part opinions. However your need to constantly pick out every single flaw that you can find is definitely going to lead to me doing likewise.

Your first statement of what makes a major IP is opinion based, yet earlier in this thread you said it was factual. My idea that 1-million copies made a title major was also largely opinion based because much smaller performing titles are still considered major. Eternal Darkness rumored to have sold only 300,000 copies globally is a major IP to Silicon Knights. Why? well the title is one of their highest performing games and important to having got them where they are. Is the franchise major? Not really because we haven't seen whether it can potentially match the success Eternal Darkness had even though to Nintendo the title may not have been major. As I mentioned Street Fighter and Tekken are both major franchises as are almost all of Sony's IP. When deciding if a title is major or not you can't base it entirely on raw sales figures.

The IP's started on N64/GameCube do not just look so strong because they are supported more by Nintendo. They look so strong because they have managed to hold up and maintain sales despite generation to generation shifts. You said yourself that the core gamer population changes with each generation. If that is the case a franchise that can sell a couple million copies every generation regardless of change in the gamers is a great franchise. What other IP's are you suggesting would out perform GCN/N64 games? the Wii series? BrainAge? Nintendogs? I seem to recall BrainAge bombing on home consoles.

Also if VGChartz data on Super Nintendo is factual. Then many of the GameCube/N64 games actually out sold the classic titles found on Super Nintendo despite having fewer hardware units. As I said if you look at hardware quantities and factor that in as you say you did then the GameCube/N64 IP are considered major if not bigger and more important than many of Nintendo's classic IP.

Nintendo also lost a lot of gamers from Nintendo64 to GameCube. Also why did Nintendo lose all those gamers? Was it really the lack of 2D classics? I mean PSOne didn't have all that many 2D classics either.

No GameCube sequels on DS? You really want to suggest that? Animal Crossing was one of the most successful titles on DS and it was a direct sequel to Animal Crossing on GCN. Unless you say Animal Forests release on N64 makes the franchise not a GameCube franchise. However note in my earlier comments I took issue with your statements about N64/GameCube and not just GameCube. I am a staunch supporter of GameCube and N64 and in fact all of Nintendo's past consoles. But I found that GameCube had the most amazing games on a console since NES. Not that I devalue NES but GameCube's software was simply amazing and it did sell extremely well considering the hardwares market share.

In fact you mention the 20+ million copy games as being so important. Yet bundled titles SuperMarioBros and DuckHunt were the only two games that beat the twenty million mark. On a console with over 60-million gamers the fourth most successful game sold under 10-million units. On SNES we see only two titles break the ten million mark and N64 had only one, however many other franchises out performed SNES. later GameCube franchises also performed very well especially considering the hardware sales.

As for GameCube's importance to Nintendo's survival. GBA sold a shit load and was definitely more influential in saving Nintendo then GameCube. However GBA was not successful enough on its own to lead Nintendo to higher profits then Sony. GameCube software and hardware sales wracked in a shit load for Nintendo. The console is a big reason Nintendo survived especially the home front, many suggested Nintendo abandon home consoles but GameCube kept the home console alive.

You belittle N64 and GameCube all the time, but they are and were extremely important to Nintendo's survival. Also you mention lost consumers but we do know many GameCube consumers left Nintendo at launch of Wii. I can't state facts but just looking at sales of some of the GCN sequels it is apparent that some did indeed leave.

Face it the reason Nintendo focuses so heavily on the N64 and GCN franchises and titles is because those are the titles that saved their asses. They performed almost as well as the classics did if you go by attach rates. If you don't go by attach rates many of the N64 and GameCube titles still held up to a ton of the leading NES/SNES games as I point out above. Its obvious that N64/GCN played a massive role in Nintendo's survival and a massive role in the success of not only Wii but DS as well.

P.S- Super Mario 3D Land is in no way a Sunshine sequel. In fact it isn't a Galaxy sequel or a 64 sequel. If you had actually played it like I have you'd note it is a mixture of all of the past Mario games. Their are gameplay assets from NES to Wii, rather then Nintendo focusing entirely on 2D side scrolling like NSMB or 3D platforming like MarioGalaxy they mixed all the gameplay together. Their hope was that classic and current gamers would all enjoy the new title. Don't mock it till you play, no it isn't NSMB but it isn't 64/Sunshine either. I'd say the closest it would come is to a mix between Galaxy and SuperMarioBros(NES).Also you mention Paper Mario as a GameCube franchise when in fact it was a 64 franchise and if you want to trace the RPG Mario to its past your left with SNES.

Also another reason they are likely caring so much about the GameCube franchises is because they know the gamers that bought the N64/GameCube franchises were the same ones that kept those consoles alive. In 3DS's case the console needs software that Nintendo knows will solidify the base. They need to know they have a customer base that will buy their software regardless of genre etc...etc..

Also lastly the Luigi's Mansion thing, this has nothing to do with Nintendo's love of GameCube. It is solely because the 3D concept was born with Luigi's Mansion but the technology didn't exist for Nintendo to make the product they wanted. So now that the technology exists Nintendo is going back to produce the game they always intended to make. You'll note if you listen to Iwata and Miyamoto's statements that both believe in pursuing a franchise till it reaches your original vision. Miyamoto has stated Mario still hasn't reached what he originally envisioned and he will continue to pursue his original hopes and dreams till the franchise satisfies him!

Nintendo isn't a company that produces games solely for sales either. They create games that they want to create and they hope consumers will purchase those games. That's why Nintendo hasn't heavily invested in an FPS yet, I mean they know GoldenEye was huge on N64 yet on GameCube they only published Giest and they really didn't put the money or talent behind the game to make it great. Nintendo cares more about making quality software then making high selling software. Which is to an extent wrong business wise however it has worked out well for them. Consumers want a high quality new gaming experience, even if they aren't the majority their is more then enough of them to keep Nintendo's consoles afloat!