Nintendo 3DS Direct - 29/08/2014 - 12pm

[Goron_3]

It most certainly would be purchased by the same audience. The first people who are gonna dive into the New3DS will be the same early adopters who would buy into the 4DS early and an announcement made so ridiculously shortly after the release of the New3DS would cause riots! I'd be fucking livid, as would a large chunk of their core audience!

 

It's like basically saying, "oh, that new handheld you just bought a couple of months ago? It's broken and shit now! Should've waited for the real hotness!"

 

There's no faster way to piss off your audience than by selling them a console that is to be supplanted by a true successor less than a year later. It makes zero sense on every level. The concept is simply absurd!

 

The whole point of the New3DS is to buy them time while they prepare the true handheld successor. Supplanting it within a year completely defeats the purpose of releasing it in the first place!

 

2-3 years and you'll see a true 3DS successor.

 

A new console will be purchased by everyone who is looking for a new console. This potentially includes the 40m people that own a 3DS. The New 3DS is not aimed at that huge 40m audience. Again, it is not an add on and it is not a successor. It's a new iteration of a console people already own. God damn. Also can you drop the 'simply absurd thing'? Nintendo are not expecting every 3DS owners to upgrade to this console. It's not a successor!

 

Nintendo will behave as they always do. They know a new console won't pick up sales until years 2-3, and they know the 3DS has already seen its best days. You can't expect this New 3DS to suddenly change everything just because it has a new CPU or whatever. 2016 makes too much sense for Nintendo, with 2017 for their home console (5 years after Wii U). This also means they can spread the release of their consoles and development teams by as much as possible.

 

There's no way they're going to start fresh with a new handheld within a year's time, it would mean starting with an install base of zero and that's just too risky a proposition at the moment. I'd agree with others with a 2016 launch of their next handheld.

 

That's what I'm saying (2016). That means we'll have had 5 years of the 3DS with it being 4 years past it's strongest fiscal year.

[Jonnas]

Just a reminder about release dates (Japan) for previous handhelds:

 

-Game Boy (1989)

-Game Boy Pocket (1996)*

-Game Boy Colour (1998)**

-Game Boy Advance (2001)

-GBA SP (2003)*

-GBA Micro (2005)*

-Nintendo DS (2004)

-DS Lite (2006)*

-DSi (2008)**

-DSi XL (2009)*

-Nintendo 3DS (2011)

-3DS XL (2012)*

-2DS (2013)*

-New 3DS / XL (2014)**

 

*Console revision without exclusive software

**Console revision with exclusive software

 

I think it's easy to see that Nintendo handhelds don't follow any consistent timelines when it comes to releases and successors, these releases being influenced by their respective success and the ever-changing market.

 

The only consistent aspect I see, though, is that ** games tend to come out 3 years before their successor. I'll chalk it up to an "at least" 3 years, which makes sense for a business strategy.

 

I think the 3DS still has a few years left in it, especially if we consider the rumours that the next Nintendo console will be a "home console + handheld" hybrid (the "Super Handheld", as I like to call it). 2017 or 2018 sounds like a plausible release date for such a thing.

[Ronnie]

People keep mentioning this next gen Nintendo 'hybrid' rumour, I'm wondering where it started. All I've heard is IGN saying they'd like to see that.

[Cube]

People keep mentioning this next gen Nintendo 'hybrid' rumour, I'm wondering where it started. All I've heard is IGN saying they'd like to see that.

 

The hybrid thing is a fake fan-made thing.

 

However, the next home console and handheld will have similar architecture, making it easier for develop stuff on both (most likely VC titles and indie games).

[Rummy]

Is the New 3DS actually called the New 3DS? What happens when they make a New Super Mario Brothers on it?? Is it New New? Super New!

