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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Reality check: The NX MUST be successful.

Blob said:
I think everybody, even sony and Microsoft fans, should hope that the nx is successful. The gaming industry is bigger than fanboy console war lines, and a healthy one that covers all demographic bases is better for all parties.
If nx fails..... I don't want to see what nintendo would lower themselves too if this venture isn't profitable.

So, so true. The diversity is extremely important.



Around the Network
Ruler said:
Burek said:


Some people would notice, but most would not. Do you think that many of 170 million X360/PS3 users ever cared about Sega games. Some did, but most couldn't care less.

Same thing now. Nintendo fans would notice, but most people would not be affected by Nintendo's demise at all, and the industry would barely be affected. 

In a gaming world where one multiplat AAA console game in 18 months outsells the entire WiiU library of 30 months, and by a comfortable margin, it is obvious that Nintendo is just a minor league player in the industry.

GTA 5 never outsold the Wii U library

Not yet, but it's getting close:

The revenue of GTA V should be higher than the Wii U software revenue (which includes less expensive eShop titles)

 



I've been saying this for ages and idiots have been telling me otherwise.



bonzobanana said:
spemanig said:


It's already happening in front of your very eyes. Sony and Microsoft are prepping for it now. PlayStation now and Xbox live on PC are the starts of what will be The next Xbox and PlayStation platforms. And they will not be " PlayStation five" or "Xbox two"


Even if more game processing is done remotely you will still need hardware at the user end to take that streaming data. It may be console prices will fall as more processing is done on servers but then playing games will get more expensive as you have to pay for server time. There are no free lunches. Many people may get inconsistent internet connections and it just may not work that well in much of the world.  I can see there being home consoles for 3 or 4 more generations at least before a game can be 100% streamed with low latency directly to smart tv's etc. 

Also there may be consumer resistance to having to rent game time rather than own a game outright. Also with VR latency is more obvious so this works against remote processing.

 

Mind you no reason the market can't supply the desired product to all users. Casual gamers with go for streamed games on 2D displays which are more laggy and not as good an experience. Hardcore mainstream gamers will want local processing and VR and there is no reason why the same game can't cater for both users.

 


I'm sure they will offer tiny little streaming boxes for like $99, but most people will just buy a smart TV to stream on. You have a seriously misguided idea of how quick technology improves if you think it'll take what amounts to 20ish years  for streaming to be up to snuff. We'll be there well into this generation. Consumers are resisting Netflix. They won't resist this.



RolStoppable said:
I like the premise of this thread and people agreeing with it. Sounds like the Wii wasn't THAT bad, after all.

And please, people need to stop calling NX a fusion. The original rumor about Nintendo Fusion was a hybrid system, but that's not what NX is going to be. Stop using the term "fusion" because it confuses people. Although I am not sure if I read that word too often in this thread or one of the threads I looked at before reading this topic. Anyway, it's good advice regardless.


I honestly want another Wii like console, I don't get the hate it got......oh ya it wasn't "hardcore" enough because it appealed to people outside of the 13-35 year old male demopgraphic.

And ya it's not likely to be a hybrid system as in a 2-in-1 device, more likely they will still have 2 separate pieces of hardware but with a shared software library.



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

Around the Network
spemanig said:
bonzobanana said:


Even if more game processing is done remotely you will still need hardware at the user end to take that streaming data. It may be console prices will fall as more processing is done on servers but then playing games will get more expensive as you have to pay for server time. There are no free lunches. Many people may get inconsistent internet connections and it just may not work that well in much of the world.  I can see there being home consoles for 3 or 4 more generations at least before a game can be 100% streamed with low latency directly to smart tv's etc. 

Also there may be consumer resistance to having to rent game time rather than own a game outright. Also with VR latency is more obvious so this works against remote processing.

