Nintendo Switch - Happy Switchmas Everyone!

[Ronnie]

If the same game can be played on a handheld and a home console, with progress synced between them, that would be pretty cool. That would also mean they could dedicate all their resources into developing for just the one system instead of splitting it between two.

[Serebii]

If the same game can be played on a handheld and a home console, with progress synced between them, that would be pretty cool. That would also mean they could dedicate all their resources into developing for just the one system instead of splitting it between two.

 

I think some games will be like that, based on what we've heard. Especially since they detailed using the cloud for saves. That said, not all games will be on both formats. I highly doubt that Pokémon would be on NX Console or a local multiplayer game like Mario Party NX would be on NX Handheld.

 

Nintendo needs to be careful with this and find a balance. The reason their handhelds have persisted while others like Vita have collapsed is that Nintendo know games designed for handhelds sell handhelds. Vita went for making the console experience portable and that doesn't work and is a large part of why it didn't do well. If Nintendo go that route, they deserve to fail and that's also why a hybrid isn't logical.

[Daft]

Got to remember that VR isn't just a peripheral, it's primarily a display device. You can say it's expensive but it's much cheaper than a TV of the equivalent quality.

 

Personally, if I can watch movies in a virtual cinema, I'm half-way sold. That'd be awesome.

 

And it isn't even that VR will be successful or mass-market, it's mere existence and that it works as brilliantly as it does, is enough to take away from any other new innovations. I mean...VR is real and it works and it's fucking awesome; even if I couldn't afford it, I still want it.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Daft

[Serebii]

Got to remember that VR isn't just a peripheral, it's primarily a display device. You can say it's expensive but it's much cheaper than a TV of the equivalent quality.

 

Personally, if I can watch movies in a virtual cinema, I'm half-way sold. That'd be awesome.

The most exciting things about VR are things unrelated to gaming. Problem is how anti-social it is though.

[Hero-of-Time]

What do believe theorise the NX will be then and what are you reasonings and also thoughts as to how it could get Nintendo back in the game?

 

I can't see anything other than a hybrid selling well, or even reasonably, for Nintendo at the moment. As much as I try to think what they could do and how they'd push it, nothing other than it being a hybrid gives me reason that it would sell.

 

I'm still going with that it will be a console but the controller will double as a handheld. You could start the game on your TV and then continue on when you leave the house by simply taking the controller with you. Pretty much what Ronnie said.

 

Having Nintendo concentrate efforts on a single device would help stop the droughts of games, especially if they can't get 3rd parties on board. Granted, they would still lack a wider range of titles, such as your CoDs, FIFAs etc but at least you would have plenty of Nintendo titles to play and they would have to resort to putting out filler games.

[Daft]

The most exciting things about VR are things unrelated to gaming. Problem is how anti-social it is though.

 

I don't really think that matters much. Social gaming has become more passive anyway; people share footage and screenshots, they talk about games on forums and over party chat – the amount of actual local multiplayer is relatively low. And there's nothing to say the TV isn't going to be used in conjunction with a headset; you can have local multiplayer with PSVR (one person on a headset, the others on the TV).

 

I don't really think it's antisocial at all, in fact I think it's accessibility puts it in a much more sociable space, much like the Wii's controller did.

 

And in any case, a point I added into my previous post, it's mere existence takes the shine off anything else new and 'innovative'.

[Serebii]

And in any case, a point I added into my previous post, it's mere existence takes the shine off anything else new and 'innovative'.

 

That's a bit cynical. Surely Nintendo could do something new and innovative and it take the "shine" off of VR? It works both ways, my friend.

[Ronnie]

I'm still going with that it will be a console but the controller will double as a handheld. You could start the game on your TV and then continue on when you leave the house by simply taking the controller with you. Pretty much what Ronnie said.

