Soundwave said: Dr.Henry_Killinger said: Soundwave said: Assuming there is no expensive gimmick controller to weight the price of the console down, I'd say Nintendo could sell such a console in the $349.99 launch price range at cost/modest profit in time for late 2015.  Why would the core demographic chose a Nintendo console? Well a lot of them wouldn't, but that's a bit besides the point, Nintendo's goal there wouldn't be to beat the PS4, just to ensure themselves a decent slice of the pie and I think there is enough weakness in what Microsoft has done that a door could open for Nintendo.  Something 3x more powerful than an X1 + free online play + the bonus of a few core Nintendo IP that players may still have a soft spot for (ie: Zelda or Metroid) could make for a more attractive proposition than an X1. If they could sell 30-35 million of this 'high end' variant and another 18 million Wii Us ... suddenly that's almost 50 million consoles that Nintendo has to sell a game like Zelda U to ... which sure beats the grim scenario they're looking at right now.  It would flop, I'm talking sub-Ouya sales. Only the Niche, Niche Audience would buy it, and it would euthanize the Wii U. I doubt it. It would have the best multi-plat versions of a lot of games, especially as developers start pushing the better PC cards, they'll find that the PS4/X1 can't do a lot of those games justice without compromise. The Wii U would be the one with a niche audience.  I think it would actually probably extend the software life of the Wii U too, because Nintendo could then afford to continue making games with Wii U as the base version and just up-porting them to the new platform for a longer time. Whereas now, lets be honest, Nintendo is likely to drop the Wii U like bad habit after 2015.

The definetive non-existent versions of multiplats. -500 Developer Support, -900 Consumer Support, +2 Nintendo Niche

I wouldn't be mad, I'd be sad that Nintendo's gonna lose even more money after this thing sells even worse than the Wii U. I mean really, other than sell worse, the only other thing this does different from Wii U is change third party reasoning for not putting games on the system to it's install base compared to PS4/X1 rather than it's specs.

Einsam_Delphin said: I wouldn't be mad, I'd be sad that Nintendo's gonna lose even more money after this thing sells even worse than the Wii U. I mean really, other than sell worse, the only other thing this does different from Wii U is change third party reasoning for not putting games on the system to it's install base compared to PS4/X1 rather than it's specs.

Waive the licensing fees for the first year. That would get a lot of attention from third parties if the system is basically a PC GPU. What's Nintendo really got to lose here anyway, they're not getting games like Kingdom Hearts III and FFXV on the Wii U as is, so waiving the devleopment fee or say dropping it to $0 on the first 400,000 copies of any game also gives third parties a very attraction option to explore. You're effectively making them want to sell more of the Nintendo version than any other version because they'd be making the most profit there.

That's a business model third parties can understand, the Wii U is one that makes no sense to them. 

There is no conspiracy against Nintendo from third parties any more than the frustrated guy who can't get a girlfriend thinks women have a conspiracy against him. No dude, you don't have a girlfriend because you don't approach any girls, have bad personal hygiene, and expect women to come to you. Nintendo is that guy, the good news is there's nothing stopping that dude from fixing those issues, it just takes a slice of humble pie and a reality check that he is the one at fault, not the entire population of women. 

It´s not going to happen, simple as that.
At most, Nintendo next home console won´t be coming before 2016 holidays
There´s no reason for them to drop support for WiiU so soon as next year.

Rogerioandrade said: It´s not going to happen, simple as that. At most, Nintendo next home console won´t be coming before 2016 holidays There´s no reason for them to drop support for WiiU so soon as next year.

Does the iOS ecosystem drop support for older iPhone/iPad models when a new one comes out? 

Think in that paradigm, not the 1980s/1990s centric view of product upgrades. Those days are coming to a close, even by Iwata's own comments he states Nintendo cannot think that way anymore. Times have changed, Nintendo will have to change too. 

The way Nintendo transitions from console to console right now is simply put -- not very good. You basically are throwing away everything good you may have done from the previous generation and forcing yourself to start from zero ... it's kind of a stupid way to do business honestly. 

