Nintendo's NX Strategy [thrip]

[Hogge]

Mod abuse: Original discussion ripped from the Zelda U/NX thread.

 

This is utterly broken logic. Nintendo will sell more consoles by focusing on releasing their less popular franchises on their console?

By having a wide variety of games, they can appeal to a wider audience. Make something for the extreme sports buffs, something for the shooter lovers, something for the car enthusiasts, something for flight sim geeks and you have a lot of different games.

 

And in front of anything: make games that showcase the console's capabilities.

 

I never said that they invested in the wrong IP's. I said they're investing in the wrong games. Animal Crossing could've been better received... if it was a real Animal Crossing and not Amiibo Festival. Yarn Yoshi could've convinced more people... if it had been a 3D platformer. New Mario Bros U could've been a better system seller if it was Mario Maker.

I don't believe the Order 1886 sold anyone on the PS4.

 

I believe that the PS4 sold itself due to being $100 cheaper, better marketed and more powerful to boot. The PS4 hasn't won the console war because of exclusive software, it won in the same way the PS1 won, $100 cheaper, better tech and a much better marketing campaign.

It is true that the PS1 won because of price and horsepower, but that's far from the entire truth. On paper, the Saturn was actually more powerful than the PS1 (2x28Mhz processors vs 1x34Mhz, identical RAM although Saturn could expand to have 4x RAM). There are quite a few ports that were supperior on the Saturn, featuring dynamic lighting and that sort of thing. But the Saturn used quads instead of triangles to render 3D models and it had, like the PS3, an architecture that was too complicated to get the most out of it. The PS1 received plenty of third party support because Sony offered better terms than Sega. Also, Sega soiled their relations with everybody, espescially retailers, by dropping the console ahead of plans. In the end, the Saturn was launched with Virtua Fighter and the PS1 with Tekken. The difference was night and day and even though Sega released an enhanced version of VF1 later, the damage was done.

Same goes for the PS2. It was factually weaker than the Gamecube. But until this day, people do claim that the PS2 is more powerful. Heck, I've even talked to people who seriously try to claim that the PS1 was more powerful than the N64.

 

Long story short, what I've learned in different courses and by speaking to people in the industry, the most important thing is perceived value. The Wii U wasn't necesserilly overpriced or underpowered at launch. The Wii U is more powerful than the PS3 and it was launched nearly a year before people would even get to see the first PS4 games. Had Nintendo launched with one game with a blockbuster that showed off the graphical capabilities of the system and used the tablet in a way that clearly improved the experience, people would've perceived a better value.

 

 

The Wii U flopped not because of a lack of F-Zero, but because the console was comparatively too expensive and the marketing was a shambles in every sense to the point where barely anyone knew it existed and half of those that did failed to understand what it was.

Of course it flopped because of price and marketing. And yet again: noone said that the lack of F-Zero alone killed the console. But you must realise that exclusive games are a means of marketing. You draw comparsions to Hollywood, so I'll draw one right back at you.

Hollywood generally invests into big blockbusters and comedies, because that's where the money is. Sequels and reboots of the same old shite. But they also invest in biographies and deep, artistic movies that don't sell well. Why? Because they are fishing for Oscars. Because they think that if they win Oscars, their brand will have an aura of good quality and maturity, which will make even more people watch their other movies. They are trying to make their brand more marketable.

 

You have to view their games as marketing.

And be honest: how well did Nintendoland and New Mario Bros sell the Wii U? Was it clear as day that the Wii U was more powerful than the PS3?

 

It's funny that a few pages back I wrote a list of improvements in the Wii U lineup, and the only one you seem to have noticed was F-Zero. F-Zero is just an example. You can swap it out for anything else. Nintendo could've released an off-road vehicle racer and released it under the Excite-brand. A new Diddy Kong Racing based off the MK8 engine. A 3D Yoshi platfomer. An actual Animal Crossing game.

If you, or anyone else, believes that F-Zero is the reason the Wii U failed, then you are deluded!

Noone ever said that's the sole reason the Wii U failed. But it is an example of a game that can show off the Wii U's performance as well as a game that could've shown off the Wii U as a good online platform.

 

You clearly didn't read my post.

 

There has been a huge convergence of genres over the last generation. This has lead to many genres being either wiped out completely or simple made to be more like 'COD' or contain more action and 'shooty bits' because they need to attract larger audiences to justify their huge costs.

I've spoken to different people in the business and overall the big publishers are realising how bad this convergence was.

No later than last week was I at a lecture with a AAA level designer who clearly stated that during the last generation, marketing people were firmly in charge of what games would be like. Regardless if they knew anything about games or not. People who understood the film industry and wanted to market games as they had been taught to market movies. So they wanted big explosions, cinematic set pieces and conformity. The publishers were fine with this, because people don't finish the single player campaigns anyway.