 

Tbh this new 3DS doesn't bring enough for me to be that interested yet - Xeno's the most awesome but I've got enough invested in Ninty hardware and payoff(for me) waiting. Tbh I'd have much rather had a Xenoblade HD for the Wii(and put me much less out of pocket :p)

 

If I had to pick a handheld side and say though - if I were likely to choose between buying this or the next new handheld console, I'd certainly be on the next console rather than this. Money can't be had for both, especially as I'd be tempted to think this isn't going to bring enough 'new' to the table to justify its price for me(similarly still rocking my original 3DS).

[ReZourceman]

Why was the GameBoy Color not considered a true successor?

[Serebii]

Why was the GameBoy Color not considered a true successor?

Because it wasn't one.

 

Seriously though, form factor, chipset, name etc.

[Sheikah]

Because it wasn't one.

 

Seriously though, form factor, chipset, name etc.

 

Form factor was different to the original gameboy. You'd hardly mistake the two.

 

Name? Ok, so 3DS isn't a successor to the DS?

 

Internal specs were obviously different enough given the GBC played colour games and most GBC games couldn't run on gameboy (biggest determinant to declare a 'successor' IMO).

 

No idea how you think that's a model revision rather than a successor.

[V. Amoleo]

Surely the Game Boy Color was a true successor to the Game Boy. It was completely different.

 

The chipset was different, there was more RAM and the screen was different. I won't comment on it's shape because that doesn't really mean much considering how different the GBA and the GBA SP were.

 

Is the New 3DS actually called the New 3DS? What happens when they make a New Super Mario Brothers on it?? Is it New New? Super New!

 

You wouldn't believe how much it annoys me when any company calls their new product 'new <something'. Arrrghgh! Apple with their New iPad, which was the iPad 3 which makes the iPad Air newer than the New iPad. Nintendo with their New Super Mario Bros series. Channel 5 with almost any TV show which isn't a repeat.

Edited September 1, 2014 by V. Amoleo

[Rummy]

Why was the GameBoy Color not considered a true successor?

 

For me - it brought new but not *enough* new - I'd liken the New 3DS somewhat to it and the fact the GBC could play games the older ones could not - there was a fair bit of overlap if I remember rightly though.

Having said that, we definitely had one, and I played the fucking shit out of it. Might have been cos we lost the original brick-boy though/got nicked on a school trip/my teacher said she looked but was a lying bitch/no one really knows.

[Mr_Master_X2]

Surely the Game Boy Color was a true successor to the Game Boy. It was completely different.

 

The chipset was different, there was more RAM and the screen was different. I won't comment on it's shape because that doesn't really mean much considering how different the GBA and the GBA SP were.

 

 

 

You wouldn't believe how much it annoys me when any company calls their new product 'new <something'. Arrrghgh! Apple with their New iPad, which was the iPad 3 which makes the iPad Air newer than the New iPad. Nintendo with their New Super Mario Bros series. Channel 5 with almost any TV show which isn't a repeat.

 

What I hate most about labelling stuff "New" is digital TV guides. Ever used "Series Link" for recording shows? Randomly the digital guides will list a show such as say Castle" one week but have it change to "New Castle" the week after, which breaks the series record link. The hilarity of seeing "New New Girl". I think they have this sorted now though, but for several months it was annoying as **** as you never knew what titles would change (some randomly even after already having bee listed!) and how many series links would randomly break.

[Jonnas]

Why was the GameBoy Color not considered a true successor?

 

It was, for all intents and purposes, a Gameboy. It would play the old games in colour, just like it promised, albeit in a limited 4-colour palette that you could pick at the title screen. The new games had richer palettes, but very few games were actually exclusive to the GBC.

 

Even the games it launched with, they could be played in the previous Game Boys, along with other games released later.

 

 

Wario Land 2 was a GBC launch title, and labeled as such, but could still be played with previous Gameboys. Why was it labeled as a "Colour" game? Because it really had more than 4 colours, and was, essentially, made for the GBC, even if it was still compatible with the old one.

 

 

Ditto for this guy right here.