Imagine if Coca-Cola had to reboot their brand every 5 years and re-prove themselves to consumers and open themselves up to being toppled by any number of factors due to such a transition. It would be insane, they would never stand for such a business model, in the game business we just do that because that's how it was in 1991, but I think even now its dawning on many game companies that this setup isn't very good at all. 

The model of software (apps) and have they integrate with hardware upgrades that Apple and Google use simply put is superior. 

Soundwave said: zorg1000 said: Soundwave said: zorg1000 said: How much would this console thats as powerful as PS4+X1 combined cost? And why would the gamers that prefer the big 3rd party titles switch to Nintendo if they already have a console that caters to them? By fall 2015-2016 the sports/racing/shooter/sandbox/western RPG crowds will be firmly established on the competitors consoles Well a AMD 7970 GPU which is $399.99 at the consumer level today in early 2014. That clocks in at 3.87 TFLOPs, which is more than the PS4 + X1 combined (1.8TFLOPS + 1.2 TFLOPS). That's obviously a basic breakdown, but truth is such a GPU would smoke a PS4 or X1 and probably will be a lot more affordable to Nintendo by late 2015.  So how much would the console cost? I assume if its a good deal more powerful than either of them that would also make it more expensive, PS4/X1 will likely be around $299-349 by fall 2015 so would Nintendo's new console be $399 or more? And u didnt answer my other question, why would the core demographic that plays sports/racing/shooters/sandbox/western RPG choose Nintendo over the others? Call of Duty, Destiny, Battlefield, Assassin's Creed, Watch Dogs, The Crew, Need For Speed, EA Sports, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Far Cry, The Witcher, Grand Theft Auto among others will have established fanbases on PS4/X1 by the end of 2015 with established online communities. There is literally no reason to believe that just because Nintendo releases a powerful console that it will all of a sudden start to sell well and have great 3rd party sales. Assuming there is no expensive gimmick controller to weight the price of the console down, I'd say Nintendo could sell such a console in the $349.99 launch price range at cost/modest profit in time for late 2015. Nintendo would have to compromise on the heavily customized aspects of the chipset though and simply use a more off-the-shelf part (which means ridiculously low power consumption or tiny console design, it would have to be the size of an NES at least).  Why would the core demographic chose a Nintendo console? Well a lot of them wouldn't, but that's a bit besides the point, Nintendo's goal there wouldn't be to beat the PS4, just to ensure themselves a decent slice of the pie and I think there is enough weakness in what Microsoft has done that a door could open for Nintendo.  Something 3x more powerful than an X1 + free online play + the bonus of a few core Nintendo IP that players may still have a soft spot for (ie: Zelda or Metroid) could make for a more attractive proposition than an X1. If they could sell 30-35 million of this 'high end' variant and another 18 million Wii Us ... suddenly that's almost 50 million consoles that Nintendo has to sell a game like Zelda U to ... which sure beats the grim scenario they're looking at right now.

Ok so a console thats equel to or greater in price and moderately more powerful than its competitors, with free online but no established online community, trying to steal some of the core demographic of 3rd party gamers from consoles with large install bases and established fanbases of said 3rd party core games. Sounds alot like Wii U vs PS3/360 in 2012-2013 doesnt it?

Soundwave said: Einsam_Delphin said: I wouldn't be mad, I'd be sad that Nintendo's gonna lose even more money after this thing sells even worse than the Wii U. I mean really, other than sell worse, the only other thing this does different from Wii U is change third party reasoning for not putting games on the system to it's install base compared to PS4/X1 rather than it's specs. Waive the licensing fees for the first year. That would get a lot of attention from third parties if the system is basically a PC GPU. What's Nintendo really got to lose here anyway, they're not getting games like Kingdom Hearts III and FFXV on the Wii U as is, so waiving the devleopment fee or say dropping it to $0 on the first 400,000 copies of any game also gives third parties a very low risk option to explore.  That's a business model third parties can understand, the Wii U is one that makes no sense to them.