Fast forward to the last few years and publishers have become alarmed with used game sales. They are shocked, because up to as many as 50% of all games that are bought for consoles are then sold back as used within the first few months. In their eyes, that means that they are making a loss because of short singleplayer campaigns and no replayability.

 

In other words: yes, the industry has conformed, but it seems to have done more harm than good. And the industry seems to understand that.

A small example of this is the survival horror genre. Resident Evil slowly became an action based game and got rid of atmosphere and horror for guns and body counts. Dead Space did the same, by the time we reached Dead Space 3 the game was a third person shooter with online modes and micro-transactions!

Resident Evil keeps on swaying back and forth, uncertain of where it should go. They tried to make RE5 action heavy, but they got a backlash, so they did that game released for the 3DS and Wii U, which was more horror oriented, then they went balls to the wall crazy with RE6... which sold well but got panned. Right now they're remaking RE2, so god knows in what direction that franchise is heading.

That change killed the Dead Space franchise. And the reason is the specific reasons you're referring to.

 

If nothing else, you can look at Mirrors Edge 2, which is a sequel to a forgotten niche game, which is going to go even more niche-y, by not allowing the protagonist to use guns at all anymore.

The industry is converging more and more around blockbuster games that share more and more similar characteristics.

 

...so you DO agree that Nintendo are making the wrong games?

Edited May 6, 2016 by Ike

[Ashley]

As we're still talking about F-Zero - what about a 2D game instead of a fully HD title? With the right art style it could look pretty.

[Hogge]

As we're still talking about F-Zero - what about a 2D game instead of a fully HD title? With the right art style it could look pretty.

 

That kinda entirely defeats the purpose, doesen't it?

[Zechs Merquise]

By having a wide variety of games, they can appeal to a wider audience. Make something for the extreme sports buffs, something for the shooter lovers, something for the car enthusiasts, something for flight sim geeks and you have a lot of different games.

 

And in front of anything: make games that showcase the console's capabilities.

 

When you look at the big sellers that are pushing both the PS4 and XBO, there isn't much variance. There's a huge amount of shooters, action games and FIFA. There's not really much variance - the fact is though, Nintendo have missed out on all of those games - Battlefront, Black Ops, Advanced Warfare, FIFA - those are the games driving sales.

 

This is why I am so curious that people are banging on about F-Zero, if Wipeout or Extreme-G were dominating the all format charts I would be screaming for Nintendo to best them with their own brand of futuristic racing games. But that isn't the case, if Nintendo were to go all out and try for something more financially risky, it should be a killer FPS or action title to rival COD or GTA.

 

I never said that they invested in the wrong IP's. I said they're investing in the wrong games. Animal Crossing could've been better received... if it was a real Animal Crossing and not Amiibo Festival. Yarn Yoshi could've convinced more people... if it had been a 3D platformer. New Mario Bros U could've been a better system seller if it was Mario Maker.

 

I agree on Animal Crossing and Mario Tennis - both were lame entries in otherwise wonderful series (not that I play Animal Crossing, but the games do attract a large audience and this one hasn't). I disagree about NSMBU, that has sold really well and Yoshi has always been a 2D platformer - and was a very good game.

 

It is true that the PS1 won because of price and horsepower, but that's far from the entire truth. On paper, the Saturn was actually more powerful than the PS1 (2x28Mhz processors vs 1x34Mhz, identical RAM although Saturn could expand to have 4x RAM). There are quite a few ports that were supperior on the Saturn, featuring dynamic lighting and that sort of thing. But the Saturn used quads instead of triangles to render 3D models and it had, like the PS3, an architecture that was too complicated to get the most out of it. The PS1 received plenty of third party support because Sony offered better terms than Sega. Also, Sega soiled their relations with everybody, espescially retailers, by dropping the console ahead of plans. In the end, the Saturn was launched with Virtua Fighter and the PS1 with Tekken. The difference was night and day and even though Sega released an enhanced version of VF1 later, the damage was done.

Same goes for the PS2. It was factually weaker than the Gamecube. But until this day, people do claim that the PS2 is more powerful. Heck, I've even talked to people who seriously try to claim that the PS1 was more powerful than the N64.

 

Yes, yes, yes, I wrote a huge post about the Saturn when discussing something with you before, and I think you've basically just regurgitated it to me

 

1) $100 more expensive

2) Rushed to release with few games

3) Rushed release burned bridges with retailers who then refused to stock it

4) No money for marketing

5) Public distrust over previous flops

 

Annnnnnd the Saturn was done!

 

Long story short, what I've learned in different courses and by speaking to people in the industry, the most important thing is perceived value. The Wii U wasn't necesserilly overpriced or underpowered at launch. The Wii U is more powerful than the PS3 and it was launched nearly a year before people would even get to see the first PS4 games. Had Nintendo launched with one game with a blockbuster that showed off the graphical capabilities of the system and used the tablet in a way that clearly improved the experience, people would've perceived a better value.