 

Having Nintendo concentrate efforts on a single device would help stop the droughts of games, especially if they can't get 3rd parties on board. Granted, they would still lack a wider range of titles, such as your CoDs, FIFAs etc but at least you would have plenty of Nintendo titles to play and they would have to resort to putting out filler games.

 

Having a handheld as a controller would help with porting games like Mario Maker and Zelda U to NX. Then again, it sounds like what people really want is just a traditional controller. Maybe there'll be another gamepad/Pro controller set-up.

[Hero-of-Time]

Having a handheld as a controller would help with porting games like Mario Maker and Zelda U to NX. Then again, it sounds like what people really want is just a traditional controller. Maybe there'll be another gamepad/Pro controller set-up.

 

I would prefer a traditional controller but if the controller doubled as a handheld then I would be fine with that as well. I do enjoy my off TV support on the Wii U and this would just be the next step. Just as long as they don't have 10 different control schemes then i'll be happy.

[Kav]

It being a hybrid would be horrific and would do more damage.

 

Besides, Nintendo already shot down it being a hybrid, comparing devices to how the iOS devices are in relation to eachother. Not a hybrid but brothers.

 

Why do you think it'd do more damage?

 

If the same game can be played on a handheld and a home console, with progress synced between them, that would be pretty cool. That would also mean they could dedicate all their resources into developing for just the one system instead of splitting it between two.

 

This is one of the big reasons why I think it makes sense.

 

I think some games will be like that, based on what we've heard. Especially since they detailed using the cloud for saves. That said, not all games will be on both formats. I highly doubt that Pokémon would be on NX Console or a local multiplayer game like Mario Party NX would be on NX Handheld.

 

Nintendo needs to be careful with this and find a balance. The reason their handhelds have persisted while others like Vita have collapsed is that Nintendo know games designed for handhelds sell handhelds. Vita went for making the console experience portable and that doesn't work and is a large part of why it didn't do well. If Nintendo go that route, they deserve to fail and that's also why a hybrid isn't logical.

 

But Serebii, what's to stop them producing handheld types games, with the mindset that these will push the portability aspect of it, as well as producing the home console titles with the mindset that these will push the home console aspect of it? There's nothing to say they can't do that.

 

You just advertise each type of game differently... a handheld type game; advertise people playing on the go.

A home console type game; advertise people playing at home on the TV.

 

You just have the added bonus of playing the handheld type on your TV and the home console type on the go, if you want to.

 

I'm still going with that it will be a console but the controller will double as a handheld. You could start the game on your TV and then continue on when you leave the house by simply taking the controller with you. Pretty much what Ronnie said.

 

Having Nintendo concentrate efforts on a single device would help stop the droughts of games, especially if they can't get 3rd parties on board. Granted, they would still lack a wider range of titles, such as your CoDs, FIFAs etc but at least you would have plenty of Nintendo titles to play and they would have to resort to putting out filler games.

 

Having a hybrid would also position it as a great 2nd console. People would buy an Xbox or Playstation with the NX acting as both their second console and a handheld.

I see this as the best way for Nintendo to grow in the market and become competitive again.

It positions Nintendo quite well in some respects.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Kav
Automerged Doublepost

[Daft]

That's a bit cynical. Surely Nintendo could do something new and innovative and it take the "shine" off of VR? It works both ways, my friend.

 

I think there would be cause to be less cynical if Nintendo weren't comparatively minuscule compared to the players behind VR. I'm not saying it's impossible but they don't really have much going for them; even when they have come up with something innovative it's execution and support has often been lacking.

[Serebii]

I think there would be cause to be less cynical if Nintendo weren't comparatively minuscule compared to the players behind VR. I'm not saying it's impossible but they don't really have much going for them; even when they have come up with something innovative it's execution and support has often been lacking.

Oculus was "miniscule" initially when they came forth with the idea.

[V. Amoleo]

I will be very surprised if the console and handheld end up being able to play the same games. It means that the games would target the weakest platform which would be the handheld. There'd be no point owning both.