Yeah they might explore it, just like they did with the Wii U, then they'll back off again once their games don't sell. Now seeing as the majority buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games, the real problem with this thing is from what you said, this new system and the Wii U will have the same games, hence the new system is doomed to sell less than the Wii U as it'll be much cheaper and have an already established base by the time this thing comes out.

zorg1000 said: Soundwave said: zorg1000 said: Soundwave said: zorg1000 said: How much would this console thats as powerful as PS4+X1 combined cost? And why would the gamers that prefer the big 3rd party titles switch to Nintendo if they already have a console that caters to them? By fall 2015-2016 the sports/racing/shooter/sandbox/western RPG crowds will be firmly established on the competitors consoles Well a AMD 7970 GPU which is $399.99 at the consumer level today in early 2014. That clocks in at 3.87 TFLOPs, which is more than the PS4 + X1 combined (1.8TFLOPS + 1.2 TFLOPS). That's obviously a basic breakdown, but truth is such a GPU would smoke a PS4 or X1 and probably will be a lot more affordable to Nintendo by late 2015.  So how much would the console cost? I assume if its a good deal more powerful than either of them that would also make it more expensive, PS4/X1 will likely be around $299-349 by fall 2015 so would Nintendo's new console be $399 or more? And u didnt answer my other question, why would the core demographic that plays sports/racing/shooters/sandbox/western RPG choose Nintendo over the others? Call of Duty, Destiny, Battlefield, Assassin's Creed, Watch Dogs, The Crew, Need For Speed, EA Sports, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Far Cry, The Witcher, Grand Theft Auto among others will have established fanbases on PS4/X1 by the end of 2015 with established online communities. There is literally no reason to believe that just because Nintendo releases a powerful console that it will all of a sudden start to sell well and have great 3rd party sales. Assuming there is no expensive gimmick controller to weight the price of the console down, I'd say Nintendo could sell such a console in the $349.99 launch price range at cost/modest profit in time for late 2015. Nintendo would have to compromise on the heavily customized aspects of the chipset though and simply use a more off-the-shelf part (which means ridiculously low power consumption or tiny console design, it would have to be the size of an NES at least).  Why would the core demographic chose a Nintendo console? Well a lot of them wouldn't, but that's a bit besides the point, Nintendo's goal there wouldn't be to beat the PS4, just to ensure themselves a decent slice of the pie and I think there is enough weakness in what Microsoft has done that a door could open for Nintendo.  Something 3x more powerful than an X1 + free online play + the bonus of a few core Nintendo IP that players may still have a soft spot for (ie: Zelda or Metroid) could make for a more attractive proposition than an X1. If they could sell 30-35 million of this 'high end' variant and another 18 million Wii Us ... suddenly that's almost 50 million consoles that Nintendo has to sell a game like Zelda U to ... which sure beats the grim scenario they're looking at right now.  Ok so a console thats equel to or greater in price and moderately more powerful than its competitors, with free online but no established online community, trying to steal some of the core demographic of 3rd party gamers from consoles with large install bases and established fanbases of said 3rd party core games. Sounds alot like Wii U vs PS3/360 in 2012-2013 doesnt it?

Well first off, the Wii U is not 3x more powerful than PS3-360 (sorry, nope). Part of that is because MS actually made a very high end system last time, but this time they made a mistake in going lower power, so it would be much easier for Nintendo to out-spec MS in a real meaningful way now, hell Sony is even doing it without benefit of a later launch date. 

Also Wii U in 2012 was coming out the tail end of this generation, to make your analogy work, the Wii U would be something that would launch in 2009 or so, in which case, sure perhaps things would be quite different right now as Nintendo would have years and years to iron out their issues and third parties would be more receptive to a technically relevant console for its time, rather than something that's showing up just as developers are starting to really focus on the next generation. 

I do think there are a ton of Wii owners that ended up buying a PS3 or 360 after 2009 because they simply got tired of Wii Sports and in effect, the PS3/360 already filled the oppurtunity gap that Nintendo had with Wii U. What's so special about the Wii U? It's an HD Wii ... well ok, but those people already bought a PS3 or 360, so what else does it have? A tablet controller? I already have an iPad. That's pretty much the beginning and end of the Wii U. 