 

Everything is perceived value, everything. Nothing has an inherent value, simply a price people are willing to pay at the given time due to circumstance - for example a cup of water to a man in a desert is worth far more than a cup of gold, however a cup of gold to a man sitting by a lake is worth far more than a cup of water.

 

But back to the point, the Wii U to the general public or the casual observer is not more powerful than the PS3 or the 360 - those consoles all fall within the same bracket when it comes to power, just like the GC, XBOX and PS2 did.

 

Now I know the Wii was roughly the same power as the GC, XBOX and PS2, but it was released at £175, with a game and a controller and offered something genuinely tantalising at that price. The Wii U came out at £300, when its competitors were on the shelf for much less with games that looked the same! You say what if Nintendo had launched something that showed off the capabilities - nothing on the Wii U even now looks so drastically better than 360 or PS3 games that it would justify a £300+ purchase.

 

I have no problem with consoles being less powerful than the competition or not pushing graphical tech as far as it can go, but that must e reflected in price! The Wii reflected the console's lack of power compared to the 360 by being much cheaper and being within the impulse purchase price range!

 

Of course it flopped because of price and marketing. And yet again: noone said that the lack of F-Zero alone killed the console. But you must realise that exclusive games are a means of marketing.

 

Well, actually you're wrong. Exclusive games aren't selling consoles, third party games are. The PS4 has only two exclusives in the top 20 best selling games. For the first time ever, exclusives are not what console sales are hinging on. The trend is now that big third party cross platform titles are shifting systems and dominating sales. These are what Nintendo missed out on! This isn't a theory, it's a fact, look at the sales charts!

 

You draw comparsions to Hollywood, so I'll draw one right back at you. Hollywood generally invests into big blockbusters and comedies, because that's where the money is. Sequels and reboots of the same old shite. But they also invest in biographies and deep, artistic movies that don't sell well. Why? Because they are fishing for Oscars. Because they think that if they win Oscars, their brand will have an aura of good quality and maturity, which will make even more people watch their other movies. They are trying to make their brand more marketable.

 

This is utterly groundless. I don't think there is any 'studio' loyalty in the world of films. I have never in my life heard of anyone choosing to watch films produced by a certain studio (take FOX for example) because FOX made other films they liked. Gaming is totally different in that regard in that there are brand loyalties between console manufacturers. Console manufacturers produce games to sell consoles so they can sell more games to those who own consoles. Films are not tied to producers who make the DVD players - you're confusing two very different situations.

 

You have to view their games as marketing.

And be honest: how well did Nintendoland and New Mario Bros sell the Wii U? Was it clear as day that the Wii U was more powerful than the PS3?

 

It was never going to be as clear as day. Because the Wii U is an incremental increase in power, like the XBOX over the PS2, it's not a night and day change like PS2 to PS3.

 

It's funny that a few pages back I wrote a list of improvements in the Wii U lineup, and the only one you seem to have noticed was F-Zero. F-Zero is just an example. You can swap it out for anything else. Nintendo could've released an off-road vehicle racer and released it under the Excite-brand. A new Diddy Kong Racing based off the MK8 engine. A 3D Yoshi platfomer. An actual Animal Crossing game.

 

Noone ever said that's the sole reason the Wii U failed. But it is an example of a game that can show off the Wii U's performance as well as a game that could've shown off the Wii U as a good online platform.

 

Again, none of the examples you have listed are relevant. None of the examples you have listed would have sold consoles. Look at the games that are selling consoles. Look at the games bundled with other consoles. Look at the top selling games this generation on other consoles.

 

Nintendo are great at appealing to hardcore of Nintendo fans - but even that hardcore is shrinking rapidly because of their choices. If Nintendo want to approach the mass market with a £300+ console, they need to do what is necessary to sell a £300+ console, which is to have the blockbuster games, the power under the hood and a marketing campaign to reflect this.

 

Had the Wii U launched with the power to reflect the price tag and the games that people paying that price tag want to play, things would have been different.

 

I've spoken to different people in the business and overall the big publishers are realising how bad this convergence was.

No later than last week was I at a lecture with a AAA level designer who clearly stated that during the last generation, marketing people were firmly in charge of what games would be like. Regardless if they knew anything about games or not. People who understood the film industry and wanted to market games as they had been taught to market movies. So they wanted big explosions, cinematic set pieces and conformity. The publishers were fine with this, because people don't finish the single player campaigns anyway.

Fast forward to the last few years and publishers have become alarmed with used game sales. They are shocked, because up to as many as 50% of all games that are bought for consoles are then sold back as used within the first few months. In their eyes, that means that they are making a loss because of short singleplayer campaigns and no replayability.

 

In other words: yes, the industry has conformed, but it seems to have done more harm than good. And the industry seems to understand that.

 

I agree, and have repeatedly said this. I didn't bring the used games aspect into it, but I think used games sales have bothered publishers for quite a while, hence the nonsensical and unfair online passes that Sony pushed and MS trying to totally cut out used games.