 

 

Wario Land 3 was actually exclusive, and incompatible with the previous Game Boys. We can tell because of the disclaimer on the bottom right.

 

 

(Incidentally, Pokémon Crystal was also exclusive for the GBC, but for some reason, the box didn't carry the label. Huh.)

 

 

Finally, each cartridge was coloured matching its "status". The grey ones were original GB, the black ones were the "GBC, but can still be played in black&white", and the transparent ones were GBC-exclusive.

 

 

 

Pokémon Gold&Silver is the biggest example, as it is often mentioned as being the highest-selling GBC game, despite not being exclusive to it.

 

So yeah, the GBC was such a high-class, quality redesign, it got exclusive games. But it was still a Game Boy. The difference between Gold&Silver and Crystal (Pokémon animations, the option to choose the gender of your BoyGirl) is a good example of how different the GBC was from the GB: not nearly enough for a generational leap, but it had neat tricks up its sleeve.

 

Funnily enough, I ran into a relevant Neogaf thread while searching for pictures for this post.

[Sheikah]

There are a lot more GBC games that didn't play on Gameboy though. You've also got to consider that Wii could play GameCube games, and Wii U can play Wii, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't class them as successor consoles.

 

The real question - does the fact that a small number of GBC games also ran on the gameboy mean the GBC was just a revision? I don't think so. Nintendo could release a Wii game tomorrow, and label it as a Wii U title. That would run on both Wii and Wii U, kind of like the GBC games that would run on GB.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Sheikah

[Fierce_LiNk]

Although I don't reeeeeally care for this discussion, I feel confused as fuck right now. I've spent my whole life thinking that the GameBoy Colour was the successor to the Gameboy. Not really seeing enough information to change my mind on that right now. :p

 

Either way, not feeling this "New" 3DS thing. I'm a bit concerned that it'll take away some of the impact from the 3DS' eventual successor. Although, I'm sure this will sell in Japan which is what it's all about, I guess.

[Jonnas]

The real question - does the fact that a small number of GBC games also ran on the gameboy mean the GBC was just a revision? I don't think so. Nintendo could release a Wii game tomorrow, and label it as a Wii U title. That would run on both Wii and Wii U, kind of like the GBC games that would run on GB.

 

If Nintendo launched a Wii game "for the Wii U" (so, a non-HD game where none of the U's features are essential), no one would take it seriously as a Wii U game. It might as well not be part of the U's library. And if we apply such logic to the GBC games, then the GBC had no launch line-up, as none of its games were exclusive.

 

We have different opinions on this, but one thing is clear: Nintendo themselves never considered the Game Boy Colour to be the Game Boy's successor. It was a revision from the start, just one that lead to exclusive games and major, unexpected success. And they are likely to do the same for the n3DS.

[Sheikah]

If Nintendo launched a Wii game "for the Wii U" (so, a non-HD game where none of the U's features are essential), no one would take it seriously as a Wii U game. It might as well not be part of the U's library. And if we apply such logic to the GBC games, then the GBC had no launch line-up, as none of its games were exclusive.

 

I'm not saying it makes sense. I'm just saying that the Wii and Wii U could fulfill near enough the same criteria as the GBC due to the backwards compatibility (bar HD which wasn't a thing back then), so you can't really say that's proof that it's not a successor.

 

To me, having most games that the previous unit couldn't run (and at a higher quality/in colour) makes it for all intents and purposes a successor.

[Guy]

I always considered GBC a successor, but it really was an enhanced revision when you think about it. Exactly the same approach as the DSi and New 3DS. Hell, even the GBA had the SP that offered a far, far better play experience.

 

I'd probably be way more bummed out about New 3DS if I'd just bought a new 3DS/XL system. As things stand, I'd like to buy a new XL and I've been hanging on for a new edition I liked. The Smash Bros. one was almost it, but I'll just wait now and get the New system with Monster Hunter 4.

