By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - I hope the NX is a 10 year, mega powerful console, that is expensive.

 

Speak your mind...

Ya crazy mon! 209 56.33%
 
I.... this... could.... WORK! 113 30.46%
 
Too busy watching "... 48 12.94%
 
Total:370
rolltide101x said:
bunchanumbers said:
Can't be serious. This model nearly killed Sony and PlayStation 3. Billions upon billions lost on this model and same thing for the 360. Its not profitable and it shows because they made sure that profitability was possible on PS4 and X1.

Nearly killed Sony and the PS3?..... Someone call the hyperbole police. The main issue the PS3 had was its unique architecture, and the fact the 360 got a head start.


The losses were massive. There are tons of sites and figures that back this up. This model would kill Nintendo in a matter of years. In the end, they wouldn't even break even. The same as Sony did with the PS3. Its just a bad model.



Around the Network
bigtakilla said:
Don't you think gaming would kind of stagnate after around 6 or 7 years (leaving 4 more entire years until a new console emerges).

Am I the only one who DOES NOT want a gen to last more than 5 or 6 years tops?


Maybe. 5 or 6 years is too short. They just need to release games in the console gen's later years and I doubt anyone would have any issues with the gen lasting too long.

Aeolus451 said:
bigtakilla said:
Don't you think gaming would kind of stagnate after around 6 or 7 years (leaving 4 more entire years until a new console emerges).

Am I the only one who DOES NOT want a gen to last more than 5 or 6 years tops?


Maybe. 5 or 6 years is too short. They just need to release games in the console gen's later years and I doubt anyone would have any issues with the gen lasting too long.

The last year and a half of the Wii had IMO its best software releases (Pandora's Tower, Xenoblade, The Last Story, Skyward Sword), but I still was very ready for new hardware to hit the market. I understand it's my own personal opinion, but I feel 6 years is pushing it. By then I'm ready for better visuals and performance than what I currently got. Releasing more games will not alleviate the fact that the visuals and performance of said games will remain the same (granted they will improve the first few years while developers are learning the tech, making new game engines, ect).  

Oh, and 5 years is the average console life cycle, why do you feel it is too short? Here is a link to all console gen releases (about 5 years).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_console



Aeolus451 said:
bigtakilla said:
Don't you think gaming would kind of stagnate after around 6 or 7 years (leaving 4 more entire years until a new console emerges).

Am I the only one who DOES NOT want a gen to last more than 5 or 6 years tops?

Maybe. 5 or 6 years is too short. They just need to release games in the console gen's later years and I doubt anyone would have any issues with the gen lasting too long.

I don't know about that. The PS1 and PS2 both had successors ~6 years after their launch and they were perfectly fine. Also, with the rise of cross-gen releases it isn't like the last gen system will suddenly get all support cut off.



TheGoldenBoy said:
Aeolus451 said:

Maybe. 5 or 6 years is too short. They just need to release games in the console gen's later years and I doubt anyone would have any issues with the gen lasting too long.

I don't know about that. The PS1 and PS2 both had successors ~6 years after their launch and there were perfectly fine. Also, with the rise of cross-gen release it isn't like the last gen system will suddenly get all support cut off.


Yeah, I don't think any console has lasted an entire 7th year and I think with good reason. 6 and some change also feels like a drag usually. 



Around the Network

(Sorry my ideas are kind of spaced out throughout, but I'm kind of posting as I go). I also wouldn't want to pay $100 every year for a system near the end of its life when it is selling for around $500 (or less) year 6 or 7. (Assuming $100 a year for a $1000 top shelf spec console.) And what kind of crazy restrictions or rules would apply to a console I don't technically own? Would I have to be always online to register my Nintendo ID with the Nintendo server? If I didn't pay, could they lock my system out? 

I'd rather save $300 - $450 and buy a console outright. 



'The playstation and microsoft devices are increasingly getting geared more towards a longer than 5-6 year life cycle.'

Not this gen. These consoles are barely acceptable now. In 2 years people should be begging for something more powerful.



bigtakilla said:
Aeolus451 said:


Maybe. 5 or 6 years is too short. They just need to release games in the console gen's later years and I doubt anyone would have any issues with the gen lasting too long.

The last year and a half of the Wii had IMO its best software releases (Pandora's Tower, Xenoblade, The Last Story, Skyward Sword), but I still was very ready for new hardware to hit the market. I understand it's my own personal opinion, but I feel 6 years is pushing it. By then I'm ready for better visuals and performance than what I currently got. Releasing more games will not alleviate the fact that the visuals and performance of said games will remain the same (granted they will improve the first few years while developers are learning the tech, making new game engines, ect).  

Oh, and 5 years is the average console life cycle, why do you feel it is too short? Here is a link to all console gen releases (about 5 years).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_console

5 years huh?

PS   - 1994 to 2006 
PS2 - 2000 to 2012 
PS3 - 2006 to 20?? 

Nintendo 64 - 1996 to 2003
Gamecube    - 2001 to 2007
Wii                 - 2006 to 2013

Xbox           - 2001 to 2008
Xbox 360   - 2005 to 20?? 

I like to get the most out of my money when I purchase a console. The more games that are released within a gen the more I benefit from my investment. The best games within a gen are released in the later years of a console. Why would I want devalue my investment in a console by shortening the console gens? Developers have more time to create multiple games within a long console gen.  I don't care about graphics. Otherwise I would buy a gaming pc. I'm completely fine with the graphics for the entire console gen. 



TheGoldenBoy said:
Aeolus451 said:

Maybe. 5 or 6 years is too short. They just need to release games in the console gen's later years and I doubt anyone would have any issues with the gen lasting too long.

I don't know about that. The PS1 and PS2 both had successors ~6 years after their launch and they were perfectly fine. Also, with the rise of cross-gen releases it isn't like the last gen system will suddenly get all support cut off.


A console gen does not end when the successors are released. Nintendo always ends the support for their consoles prematurely in my opinion. MS is following Sony's plan on supporting their consoles for a long time. 



Locknuts said:
'The playstation and microsoft devices are increasingly getting geared more towards a longer than 5-6 year life cycle.'

Not this gen. These consoles are barely acceptable now. In 2 years people should be begging for something more powerful.

Yeah, I'm not really seeing devices that could last anywhere over 6 years max either.... I could see 6 due to Playstation may want to ride the popularity of this gen so they will have no reason to rush a system out, and Xbone may want to wait for Playstation to strike first to see what they are competing against. If Playstation doesn't announce something year 5 though, then both will strike around the same time year 6 (as well as release it later that year). Other than that, they take the risk of Nintendo (which will more than likely release a console 2017 and being on the market for 5 years and some months) having the most powerful console on the market for over 2 years. Not a great marketing strategy if power is your most attractive feature.