 

Resident Evil keeps on swaying back and forth, uncertain of where it should go. They tried to make RE5 action heavy, but they got a backlash, so they did that game released for the 3DS and Wii U, which was more horror oriented, then they went balls to the wall crazy with RE6... which sold well but got panned. Right now they're remaking RE2, so god knows in what direction that franchise is heading. That change killed the Dead Space franchise. And the reason is the specific reasons you're referring to.

 

I think RE is far more action orientated and hasn't really swayed back and forth. The 3DS and Wii U game was pretty gun heavy too, I felt I was clearing rooms of enemies more than I was solving puzzles, it certainly wasn't as 'shooty' as RE5 or RE6, but lets not kid ourselves, it wasn't survival horror either, especially toward the end of the game!

 

If nothing else, you can look at Mirrors Edge 2, which is a sequel to a forgotten niche game, which is going to go even more niche-y, by not allowing the protagonist to use guns at all anymore.

 

...so you DO agree that Nintendo are making the wrong games?

 

Yes, I like the idea of some games not having combat, Silent Hill Shattered Memories was awesome and proper horror in a game. It didn't have combat and was a wonderful experience!

 

I agree and disagree about Nintendo making the wrong games. Games like NSMBU are selling well, as is Mario Kart, Smash and Splatoon. But then other franchises like Animal Crossing and Mario Tennis have been damaged and should have been released as full games. Then there is the issue with the lack of Metroid and F-Zero, whilst I certainly don't think the later would sell consoles, I would still love and F-Zero game.

 

Where Nintendo are really going wrong, is that there are two courses the company can take:

 

1) The Wii/DS way: make an affordable, simple and accessible console that attracts people who aren't traditional gamers. This way you can produce a console with less power and market it to a different audience.

 

2) The PS/MS way: make a powerful console, market it to the traditional gaming audience and the more male dominated shooter/action heavy audience. But this way means playing on the same level at Sony and MS.

 

Nintendo are stuck in a horrible 'No Man's Land', a pricey console that is too expensive and complex for the people who bought the Wii and DS, but equally a console that isn't powerful enough, doesn't have the online infrastructure and doesn't have the third party support that is expected by those who buy the PS4 and XBO.

 

Nintendo lacks all the games that are selling consoles marketed to the traditional gamer and the action orientated market that has been captured by Sony and MS. The Wii U has only one game in its library out of the top 20 selling games on the PS4 - ONE (Watchdogs)! If Nintendo wants to play on the same level as MS and Sony, it needs different games, it needs the big third party games, and if it doesn't have them, it needs to create games like them, its own killer FPS, its own killers GTA style game.

 

F-Zero or Diddy Kong Racing or an Excitebike game aren't going to have any effect, Black Ops 3 is the best selling game on both the PS4 and XBO, its sold 13 million units worldwide on the PS4 already (33% attach rate) and its been out less than a year! Yet Nintendo doesn't have it, or the vast vast majority of killer titles that are shifting the PS4 and XBO.

[Kav]

One thing that an F-Zero would do is keep more of their existing fans from leaving. It's shrinking due to a number of factors of course, but one of these is that they're no longer releasing a number of the games we love.

 

I know they'd have an easier time keeping me on board of they released an F-Zero, a Waverace, a Metroid (another generation missed)... as well as Party Chat of course. :p

[Kounan]

But that isn't the case, if Nintendo were to go all out and try for something more financially risky, it should be a killer FPS or action title to rival COD or GTA.

 

I was saying the same not that long ago. Why don't they go for a proper FPS? They should have done it with Devil's Third.

 

They could go with something like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.! I think that Bethesda has the rights to it, but they could do something similar (Fukushima???).

 

Maybe even make Splatoon something like that (let us use more weapons and upgrades in the single player campaing). But they still need a "realistic" shooter.

 

Put a proper marketing into it and it should sell. I think that Xenoblade would have sold better if they have put proper marketing behind it.

 

Also, I do think that a Metroid game could sell the consoles if it's done right.

 

I am quite sure a lot of good games that didn't sell well, didn't sell because of bad marketing. Once you get people attached, it's easier later on.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Kounan

[Sheikah]

What would really do well on a Nintendo console is something quirky with mainstream appeal - something with the impact of Minecraft. I don't think a new FPS in the style of COD would be the thing to save Nintendo's next home console. Nintendo typically don't make FPS-friendly controllers, they don't have the right attitude to online, and the core audiences who love FPS games are more heavily invested in Xbox/PlayStation (and the paid online subscriptions).

 

It's easy to look at which games sell the most in the UK but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're the games that will save Nintendo or make their console a success. If the next COD comes to X1, PS4 and NX, then unless the NX offers a vastly superior experience, which I strongly doubt (based on everything we've experience with Nintendo in the past 10 years), then there's no reason to assume that it will shift many Nintendo consoles. What reason is there for people to buy this on NX over the consoles they already have; the consoles where their friends already are?