 

A little worried about the name for the new hardware though. New 3DS may give the illusion it's something it isn't and they should have learned a powerful lesson about brand confusion with Wii U. They should also still try and get it out in a Smash bundle for Christmas, poor decision to release it early 2015.

 

Bets on whether or not we get those SNES buttons here? I'd be tempted into the standard system if we do. Faceplates are a seriously nice option (especially since we can import them easily from Japan) and the standard screen does look a lot nicer than the massive XL one.

 

It's just the hand cramp on the standard unit that worries me, the original 3DS was a nightmare to play comfortably.

[Retro_Link]

Yep GBC was a successor to the Gameboy to me too.

 

Loved that little Purple guy!

[Blade]

I loved my GameBoy Colour! I can remember getting it for xmas. It was amazing. A GameBoy but in colour!!!

[Dcubed]

Why was the GameBoy Color not considered a true successor?

 

Because it's just a boosted version of the same hardware, where the majority of games released for it were also playable on the old B&W brick Gameboy.

 

Likewise DSi and the New3DS are the same thing in regards to their respective progenitors.

 

As an aside, the GBC was actually the first Gameboy I owned proper (the only one I had previously was a Super Gameboy for my SNES, so I could play the games, but not on the go).

 

Loved that little purple/teal thing Still have it too

Edited September 2, 2014 by Dcubed

[Agent Gibbs]

I've always thought of the GBc as a successor to the gameboy too, and whilst it may be of similar architecture i'm always going to continue thinking of it as a separate console

[Zell]

I guess I'm in the minority here, I never considered the Game Boy Color to be a true successor to the Game Boy. Similar 8-bit processor, same resolution, same button layout... it just had that little bit more oomph to play games in colour. If I recall correctly, a lot of the heavy hitters released around the Color's release were all compatible for the Game Boy: Wario Land 2, Link's Awakening DX and of course the Pokemon games. It meant that people who owned a Game Boy Pocket at the time didn't need to upgrade to the Color to play the latest games.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if Nintendo really considered the Color to be a true successor to the Game Boy, they didn't exactly push it as one.

[Glen-i]

As an aside, the GBC was actually the first Gameboy I owned proper (the only one I had previously was a Super Gameboy for my SNES, so I could play the games, but not on the go).

 

I always find it weird that I owned a massive brick Game Boy while you didn't.

I got the Tetris/Dr. Mario bundle. So much time wasted on Tetris, and I'm still useless at it.

[Dcubed]

I always find it weird that I owned a massive brick Game Boy while you didn't.

I got the Tetris/Dr. Mario bundle. So much time wasted on Tetris, and I'm still useless at it.

 

Yeah it was a bit strange. No idea why I didn't get one. All my friends had one (usually with that crazy Handiboy thing with the massive magnifier and light attachment nonsense lol!)

 

Not even sure how I ended up getting the Super Gameboy either. I think it was when Link's Awakening was coming out and we simply HAD to get it! (We got into Zelda thanks to the cartoon series and it came out not long after we ended up getting and finishing ALTTP). So we got it along with the SGB and DK94 (again, not sure how on earth I ended up picking it up, but I'm so glad I did! )

 

We ended up with a really odd collection of reletively obscure games as kids somehow! How on earth we ended up with having the likes of Mystic Quest and Secret of Mana between me you and the rest of the family, I have no idea lol! )

Edited September 2, 2014 by Dcubed

[Rummy]

I guess like much else, there was a 'graphical' jump between the previous and gameboy colour(especially if you were still, like many, rocking bricks over GBPs). Sight's our most used sense, and we live in a world absolutely built around it - moving from non-colour to colour will be seen(alol) as a much greater jump than many other similar changes/improvements(ie WiiU vs Wii). Even then, iirc, you couldn't play games on GBC looking exactly the same as Brick GB, and possibly even as GBP(could be wrong here) - again it's much more visual and memorable/differentiating in that sense.