 

Additionally Nintendo have sold more than the PSP and Vita by not trying to do console style games on a portable.

 

Do I wish Nintendo would make a VR machine next? Yes. It'd be really good to have a platform where that was built in rather than tacked on. Do I think they do it? No. It'd be too expensive at the moment.

 

I don't even think their next hardware announcement will be for a console replacement. The 3DS is older than the Wii U and though it's sales are much healthier it's starting to feel old.

[Kav]

I will be very surprised if the console and handheld end up being able to play the same games. It means that the games would target the weakest platform which would be the handheld. There'd be no point owning both.

 

Additionally Nintendo have sold more than the PSP and Vita by not trying to do console style games on a portable...

 

This is why I think having a hybrid is better than having a dedicated handheld system and dedicated home system.

You can still produce those different type of games but advertise them accordingly, as I say below.

 

I think they'd use a cartridge based format for the games which could go in both the home unit and the handheld.

So the thing with a hybrid would mean that you produce one game and not two versions of the same game as you would with separate handheld and home consoles.

 

...what's to stop them producing handheld types games, with the mindset that these will push the portability aspect of it, as well as producing the home console titles with the mindset that these will push the home console aspect of it? There's nothing to say they can't do that.

 

You just advertise each type of game differently... a handheld type game; advertise people playing on the go.

A home console type game; advertise people playing at home on the TV.

 

You just have the added bonus of playing the handheld type on your TV and the home console type on the go, if you want to.

 

 

 

Having a hybrid would also position it as a great 2nd console. People would buy an Xbox or Playstation with the NX acting as both their second console and a handheld.

I see this as the best way for Nintendo to grow in the market and become competitive again.

It positions Nintendo quite well in some respects.

 

It should be positioned as a second console... but second in that it'd be your primary handheld too, if that makes sense. If it's the right price it'll sell.

 

I think this would get the best out of Nintendo as developers too as they'd not be having to switch focus from one machine to another.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Kav

[Serebii]

A hybrid would end up either with a really expensive handheld or a really crap console, or both. That's why it won't happen.

 

Plus, as it has been said, Iwata said it's not a hybrid.

[Ronnie]

 

Great Nintendo chat from the Kinda Funny guys.

[Daft]

Oculus was "miniscule" initially when they came forth with the idea.

 

You just can't compare these. For starters VR has been in the popular imagination for decades, longer even. It's not an idea created or owned by Oculus, they weren't the first to try it and they certainly won't be the last in the market.

 

And you've kind of helped with my point; unlike what Nintendo will likely come up with, VR is an idea much bigger than any one company.

[Serebii]

You just can't compare these. For starters VR has been in the popular imagination for decades, longer even. It's not an idea created or owned by Oculus, they weren't the first to try it and they certainly won't be the last in the market.

 

And you've kind of helped with my point; unlike what Nintendo will likely come up with, VR is an idea much bigger than any one company.

 

You're making a hell of an assumption though. People said similar about Nintendo and being innovative before the Wii and look what happened there.

 

To dismiss whatever Nintendo will do just because VR exists is very narrow minded.

[Hero-of-Time]

Great Nintendo chat from the Kinda Funny guys.

 

Thanks for this. Great episode.

 

I don't agree with Colin where he says that people don't buy Nintendo consoles just for those games. They clearly do. What he should have said is that this kind of thing isn't viable going forward as a business and he does kind of hint at this when he says when kids grow up they move on.

 

He does make a great point though about the Nintendo consoles that done well are the ones that had 3rd party support.

 

Glad to see they agree about combining the handheld and console software to create a much better library of games on a single device. It would so solve the gaming droughts that have plagued Nintendo for a while now.

 

Colin is right in saying that they need to start playing ball. I've said for a long time now that even though Nintendo continue to say that they aren't in competition with the others, they really are. They need to step outside of their Japanese bubble and take a look around every once in a while at what's happening in the West.