 

No, I think that Nintendo need to focus on new IP but new IP that suits their agenda. It also needs to have massive appeal. Games like F-Zero may bring some people back, but it's new ideas that could carve them out a new path.

[Zechs Merquise]

One thing that an F-Zero would do is keep more of their existing fans from leaving. It's shrinking due to a number of factors of course, but one of these is that they're no longer releasing a number of the games we love.

 

I know they'd have an easier time keeping me on board of they released an F-Zero, a Waverace, a Metroid (another generation missed)... as well as Party Chat of course. :p

 

Why the hell are you labouring this clearly ridiculous point about F-Zero? The last F-Zero game sold 650,000 units. Lets say a new F-Zero game also sold 650,000 units (not an unreasonable assumption). Lets say with each F-Zero game a console was sold (totally unreasonable and utterly unrealistic), that would add 650,000 console sales, which is inconsequential in the big scheme of things and less than the PS4 sells in one month. But in actual fact, a new F-Zero would probably at best shift less than a hundred thousand extra consoles.

 

This talk of F-Zero is pathetic, it's like talking about sticking a plaster over the stump of a limb that this haemorrhaging blood.

[Pestneb]

 

Now I know the Wii was roughly the same power as the GC, XBOX and PS2

 

sorry but...

485Mhz CPU

162 GPU

43Mb RAM

 

vs

 

729Mhz CPU

243 Mhz GPU

88Mb RAM

 

Aside from Ram the Wii was half as powerful again as the Gamecube... the Gamecube itself wasn't a bad console, give it proper internet connectivity and internal storage and I think it would have technically been superior to the XBOX.

 

Had the Wii been a 970Mhz CPU, 324 Mhz GPU and 99Mb RAM machine I think we'd have all been happier with a resulting Wii U...

 

As for the Wii U

 

1.24 Ghz is 1.7 times the Wii...

550Mhz is 2.2 times the Wii..

2Gb is 23 times what the Wii had....

 

 

The CPU is obviously not up to XBOX and PS4 standards, but seems to have closed the gap with the competition when compared to the Wii, obviously clock speed is less of an indicator on power than it has been in the past (I believe PS4 actually has a slower clock speed on the CPU than PS3?) so I can't really comment on this with much in the way of knowledge...

 

Ram wise sure they are behind, but Wii was a 6th of the PS3, whereas Wii U is a quarter of the PS4.

 

GPU wise is where the Wii U is weakest compared to the competition, seemingly more on par with the PS3, on clock speed alone the PS4 seems to be 3 times better, while the Wii was about half the PS3....

 

CPU???

Wii 1 PS 8

Wii U 1 PS 5???

 

RAM

Wii 1, PS3 6

Wii U 1, PS4 4

 

Wii 1 PS3 2

Wii 1 PS4 3

 

 

So Ram wise Nintendo went the right direction, CPU I think they have closed the gap but GPU really needs some work... it needs to be able to at least capable of trying to display 4k resolutions, even if in practice it is only a HD machine...

 

Anyway.. probably the wrpong thread but we need something in here right? :P

 

So I imagine NX specs will be something in the ball park of

2.5Ghz CPU

1.1 Ghz GPU

8 Gb Ram.

128Gb - 512Gb internal storage.

 

So I don't think the new zelda will be jaw dropping compared to PS4/X1 consoles.

 

Also, I do think that a Metroid game could sell the consoles if it's done right.

 

That DS Metroid game... I'd actually have been quite pleased if they did that with an art style that is similar to the prime games on a home console. Actually having a Metroid MMOFPS where you play as space marines... and have Bounty Hunter packs, so you can play as a bounty hunter within that universe. Even have bounty hunters on the side of the space pirates/generic baddies that the space marines are taking out. could be interesting. or have to go in and clean up after Samus... or even Samus going in to save marine's butts....

Basically have a few factions and games that all interact within this Metroid universe. It wouldn't even necessarily need to be restricted to a MMOFPS, they could have several games interacting with each other if it was done properly, have an ecosystem of games... buuuut... that's probably well in the realms of fantasy.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Pestneb
Automerged Doublepost

[Zechs Merquise]

What would really do well on a Nintendo console is something quirky with mainstream appeal - something with the impact of Minecraft. I don't think a new FPS in the style of COD would be the thing to save Nintendo's next home console. Nintendo typically don't make FPS-friendly controllers, they don't have the right attitude to online, and the core audiences who love FPS games are more heavily invested in Xbox/PlayStation (and the paid online subscriptions).

 

It's easy to look at which games sell the most in the UK but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're the games that will save Nintendo or make their console a success. If the next COD comes to X1, PS4 and NX, then unless the NX offers a vastly superior experience, which I strongly doubt (based on everything we've experience with Nintendo in the past 10 years), then there's no reason to assume that it will shift many Nintendo consoles. What reason is there for people to buy this on NX over the consoles they already have; the consoles where their friends already are?

