Next Gen- your speculations

[Patch]

Are you serious? Both worlds?

 

From a developer point of view, especially western devs, if you had a choice between making an FPS on Wii2 or X720 which would you pick? I know it wouldn't be Wii2...

 

At the moment we have

- Wii games with good graphics and great controls.

- XBOX360 games with great graphics and good controls.

 

What I'd like to see are games with great graphics and great controls. I don't give two flying monkeys which system they're on.

[Jamba]

If next generation Wii2 is as (of not more) casual than the Wii, which is likely, and x720 and PS4 do reasonable implementation of motion controls then I don't see Wii2 having much appeal for me at all. So I don't see a 2 world situation occurring.

 

I love the Nintendo franchises but honestly, I don't see myself paying for a system that isn't going to have the content that I'm after.

[DCK]

Even smaller? Why? Consumer demand didn't even justify a color change much less new hardware. Not to mention it's very small and light already. And what's the point of HDMI out?

Smaller means cheaper to produce, and more (new) appeal. With a sufficient die shrink (say, 45nm) they can remove fans altogether, spend less on casing plastics, use a smaller power adapter and so on. It's not only cheaper, but easier to produce lots of.

 

The HDMI out would just be there for easy connectivity for casual gamers, and offer a minor picture quality improvement. Perhaps a scaling chip can be used, but it would introduce costs Nintendo's not going to pay.

[Emasher]

Are you serious? Both worlds?

 

From a developer point of view, especially western devs, if you had a choice between making an FPS on Wii2 or X720 which would you pick? I know it wouldn't be Wii2...

 

Today Developers have a choice to develop for Wii, 360, PS3 or PC. Most want to release their games for all of them, but because the Wii can't handle the games developed for the other ones, it just doesn't see the games. If the Wii HD was on par with the other next-gen consoles, we would be seeing the same games being released for all 4 rather than just 3. Why not? The Wii has a much bigger market than the PS3 and lots of developers release multi-console games for it. But only because games can be ported to it from other HD machines very easily.

[Shino]

Lets see if the devs will keep developing for any other console that's NOT the Wii.

[Hellfire]

Are you serious? Both worlds?

 

From a developer point of view, especially western devs, if you had a choice between making an FPS on Wii2 or X720 which would you pick? I know it wouldn't be Wii2...

 

If next generation Wii2 is as (of not more) casual than the Wii, which is likely, and x720 and PS4 do reasonable implementation of motion controls then I don't see Wii2 having much appeal for me at all. So I don't see a 2 world situation occurring.

 

I love the Nintendo franchises but honestly, I don't see myself paying for a system that isn't going to have the content that I'm after.

Erm... I really don't know where you're coming from on this one. Like Emasher said, and it pretty much goes without saying, if it's the best from both worlds, not only would most games be across 3 problems, there's absolutely no reason at all not to go for it.

 

There's no reason to assume that Wii2 will be more casual than Wii (what the helll does that even mean?) and even less to know what devs will pick on consoles that don't exist. Of course no one knows how it's gonna be and if Sony and MS plan to release new consoles during the same time table as Nintendo, I doubt all 3 will be similar hardware wise, but still...

 

Smaller means cheaper to produce, and more (new) appeal. With a sufficient die shrink (say, 45nm) they can remove fans altogether, spend less on casing plastics, use a smaller power adapter and so on. It's not only cheaper, but easier to produce lots of.

 

The HDMI out would just be there for easy connectivity for casual gamers, and offer a minor picture quality improvement. Perhaps a scaling chip can be used, but it would introduce costs Nintendo's not going to pay.

The thing is, the cost of researching and producing new hardware alone makes a price drop less justifiable than just "waiting" for current hardware to become cheaper.

 

A scaling chip also costs money and so does HDMI otherwise all 360 mobos would have it. I guess I wouldn't mind an upscaling chip, since most HDTVS seem to be absolutely disgusting at upscaling, but I think real and good upscalers (the term is used too freely by companies) are expensive.

[Jamba]

Today Developers have a choice to develop for Wii, 360, PS3 or PC. Most want to release their games for all of them, but because the Wii can't handle the games developed for the other ones, it just doesn't see the games.

 

I completely disagree. Nintendo has a completely different userbase and customer. The games developed for the other consoles go straight in to the hands of people that want them and that's why they are developed there. That's why the HD machines are high powered, because that is what their customer wants from their games.

 

If the Wii was more powerful then WiiFit would just look prettier. I very much doubt that the game selection would be any different. It's entirely against everything that they are trying to achieve in their business model.