 

Excited and nervous. Very true.

[Ronnie]

He does make a great point though about the Nintendo consoles that done well are the ones that had 3rd party support.

 

That was the part I disagreed with. The Wii was an anomaly, yes there was Just Dance but that console only got so popular because of the casual market. It sold that many because it was a craze at the time, not because of Boom Blox.

 

He does make a great point about half way in about why they need to do a conference and in doing so, utterly dominate E3 this year. @Serebii you should give it a listen. Mid generation, Dreamcast territory they need to create huge buzz and a 30 minute cutesy Digital Event isn't going to cut it.

[Daft]

You're making a hell of an assumption though. People said similar about Nintendo and being innovative before the Wii and look what happened there.

 

To dismiss whatever Nintendo will do just because VR exists is very narrow minded.

 

Huh? The Wii is part of my point, an idea where the execution and the support was lacking.

 

I'm not really sure what my assumption is. That VR is the next big thing? I guess that's a bit of an assumption but the trends are there and I've used the tech and been more than impressed myself. So I guess there's a bit of that. But even if it's not the next big thing, the hype about it is real and it's going to take the edge off anything else until VR has either come to fruition or faded into irrelevance.

 

And I didn't flippantly dismiss Nintendo, I just said the odds are stacked against them. And I've not read anything in this thread to indicate the contrary.

[Serebii]

Huh? The Wii is part of my point, an idea where the execution and the support was lacking.

 

I'm not really sure what my assumption is. That VR is the next big thing? I guess that's a bit of an assumption but the trends are there and I've used the tech and been more than impressed myself. So I guess there's a bit of that. But even if it's not the next big thing, the hype about it is real and it's going to take the edge off anything else until VR has either come to fruition or faded into irrelevance.

 

And I didn't flippantly dismiss Nintendo, I just said the odds are stacked against them. And I've not read anything in this thread to indicate the contrary.

Your assumption being that whatever Nintendo puts out, no matter how innovative, will have the "shine" taken because VR exists. You made that statement and I'm countering it because it's flawed, cynical and just not true.

[Daft]

Okay, well we'll have to agree to disagree. I think it's fairly realistic that there is a limited mind-share when it comes to the industry and its future – VR currently takes a fairly big share of it when it comes to innovation.

 

You're telling me that thinking isn't true but you aren't explaining why (I've reread your responses just to make sure I didn't miss anything). All you've said is that I've made assumptions, which I then tried to explain, and given me a straw man comparison. You could be right, Nintendo could blow everyone away, but I said I felt it was unlikely and I hardly think that's cynical; I don't really know how anyone could think they could compete with the other forces at work here; Nintendo are a relatively small company.

 

On a very basic level, whatever Nintendo do, they will never have the third party support that others have and they so desperately need. VR, on the other hand has the versatility of being on a closed platform and an open platform – with a library of already existing games both dedicated and adapted, along with the potential for other mediums.

 

Maybe that's the cynical bit; Nintendo could do something surprisingly revolutionary but they'll never have the support. And their games in recent years have hardly set the world on fire.

[Kav]

A hybrid would end up either with a really expensive handheld or a really crap console, or both. That's why it won't happen.

 

Plus, as it has been said, Iwata said it's not a hybrid.

 

I don't think they'll do a hybrid, although a part of me does, but I do think it's the best thing for them to do.

 

A decent enough portable unit with a middle-ground home unit. It wouldn't have to be too expensive would it?

 

...because let's face it, unless they man-up and compete with Sony & MS and make an absolute beast of a machine that has similar architechture to the other consoles but way more powerful, yet is underpriced so it sells at a big loss, their home consoles sales will just keep declining dramatically!

 

Hell, handheld sales are declining too, the market-share is being eaten by mobile/tablet gaming. I can only see sales declining here too.

 

They've already merged their handheld/home dev teams... instead of creating 2 versions of 1 game (1 home & 1 handheld) as they would do, they could create 1 version of the game that would run on the two hybrid units. They'd save on dev costs.