 

No, I think that Nintendo need to focus on new IP but new IP that suits their agenda. It also needs to have massive appeal. Games like F-Zero may bring some people back, but it's new ideas that could carve them out a new path.

 

I agree it is new ideas that Nintendo needs in some respects. But you have to be honest and look at what is selling in the market, look at the state of your competition, are they doing better than you, or worse than you? What are they doing differently? What is working for them, and what isn't working for them?

 

Let's all be fair, Nintendo wish they had sold 40 million Wii U consoles, Sony have sold 40 million PS4 consoles. Look at the games that drive those Sony sales. FPS games aren't the be all and end all, but they are the most popular genre on the market at the moment, and Nintendo can either ignore that, or they can learn from it.

 

If Nintendo can't ensure the big franchises like COD and Battlefront, they need to step in and make something that does stand in, and if they can't use that vast pot of cash they sit on to buy someone who can!

 

sorry but...

485Mhz CPU

162 GPU

43Mb RAM

 

vs

 

729Mhz CPU

243 Mhz GPU

88Mb RAM

 

Aside from Ram the Wii was half as powerful again as the Gamecube... the Gamecube itself wasn't a bad console, give it proper internet connectivity and internal storage and I think it would have technically been superior to the XBOX.

 

Had the Wii been a 970Mhz CPU, 324 Mhz GPU and 99Mb RAM machine I think we'd have all been happier with a resulting Wii U...

 

As for the Wii U

 

1.24 Ghz is 1.7 times the Wii...

550Mhz is 2.2 times the Wii..

2Gb is 23 times what the Wii had....

 

 

The CPU is obviously not up to XBOX and PS4 standards, but seems to have closed the gap with the competition when compared to the Wii, obviously clock speed is less of an indicator on power than it has been in the past (I believe PS4 actually has a slower clock speed on the CPU than PS3?) so I can't really comment on this with much in the way of knowledge...

 

Ram wise sure they are behind, but Wii was a 6th of the PS3, whereas Wii U is a quarter of the PS4.

 

GPU wise is where the Wii U is weakest compared to the competition, seemingly more on par with the PS3, on clock speed alone the PS4 seems to be 3 times better, while the Wii was about half the PS3....

 

CPU???

Wii 1 PS 8

Wii U 1 PS 5???

 

RAM

Wii 1, PS3 6

Wii U 1, PS4 4

 

Wii 1 PS3 2

Wii 1 PS4 3

 

 

So Ram wise Nintendo went the right direction, CPU I think they have closed the gap but GPU really needs some work... it needs to be able to at least capable of trying to display 4k resolutions, even if in practice it is only a HD machine...

 

Anyway.. probably the wrpong thread but we need something in here right? :P

 

So I imagine NX specs will be something in the ball park of

2.5Ghz CPU

1.1 Ghz GPU

8 Gb Ram.

128Gb - 512Gb internal storage.

 

So I don't think the new zelda will be jaw dropping compared to PS4/X1 consoles.

 

Awesome post!

 

My apologies, the Wii is obviously more powerful than I believed. I know it has some fantastic looking games - Resident Evil Darkside Chronicles, Monster Hunter 3, Modern Warfare 3, Red Steel 2, Muramasa, Dead Space Extraction and A Boy and His Blob all looked spectacular and Nintendo's first party efforts were often beautiful and pushed the system to its limits.

 

What I meant to say is that the Wii was clearly a lot less powerful than the 360 and PS3 and appeared closer to the original XBOX and GC.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Zechs Merquise

[Hogge]

I agree it is new ideas that Nintendo needs in some respects. But you have to be honest and look at what is selling in the market, look at the state of your competition, are they doing better than you, or worse than you? What are they doing differently? What is working for them, and what isn't working for them?

 

Let's all be fair, Nintendo wish they had sold 40 million Wii U consoles, Sony have sold 40 million PS4 consoles. Look at the games that drive those Sony sales. FPS games aren't the be all and end all, but they are the most popular genre on the market at the moment, and Nintendo can either ignore that, or they can learn from it.

 

If Nintendo can't ensure the big franchises like COD and Battlefront, they need to step in and make something that does stand in, and if they can't use that vast pot of cash they sit on to buy someone who can!

 

Hence why I've been wanting a spiritual successor to Perfect Dark and Goldeneye for absolute ages. And of course the Nintendo equivalent to Gran Turismo that people don't seem to want to hear of.

[dazzybee]

Although I do agree with Zechs regarding F Zero in the main, ultimately I keep talking about it because I want one, quite simple, same with Wave Race. But, playing devils advocate, ultimately, you never know what may happen, you can't solely look at the past. Fire EMblem was nearly a dead franchise, they made a new one as a last ditched attempt and now it's more successful than it's ever been and increasing. Same could happen. Also, you could argue that because Extreme G and Wipeout have faded, maybe there is a huge gap in the market fir a futuristic racer and it could be much more successful.