Timing really can be everything in this business. 

Soundwave said: TornadoCreator said: I would be extremely pissed off. I think the Wii U is one of the finest consoles of all time, and much like the Dreamcast before it, it exists at a time where it's goals and mine coincide. I can be playing Donkey Kong or Mario on the GamePad while having something else on the main TV, like a sitcom, stand up comedy, or comfortable show I know well like Buffy The Vampire Slayer. I can lay in bed and play like I do with my Vita/3DS. This is how I want my console. This is perfect for me... What I want from Nintendo is a one-console solution. A console that is both a home console and a true handheld in one. When you're in the house you use the TV and GamePad, but on the move you can take the GamePad with you, like you would your DS and play it on the move. You could even have it backwards compatible with both the Wii U and 3DS games. Allowing you to play Wii U games on the move, and play 3DS games on your big TV. This is the future I hope Nintendo go for, I'm not sure how they'd do it exactly, but it'd be awesome if they could. I'm watching out eagerly for the announcement of the Nintendo DSU in 2017-2018, and if it happens I will name myself forever a loyal Nintendo fan. What I don't want though is a Hardcore HD Console, filled with grizzled brown haired men with guns grimacing at each other. We have plenty of consoles who do that already. I would consider it the death of Nintendo if they actively started courting the Playstation/Xbox gamers with promises of hardcore testosterone romps. I would morn them and move on. The last bastion of the carefree fun, Nintendo must remain as it is... it cannot die, it was hard enough losing Sega, let's not do that again. So, would I be angry, YES! I'd be fucking livid. It would be an outright betrayal. You have 6 million people here Nintendo, and likely another 6 million still wanting to join who are simply waiting till they have the money to jump in, or waiting for a game like Smash Bros. or Mario Kart to make the switch over. I know at least 4 people who are currently saying, "I'm thinking of getting a Wii U soon". These people all believe in you. Don't let us down for the millions of CoD-kiddies out there who couldn't give a rats arse about Nintendo. We saved the princess, we killed mother brain, we rescued the seven sages. We threw the red shell, we captured the pikachu, and we found the banana horde. We're here to stay... look after us and you'll get my money every year, I promise you that Nintendo. If you leave us for the CoD-kiddies though, I won't be coming back. Have you seen what Mistress Sony can do with an OLED screen? Think about it. Yeah it's great that Nintendo is different, but at the same time I think 90% of shoppers are starting to say they don't want to buy a console just for 3-4 Nintendo games a year. If people are going to invest $200-$500 on a home console they expect access to a full library of content from all developers, and honestly I can't blame the consumer for expecting this. When you buy a Blu-Ray or DVD player would you be OK with just 4-6 high quality movies released on it per year?  I think the name of the entertainment business has simply  changed from one in which companies' could dictate what consumers would buy and how to a new era where consumers say "we want the widest variety of content and we want to consume it how we want, not how you tell us". That's how the smartphone/tablet has emboldened consumers, they expect more nowadays, how a lot of companies did business in the 80s and 90s simply doesn't cut the mustard any more (this goes for Sony as much as Nintendo, but their video game division at least has their act together). This is why a lot of people simply won't touch a Windows phone, no matter how high quality it is ... it doesn't have access to same number of apps as iOS or Google Play offer.  The Super NES was fairly similar hardware wise and even library wise (in some ways) to the Sega Genesis? Do you confuse the two even remotely? Of course not. A Nintendo console is always unique for the fact that it has Nintendo exclusives on it, it doesn't need a controller shaped like a sex toy or be painted purple to stand out. Nintendo hardware is always distinct even if they do pump up the testeroterone ... the N64 was certainly a bit more testerterone fused than say the Wii, but that doesn't make it a Playstation derivative.  I think internally too, Nintendo's main enemey may actually not be Sony/MS anymore, that may also be a dated perspective. There are plenty of cartoony games making a huge impact on the market ... the problem is they are sheparding in the age of the 99 cent "throwaway" game (but you notice how many cartoony console games are flopping nowadays? W101, Rayman, Tearaway, Puppeteer, LBP Karting, etc. etc.). That audience is being eaten up smartphones/tablets ... perhaps the time has come for Nintendo to consider a more balanced approach, going back maybe more to a N64-style approach, just one that isn't crippled without third party games.