 

I just think a hybrid is more appealing than two separate consoles and so has a better chance of sales growth.

 

I know they shot it down but it's not like they'd come out and say "Yes, it's a hybrid." prior to them being ready to announce it.

 

 

Still, like you say, they won't do it... and I may well be completely wrong and they'll turn it all around... but I just don't see how.

 

What can you see them doing? How do you think they'll approach next gen and what would you like to see from them?

Edited January 7, 2016 by Kav

[Emasher]

I guess it's time to update my predictions.

 

First of all I was previously predicting a 2016 launch, but I think 2017 is a bit more likely now considering we have almost no information at all at this point. I'm not ruling out a 2016 launch though as I think Nintendo are aware that information travels a lot more quickly these days, so leaving a huge window to get the word out--as they've done in the past--probably isn't as necessary as it used to be.

 

The first big question to start is Power vs x86 architecture. The pros of Power is that it makes for relatively easy backwards compatibility with GameCube, Wii, and Wii U games. If they went x86, such backwards compatibility would be fairly unlikely at all, and it's likely that the existing virtual console emulators would need to be re-written.

 

 

There are 3 ways that backwards compatibility can be achieved. The most obvious one is just putting the hardware for the old machine inside the new one (eg. how the very early PS3s played PS2 games). The other options are virtualization (eg. Wii games on the Wii U) and emulation (eg. N64 games on the Wii and Wii U).

 

Every CPU (the part of the computer that does most of the processing, aside from graphics), is based on a particular architecture. Part of the architecture is a set of instructions that the CPU can execute. These are very basic things like "move this data to this location", or "add these two numbers", but when put together in particular orders, they're used to form any program your computer can run. These instructions can be represented either as a binary string called machine code, or in an assembly language (each architecture has a different assembly language). Assembly languages exist to be human readable, but there's a one-to-one correspondence between every possible assembly command and the associated line of machine code.

 

If you want to run games developed for a certain platform on a different platform, and the architectures on the two platforms are the same, you can do something called virtualization. Since the architectures are the same, you can simply run the program on the CPU of the newer console, and it will be able to understand the machine code. You will of course have to implement any other dependencies the game has in order to run it though. Every console has something called an API, which is a bunch of computer code that will always be available on that console and enables the game to interact with the console's features. For instance, the Wii's API probably has a function to get the coordinates a certain player's Wii Remote is pointing at on the screen. Even with the CPUs being the same architecture, to do virtualization you still need to implement this API on the new console and make it available to any of the older console's games being run. Essentially, the game needs to think it's being run on the older console.

 

It's worth noting that older consoles don't necessarily have APIs, and the game program interacts directly with the hardware. APIs can also be quite complicated, which is why even though the PS4 and Xbox One both use the x86 architecture which is used by almost all PCs, it will be very difficult to virtualize a PS4 due to not being able to easily replicated the functionality of the API. Implementing the API can often be as complicated as running the entire operating system (if there is one) of the old console through virtualization or emulation.

 

Emulation is required when the new console uses a different architecture from the old one. The instructions will not be the same, so not only do you need to re-create the API or fake direct access to the hardware, you also need to translate the instructions from the architecture used by the old console, to that of the new console. There are two ways this is done. The first way is called interpretation and is essentially simulating the CPU of the older console through software. The other way is to actually translate the machine code of the game into machine code that the new console can understand, and simply run that. In most cases, both of these techniques mean a specific emulator can only be run on a processor with the same architecture as the machine it was designed to run on. For instance, the NES emulator that runs NES virtual console games on the Wii U is probably the same as the one on the Wii, because they both have the same architecture, but that emulator wouldn't be easy to port to the PC, since PCs use a different architecture.