 

I think the safest route, and would make a lot of people happy, and be a great test. Is to get another company to do a HD remake of GX with online, I think that would make most F Zero fans happy, it'd be relatively cheap too.

 

And the same with Wave Race Blue Storm

 

And Excitebike 64 #fuckexcitetruck

[Zechs Merquise]

Hence why I've been wanting a spiritual successor to Perfect Dark and Goldeneye for absolute ages. And of course the Nintendo equivalent to Gran Turismo that people don't seem to want to hear of.

 

Now that is something I wholeheartedly agree with and something I feel as an exclusive would shift consoles due to the nature of the game and the importance of FPS sales to shifting consoles and the industry in general.

 

What I fail to understand, is that with all their cash, Nintendo didn't buy Free Radical or any of the other talented studios that have struggled recently. I'm not talking about buying lame ducks, but buying up talent and absorbing them into Retro or letting them stand on their own two feet and produce games that the Nintendo library is sorely lacking!

 

I don't think big name racing games are anywhere near as important as they once were - I wouldn't be against a Gran Turismo style game on the Wii U, but ultimately, across both the XBO and PS4, only one racing game appears in either console's top 20 games - Forza 5.

[killthenet]

I agree with Zechs, I looked at the sales figures for the all the F-Zero games recently and unfortunately the SNES original is the only version that's really sold that well so as a financial decision it does make sense that Nintendo haven't bothered with the franchise over the past 10 years. But in terms of adding some variety to Nintendo's output, I think it's essential that they bring it back in some form. Shin'en showed that it's possible to produce an F-Zero style game in HD on a relatively small budget when they released 'Fast Racing Neo' so you'd think that Nintendo could pump a couple of million into developing an HD update of GX without too much concern.

 

As great as Nintendo are at making 2D platformers, there have been far too many this generation, it would be nice to see them taking a chance on other genres like they did so spectacularly with 'Splatoon'.

[Hogge]

I don't think big name racing games are anywhere near as important as they once were - I wouldn't be against a Gran Turismo style game on the Wii U, but ultimately, across both the XBO and PS4, only one racing game appears in either console's top 20 games - Forza 5.

 

Umm... Of course, Gran Turismo isn't out for PS4 yet. Gran Turismo 5 is however the second best selling game on the PS3 (11,8 million copies sold). GT6 is the 8th best selling game on the system(4,7 million units), even though it was released a full week after the PS4 launched!

 

So yes, this specific type of racer, are BIG even today. And I'd say that the only reason Forza isn't doing better is that Microsoft have started to milk the franchise for all it's worth.

[Zechs Merquise]

Although I do agree with Zechs regarding F Zero in the main, ultimately I keep talking about it because I want one, quite simple, same with Wave Race. But, playing devils advocate, ultimately, you never know what may happen, you can't solely look at the past. Fire EMblem was nearly a dead franchise, they made a new one as a last ditched attempt and now it's more successful than it's ever been and increasing. Same could happen. Also, you could argue that because Extreme G and Wipeout have faded, maybe there is a huge gap in the market fir a futuristic racer and it could be much more successful.

 

I think the safest route, and would make a lot of people happy, and be a great test. Is to get another company to do a HD remake of GX with online, I think that would make most F Zero fans happy, it'd be relatively cheap too.

 

And the same with Wave Race Blue Storm

 

And Excitebike 64 #fuckexcitetruck

 

Hey, I'd love a new Wave Race and a new Excitebike and a new 1080! I would love a new F-Zero and own and have beaten every home console F-Zero, it's a great franchise.

 

I just try to base what I write here on facts (sales figures and industry trends) rather than just what I personally wish for.

 

If I had my wish list, we'd all be playing Battalion Wars III, directing troops on the gamepad and participating in epic Battalion Wars online battles. But we're not, and will probably never be as the games never sold very well. Also, we aren't getting a Fire Emblem either, which is very disappointing as the gamepad would be perfect for moving troops around.

 

I can honestly say the Wii U has lacked so many big franchises - Animal Crossing, Metroid, F-Zero, Battalion Wars, Fire Emblem and Excite games. It also looks to be the first console to ever lack a distinct entry to the Zelda series! Sad times.

[Hogge]

And the same with Wave Race Blue Storm

 

And Excitebike 64 #fuckexcitetruck

 

I disagree when it comes to Wave Race Blue Storm. That game was lackluster back in 2001. The vehicle handling was much less pleasant than in WR64, there were too few tracks and I found it baffling that Nintendo just threw in an arcade mode, rather than a proper career mode.

 

Excitebike 64 was however really feature packed.

[Zechs Merquise]

Umm... Of course, Gran Turismo isn't out for PS4 yet. Gran Turismo 5 is however the second best selling game on the PS3 (11,8 million copies sold). GT6 is the 8th best selling game on the system(4,7 million units), even though it was released a full week after the PS4 launched!