 

Mind you no reason the market can't supply the desired product to all users. Casual gamers with go for streamed games on 2D displays which are more laggy and not as good an experience. Hardcore mainstream gamers will want local processing and VR and there is no reason why the same game can't cater for both users.

 


I'm sure they will offer tiny little streaming boxes for like $99, but most people will just buy a smart TV to stream on. You have a seriously misguided idea of how quick technology improves if you think it'll take what amounts to 20ish years  for streaming to be up to snuff. We'll be there well into this generation. Consumers are resisting Netflix. They won't resist this.

I I think your misguided about the number of people who will still want a fantastic gaming experience using the most powerful hardware availble for a VR experience. What you are describing is a a super convenient and casual gaming experience but that won't be the whole market. There are always people that want the best home cinema experience, hifi experience, driving experience, holiday experience etc and gaming experience. 



I disagree, even with their worst selling console in decades Nintendo is not losing much or any money this generation overall because of the 3DS

I would prefer them to do well next generation, but Nintendo is a very stubborn company and if you think they are going to stop developing consoles/hardware simply due to one or 2 bad generations I think that's naive to predict

if they didn't have a ton of cash in the bank I would agree, but they do. the only way Nintendo disappears as a hardware maker is if they did absolutely abysmal for a few generations which is unlikely

possibly Nintendo will only do handhelds in the future though if the next console fails

it's hard to cut them into such a precarious spot when they have more money reserves (by a landslide) than the dominant Playstation Sony currently (who is probably still in debt)

Nintendo will likely be fine next generation anyway, they just need to streamline their system. more than enough fans (hardcore and casual) of their brands and IPS for them not to succeed



bonzobanana said:

I I think your misguided about the number of people who will still want a fantastic gaming experience using the most powerful hardware availble for a VR experience. What you are describing is a a super convenient and casual gaming experience but that won't be the whole market. There are always people that want the best home cinema experience, hifi experience, driving experience, holiday experience etc and gaming experience. 

Streaming would allow for the highest specs technically possible without selling a loss. Right now the PS4 and XBO are underpowered because they have to be affordable. The hardware behind PSNow doesn't need to be "affordable" because no one is buying it. That means that PSNow could stream game on the most state of the art, always improving, technology, and devs would always be able to develop on gaming PC-level hardware. Streaming means more powerful hardware, not less. There would be no need to bottleneck the price, because you're just selling a subscription. Streaming would literally be superior to consoles. You seem to be misguided on the "limitations" of a streaming future.



mountaindewslave said:

I disagree, even with their worst selling console in decades Nintendo is not losing much or any money this generation overall because of the 3DS

I would prefer them to do well next generation, but Nintendo is a very stubborn company and if you think they are going to stop developing consoles/hardware simply due to one or 2 bad generations I think that's naive to predict

if they didn't have a ton of cash in the bank I would agree, but they do. the only way Nintendo disappears as a hardware maker is if they did absolutely abysmal for a few generations which is unlikely

possibly Nintendo will only do handhelds in the future though if the next console fails

it's hard to cut them into such a precarious spot when they have more money reserves (by a landslide) than the dominant Playstation Sony currently (who is probably still in debt)

Nintendo will likely be fine next generation anyway, they just need to streamline their system. more than enough fans (hardcore and casual) of their brands and IPS for them not to succeed


You're making up shit. I never said they was losing much money. I never said they'd get out of the console business. I just said they'd stick to mobile. I could see them releasing a cheap, but massively successful android-based console if the NX fails.

It's not hard at all. Companies are there to make money. If Nintendo keeps losing money, they aren't going to just continue their losing streak. They will pull another Wii and change their direction completely to something many people like us weren't fond of.



Ruler said:
spemanig said:


Because streaming will kill off traditional console hardware.


I heavily doubt it


I really dislike the idea of a future without hardware you own, where everything is streamed & rented for $ each month.

Same with all the cloud stuff... rather have my own devices if I can. Even physical discs vs digital games... rather have physical discs that I can own and always have around.