 

If the Wii HD was on par with the other next-gen consoles, we would be seeing the same games being released for all 4 rather than just 3. Why not? The Wii has a much bigger market than the PS3 and lots of developers release multi-console games for it. But only because games can be ported to it from other HD machines very easily.

 

Not going to happen. The Wii is cheap and that was part of its original appeal. Making its successor the same price as the other 2 is not an inclusive strategy as it would alienate new gamers. This would therefore cut-off the market that Nintendo actually has success withmaking it directly competing again which is something that they have been working hard to avoid.

 

 

Is it really so hard for people to understand that it is likely that the market will diverge next gen not converge? If that is the case then I don't see the Wii's successor having any appeal for me.

[Shino]

It will converge for the Wii. Because other console makers like money, and want in on what's now a huge market of casuals, so they'll do like Nintendo, keep roughly the same hardware so they can sell consoles at a profit, it has been proven that consoles don't need to be on the bleeding edge and try to find a new way of interaction.

[Jamba]

It will converge for the Wii. Because other console makers like money, and want in on what's now a huge market of casuals, so they'll do like Nintendo, keep roughly the same hardware so they can sell consoles at a profit, it has been proven that consoles don't need to be on the bleeding edge and try to find a new way of interaction.

 

That's also likely but very few companies have truly understood what Nintendo is trying to do. Look at what MS and Sony have tried to do this gen so far.

 

MS: Fuck off avatars. They are a complete clone with none of the charm. Nothing about the service on the 360 has changed at all apart from the front end. Games are still the same so the system and the customers are still the same.

 

Sony: Singstar = good idea but aside from that, what else is there? LBP ans that's about it. Also Home? What average person actually wants to spend their time hanging out with people in Second Life Lite? Real ppl go down the pub and talk to real fucking ppl.

 

Both attempts are rediculous and no real effort has been made at all to reach out to those markets. Next gen I see them making better efforts but Nintendo will outpace them by far by tapping into the open market harder, faster and smarter.

 

If anything, Nintendo's success will make them more resolute in broadening the market.

[Emasher]

I completely disagree. Nintendo has a completely different userbase and customer. The games developed for the other consoles go straight in to the hands of people that want them and that's why they are developed there. That's why the HD machines are high powered, because that is what their customer wants from their games.

 

If the Wii was more powerful then WiiFit would just look prettier. I very much doubt that the game selection would be any different. It's entirely against everything that they are trying to achieve in their business model.

 

 

 

Not going to happen. The Wii is cheap and that was part of its original appeal. Making its successor the same price as the other 2 is not an inclusive strategy as it would alienate new gamers. This would therefore cut-off the market that Nintendo actually has success withmaking it directly competing again which is something that they have been working hard to avoid.

 

 

Is it really so hard for people to understand that it is likely that the market will diverge next gen not converge? If that is the case then I don't see the Wii's successor having any appeal for me.

 

You clearly don't understand they Wii's audience at all. Yes, casual games sell well on it, thats because Nintendo's mass market is Casual, and the other consoles mass market is Mainstream. If you look at how well the decent hardcore games are selling on any console, its actually pretty close. There are tons of hardcore gamers that have Wiis, and there are even a lot who only have Wiis. Nintendo's original plan for the console was actually going to put it just about on par with the 360, but for around the same price as the Wii is, but the decided to spend their R&D dollars on the remote instead. Next generation, they don't need to develop the Wii remote so they'll have more money to spend on actually improving the hardware. Besides, if Sony and MS decide to double the length of the generation for themselves, its not going to be very hard at all for Nintendo to catch up at least to the PS360 and keep the same price point. I think Nintendo knows they're having trouble keeping their fan-base right now, but remember all the awesome hardcore games that they put out early in this generation, and look at what's coming. Actually if you look at Nintendo, only one team has actually been developing all 1st party Wii casual games (EAD 2), leaving the rest to develop for gamers. There are tons of projects announced and many more teams that will very soon be revealing new games.

[Hellfire]

There's a flaw in that logic Jamba or at least if I'm understanding you right. You say Nintendo has their eyes on the casual, so if the console was more powerful we would have the same "casual games" but prettier. Ignoring the fact that if it was more powerful it would be a by-product of them choosing so for targeted segment reasons and that it's an enormous and exaggerated generalisation, you're saying that they pretty much go for that audience and that audience alone and that's the way it's gotta and gonna be, any increase in power that would lead to multiplat games would be moot as the console is just for casual.