 

 

 

 

For that reason, I think it's likely that if Nintendo wants to continue to push the virtual console, and wants to have any sort of backwards compatibility with the past few consoles, they'll likely stick with the power architecture. This will make it a little bit more difficult to port games and game engines to the platform, but not prohibitively so. Keep in mind that the Xbox 360 and PS3 both used the Power architecture, yet most multiplatform 7th generation games were also ported to Windows, which runs on x86 based processors. Game engines today are mostly written in C and C++ which are quite portable between different architectures. With the next Xbox and Playstation likely sticking with x86, Nintendo sticking with Power might be a bit of an annoyance to developers, but if the NX is able to gain a large enough user base, it will be profitable to port engines and games over. It's worth noting that the Unity Engine is already compatible with the Wii U (Nintendo actually encourages it's use for independent developers who they don't trust with the official development kits), and Armature Studio (founded by a few ex-Retro employees) is currently in the process of porting Unreal Engine 4 to the Wii U, and will be making it available to other licensed Wii U developers once it's done.

 

The next question is the hybrid console rumor that's been floating around. I still don't think this will be the case. At least not in the way some people seem to think it will be. It is very much possible to carry out a computation using separate computers to speed up the process. This is called distributed computing, and it's becoming fairly common for things like scientific research. The different rumors I've heard about the NX are that the handheld will be the main console, and it will plug into a base station when at home which contains faster hardware, which it will either use exclusively when docked, or the hardware on both devices will be used. The first I think is unlikely simply because someone else won't be able to play on the home console when the handheld isn't there (unless multiple handhelds are owned), you'd have expensive hardware just sitting there (and we're talking about the most expensive parts of a more traditional console), not being usable because some of the cheaper parts (mainly just data storage) aren't there. I think the processing being offset between the different devices when home is even more unlikely. Most programmers today have trouble wrapping their heads around how to work with multiple threads running on a single multi-core processor, let alone sharing the load between a few different processors on different machines, probably connected either through a network, or some proprietary hardware and protocol. Nintendo's been terrible at working with 3rd party developers historically, but I think something like that is a step too far. I think what's far more likely is a home console and a handheld, which can both function independently of each other, but both run the same operating system, have the same architecture, and can play the same games. Anyone who's configured a PC game before knows that game engines these days are often made incredibly scalable. Grand Theft Auto V for Windows for instance allows the player to turn on certain visual effects that even the most powerful graphics cards available today struggle with. But you can also turn everything down to the very minimum, allowing it to run on graphics cards from nearly 8 years ago. With modern game engines, you can easily ship games that are scalable like this to run on pieces of hardware with varying amounts of power. Different settings could be shipped with the game for both the handheld and home console, and applied opaquely depending on the platform the game was running on. Combine this with extremely good syncing of save data and things like that over the network, and you could have a handheld and home console that function like the described hybrids from the perspective of the user, but are much more traditional under the hood, and easier for programmers to deal with (making development cheaper and faster).

 

In terms of processing power, if it comes out this year, I'd expect the home console portion (if there is one) to be roughly equivalent to a PS4 (since the PS4 is already profitable), and if it comes out next year, a little better than that.

 

I expect optical media will still be around, but we'll see a new iteration of the Nintendo Optical Disk format which can store at least 50GB. Games are getting larger and larger, and there are many people who simply don't have fast enough internet connections to download 50GB games in a reasonable amount of time.

 

I've already made my thoughts on the controller pretty clear. Pro controller with analog triggers, and maybe with the face laid out slightly differently. Supporting older controllers is fairly easy since they use standard hardware (and protocols for the most part) to connect.

 

In terms of software, I expect things like the virtual console will stick around. It'll probably be a much smoother transition from the Wii U/3DS to the NX than the Wii to the Wii U was. I think Nintendo Network in general will likely become a much more refined experience on the NX as Nintendo has had time now to study how well different aspects of the service work and will be able to refine it a bit more. Hopefully the NX sees the end of downloaded games being locked to specific hardware rather than your account.