Those games aren't all flops. Rayman is doing well, and Tearaway is one of the best recieved games on the Vita. Sure they're not CoD level, but what is... expecting that is just stupid.

The question I'd want to ask though, is what do you mean by N64-style approach? Stunted, unwilling to move with the times, outdated on release, and highly over-rated perhaps? Seriously I consider the Nintendo 64 to be the single most over-rated games console in the history of the medium, and this is the same medium that has people waxing nostalgic for the NES and paying £100+ per cart because it's "classic". The Nintendo 64 was no only outdated on release, it had a piss-poor library of games, terrible third party support, and used an outdated medium for it's games so when it did get third party games like Spider-Man bits where cut from the game due to memory issues. Add in one of the least comfortable controllers ever made that wasn't made for an Atari console, and you've got one of the turds of gaming. In fact the only reason the Nintendo 64 is even slightly popular is it's EXACTLY the right age and sold under the perfect conditions in USA especially that all the American gamers in their 20's now where children when it released. The funny thing about Nostalgia is it turns perfectly reasonable people into complete idiots and now todays 21 year old where 5 years old when that console released... that makes them the perfect age to run game review channels on YouTube, gaming blogs, or forums, etc. and spread their opinions to other misinformed nostalgic 20'somethings all of whom also seem to think Super Mario 64 and Ocarina Of Time are masterpeices we've yet to come close to replicating. You live in that echo chamber long enough and you start to genuinely believe that these are the "greatest games evar!!!1!!!one!!!" when in actual fact they're decent, if a bit repetitive, predictable, and bland; but for early 3D they where a good attempt.

As for style, the things that make the N64 famous are Mario, Zelda, Smash Bros. Banjo Kazooie, Donkey Kong... where's the testosterone you speak of? Sure there's GoldenEye and Perfect Dark, and that's about it really. Nothing else stands out as especially "mature", there's extremely childish games like Conkers Bad Fur Day, filled with toilet humour and swearing, effectively a 13 year olds idea of maturity, but nothing overly mature there. All I'm getting at is that the Wii U is thankfully not like the N64. It's an elegant example of childish fun that children and adults can enjoy equally, much like the SNES and indeed the Wii. If anything the mature Nintendo console was the GameCube, with Resident Evil, Metroid Prime, Eternal Darkness, Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes, and the only mature styled Zelda game to date, Twilight Princess. That is the Nintendo console much maligned. The GameCube is the console people should be looking back on fondly. Fixing every single issue the N64 had, and still keeping a good selection of Nintendo classics including Mario Kart, Smash Bros, Super Mario Sunshine, and the start of Pikmin and Luigi's Mansion.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not having a go and I do genuinely wonder what you meant by "N64-approach", and if I've understood you correctly, even if my sincere dislike of the N64 may have caused me to rant somewhat. I do honestly think I'd rather have Nintendo around making niche consoles with their own games, than have them try to move along to the mass market appeal. I don't want dark and gritty Mario or emo-Donkey Kong just because colour and happiness makes the CoD-kiddies interested... after all, there's only one Nintendo console the CoD-kiddies ever liked, and it was the one with GoldenEye on it, because all they want is to make themselves feel all grown up by shooting guns, (kinda sad really), and here's yet another reason why the N64 can fuck a whole lot of off. That was Nintendo meeting people half way, and I hated it with a passion... I hope with bated breath that they never do that again.

I would sooo buy it. Nintendo's exclusives are just the best, but theyre kinda also the only thing you get with a wii U, i wouldnt play multiplats on a wii U. However if a new system would have all dem great AAA running at the same level or better than the xbo/ps4, I would most certainly get it and I think a lot of people would too.