 

You also say the HD consoles have that power for the exact same purpose, but for the core games their audience wants (recent sales show their audience is more interested in brand, but different discussion). So if I get it right, things are set in stone and Nintendo will just go for the casual now and forever, because that's their main thing lately.

 

But you also exemplify Sony's and MS atempts at targetting the other audience, meaning they obviously want a piece of the pie. So, and this where things change, if it's not that straightforward for them, why would it be for Nintendo? Specially since quality or not, it's more competition for Nintendo. Just as HD consoles target the core mainly and can go for the casual, so can (and so does) the Wii and future consoles target the core. That's the difference Wii and DS made, it expanded the audience, it didn't move it, that's why you see studies that show most US (or was it EU...?) Wii owners weren't new to gaming at all, that's why you see people in forums moaning about wanting more core games, that's why you see Nintendo games selling (TP is the best selling Zelda in US since 1996, Brawl broke the record in US for the highest selling Nintendo game on the first day), that's why you saw Nintendo releasing all their main core IPs in less than two years: because the core audience still is in Nintendo's sights and they don't want that piece of the pie to disappear. I'm not talking personal opinion, bias, perception, whatever here, they no doubt still have their sights on the core's wallet.

 

Let me make this clear, I don't think next gen all consoles will be the same. It would even make sense for PS3 and 360 to stay active with N6 (no I will not call it Wii 2 or WiiHD :P) coming out, but since that might not happen, Nintendo isn't gonna make a 500$ console. On the other hand, Sony can't afford it and MS would be stupid to do so, so they would probably lower their targets a bit. And they'll no doubt include motion controls yadda yadda, and they will start their campaign, and this is important, with the new market in mind. The starting point is where it's all at, if a company has their goals clear from the start, success will be much more likely, which is why Iwata breathes money, MS and Sony have been playing catch up and 3rd parties were caughts with their pants down and are now running around blind screaming like little girls. So Nintendo will power up their console, probably throw in something surprising (although their MO cycle so far has been revolution->evolution) and aim for everyone, Sony and MS will realise, as they no doubt already did, the importance of releasing a cheaper console and also aiming for everyone. Thus there will be a convergence, but that doesn't mean things will be skintight without gaps between the two camps.

 

We're all operating in the realms of hypothesis here, but let's not so far as saying that Nintendo's path or anyone else's for that matter is set in stone.

[DCK]

The thing is, the cost of researching and producing new hardware alone makes a price drop less justifiable than just "waiting" for current hardware to become cheaper.

So why did Microsoft and Sony do it?

A scaling chip also costs money and so does HDMI otherwise all 360 mobos would have it.

All 360 mobos have it, but they just don't have the output. Digital output is actually cheaper as there aren't any RAMDACs necessary to produce the picture. HDMI just has some licensing cost which shouldn't be a problem.

 

The R&D needed is pretty minimal considering IBM and AMD/ATI both have the facilities to go 45nm. The many revisions of the PStwo showed that this stuff can be quite easily done. All they need is a pretty case design.

[Hellfire]

So why did Microsoft and Sony do it?All 360 mobos have it, but they just don't have the output. Digital output is actually cheaper as there aren't any RAMDACs necessary to produce the picture. HDMI just has some licensing cost which shouldn't be a problem.

 

The R&D needed is pretty minimal considering IBM and AMD/ATI both have the facilities to go 45nm. The many revisions of the PStwo showed that this stuff can be quite easily done. All they need is a pretty case design.

Didn't know that about HDMI. Makes sense, although the non-tech point still stands, if they release consoles without HDMI output, it's because they don't think they need to. And if they think 360s don't need it, why should the Wii? Still, didn't know about that.

 

Why did they do it? Isn't it obvious, they're taking a beating. 360 was horribly designed and failed all the time, Sony didn't do it with PS3 and both weren't making money. PStwo was a complete different beast, it was designed very later on, the original was huge, always crapping out, profit was already made and many hardware revisions were constantly being made. We're talking about Wii, a console designed from the start with max efficiency as a goal, that goes for power consumption, heat, size, profit, etc... That's why they chose to use mainly the tech designed for GC: cheaper R&D, more money squeezed out of Flipper and Gecko development. Wii was no doubt designed to be able to stay like it is for years and years and with supply not keeping up with demand, it makes perfect sense for them to stay perfectly still including price tag. They officially said that it was their plan from the start so they wouldn't need to make a price cut.

 

I'm not denying it's fesible to make some changes, they might very later on (although with so many add-ons already risking segmenting their market and history showing they don't do it with home consoles, chances are smaller), they're the only ones with enough numbers to know what the choices are, but new hardware that could potentially be easier to produce would be a plus. But since they're increasing production "slowly" and safely so they don't overstock and they're selling incredibely well, there are more reasons for them not to make changes than to do so, it's a risk and it requires a completly unnecessary investment from their part for negligible results. It's the least probable scenario for the near future.

[Patch]

Speculation.

 

I don't remember a single industry 'expert' predicting ahead of time that Nintendo would be outselling the competition 2:1 this generation. On the other hand, I do remember almost every forum user on the planet decreeing the branding of 'Wii' as Nintendo's ultimate downfall.

 

This is what I love about new consoles. They're packed full of ideas that they think the public will enjoy, but no-one knows for sure how well they're going to sell until they're on a shelf.

[Choze]

Speculation.

 

I don't remember a single industry 'expert' predicting ahead of time that Nintendo would be outselling the competition 2:1 this generation. On the other hand, I do remember almost every forum user on the planet decreeing the branding of 'Wii' as Nintendo's ultimate downfall.

 

This is what I love about new consoles. They're packed full of ideas that they think the public will enjoy, but no-one knows for sure how well they're going to sell until they're on a shelf.

 

True. Most software companies were expecting 360 to come out on top since Nintendo were not taken as seriously. PS3 was far too high end when they announced it.

 

I think next gen you will see larger storage as standard. Software like LBP and Home will be the norm.

 

 

On the other hand Nintendo's success is also down to not pushing technology too much. Most people arent online on Wii and 360, let alone play the games online. Most people just want a console. Much like a new TV. So supermarket TVs do well. For the wide mass market (if Nintendo want the same pie) dont expect much technical improvements.

[Grazza]

I tend to think all three machines will converge rather than diversify. That is to say, I predict the "Aitch Wii" will be of similar power to the 360/PS3 and the Xbox 3/PS4 won't be a huge jump. This is because of heat, power, expense and just general efficiency. Microsoft knows what its customers want though, and the Xbox 3 at least will have to have a good reason for the loyal Xbox Live users to buy it and play "Halo 4" or "Call of Duty 6" online.

 

For the Aitch Wii, I'd like MotionPlus (or better) in both the Nunchuk and Remote. I would like the motion control to be good enough so that it's not just about sharp movements. Hopefully accelerometers will improve, or it'll be a lot more gyroscope-based.

 

Other than that, I'd be perfectly happy with more horsepower. I'm not so sure the casual market won't be won over by better graphics either. Nintendo have brand on their side now, and if they advertised Wii Sports 2 and Wii Fit 2, the public would see they have better graphics, better control, better Miis and are just better in general. I’m sure people will be ready to upgrade to a new console sometime or other, especially if they can use existing peripherals like the Balance Board.

[Hellfire]

The what Wii? huh?

[Emasher]

According to the oxford dictionary "Aitch" is the spelling for "H".

 

I tend to think all three machines will converge rather than diversify. That is to say, I predict the "Aitch Wii" will be of similar power to the 360/PS3 and the Xbox 3/PS4 won't be a huge jump. This is because of heat, power, expense and just general efficiency. Microsoft knows what its customers want though, and the Xbox 3 at least will have to have a good reason for the loyal Xbox Live users to buy it and play "Halo 4" or "Call of Duty 6" online.

 

For the Aitch Wii, I'd like MotionPlus (or better) in both the Nunchuk and Remote. I would like the motion control to be good enough so that it's not just about sharp movements. Hopefully accelerometers will improve, or it'll be a lot more gyroscope-based.

 

Other than that, I'd be perfectly happy with more horsepower. I'm not so sure the casual market won't be won over by better graphics either. Nintendo have brand on their side now, and if they advertised Wii Sports 2 and Wii Fit 2, the public would see they have better graphics, better control, better Miis and are just better in general. I’m sure people will be ready to upgrade to a new console sometime or other, especially if they can use existing peripherals like the Balance Board.

 

I think this sounds the most likely out of anything posted before.

[darkjak]

Are you serious? Both worlds?

 

From a developer point of view, especially western devs, if you had a choice between making an FPS on Wii2 or X720 which would you pick? I know it wouldn't be Wii2...

Because of the share ease of doing it, developers would like to make versions for both formats.

In the early days, developers ported virtually all their PSOne games to the Saturn, because it wasn't clear whom would win. The PSOne was easier to program for, and the console itself was cheaper than the Saturn, but however, Sega was believed to have a bigger fanbase.