 

So yes, this specific type of racer, are BIG even today. And I'd say that the only reason Forza isn't doing better is that Microsoft have started to milk the franchise for all it's worth.

 

Well GT5 sold less than Black Ops, MW3, Black Ops 2 and GTAV making it the fifth biggest selling game. I also count 32 games on the PS3 selling more than 4.7 million units.

 

Either way, they are impressive numbers, and as I said, a GT style game would be welcome on the Wii U, but the priority should lie with FPS and action based games which dominate the gaming landscape, yet are almost completely lacking on the Wii U.

[Ike]

Original discussion ripped from the Zelda U/NX thread.

 

Couldn't think of a better thread title.

[liger05]

I think for the first 6 months they need to have a game scheduled for release each month.

[dazzybee]

I think for the first 6 months they need to have a game scheduled for release each month.

 

I'd say indefinitely they do. Minus maybe January.

 

But if it is one platform I think they'd do that with ease

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

I think for the first 6 months they need to have a game scheduled for release each month.

 

Something tells me it still wont seem enough without third party releases to pad the first party stuff out.

 

But still I feel the best way to make your games enjoyable for a longer amount of time is to create a solid online mode. It would have made the early GC droughts feel so much better if Smash, Wave Race and perhaps Pikmin were online.

[Mandalore]

As we're still talking about F-Zero - what about a 2D game instead of a fully HD title? With the right art style it could look pretty.

 

I'd be happy with a new retro style F-Zero. The gameplay was great in the older 2D games, especially the drifting mechanics introduced in Maximum Velocity. Just make it look nice on HD TVs, add a track editor, online time trial leaderboards etc and it'd surely sell well enough for a game on a low budget. They could even do amiibo for it, wouldn't F-Zero ships make great amiibo figures?

 

Excitebike World Challenge is a good example of a retro style low budget Nintendo game, it was one of my favourite games on the Wii. Nintendo could easily do something similar with F-Zero.

[Hogge]

Yet again: a new 2D F-Zero would be pointless.

What would be the point of making an F-Zero at all? As I've reiterated time and time and time again: to make the NX successful, Nintendo must focus on making games that sell consoles. F-Zero could sell consoles if it's a visual masterpiece. If it's completely and entirely spectacular. If we make a 2D F-Zero, it'll be as disastrous for the NX's image as the long slew of 2D sidescrollers for the Wii U.

 

 

When it comes to racing games, I think Nintendo should introduce a policy of one racer a year. So, given the NX would have a five year lifespan, this is what I think they should do.

 

2017 (launch): Excite!

A spiritual successor to Excitebike 64 as well as Excitetruck. Motorcycles, trucks and rally cars on the same tracks, all racing eachoter. Can be described as a Motorstorm competitor with more content or Forza Horizon with motorcycles. Made available during the launch window of the NX, this game's main goal is to show off the new system's technical capabilities, but also to give their new european studio experience. The game features realistic visuals and physics as well as licensed vehicles.

The game will be updated with new DLC vehicles for about a year after launch. There will also be a heavy emphasis on the game's online portion. Touch screen will be used to create custom paintjobs.

 

2017 (Christmas):Waverace 3

Displayed prior to the console's launch, this game features even more emphasis on amazing physics and graphics. All the tracks from the previous games will be included, as well as the riders.

The game will feature a proper career mode, where players will manage a team of wave racers. Basically, at the start of the game, players will be allowed to choose one of the four racers from WR64, each with their own stats. As the player progresses through the campaign, he will be given the option to recruit other racers with different abilities and personalities. Prior to every race, players will be allowed to choose not just which jetski to use (a whole bunch of licensed vehicles will be made available), but which rider as well. Players will be have light customisation possibilities for the characters, changing their gear.

 

 

2018: Mario Kart Adventure

The most feature-packed Mario Kart until this point. While most of the features in MK8 are carried over, Nintendo add more options than ever. The old "pick up coins and unlock some random thing" is over, with a more clever unlocking system where players have more control over what they unlock. The current five arcade classes, 50cc, 100cc, 150cc, 250cc and Mirror will be accompanied by "classic". Classic will basically be the same as 150cc, but with players being locked to using the Pipe Kart with default parts and no glider. This option will also be available online.

The game will feature an arcade mode as well as an adventure mode, satisfying the demand for a Diddy Kong Racing sequel.

 

2019: Excite GT

Builds on the experiences gained during Excite!, Excite GT is an altogether more ambitious game, featuring hundreds of meticulously recreated cars and tens of real tracks. Basically Gran Turismo or Forza Motorsport with a Nintendo spin.

For example, the real tracks will be mixed out with realistic recreations of classic Nintendo tracks, including Rainbow Road and Choco Mountain.

 

2020: F-Zero nX

A visual firework, distancing itself from realism, focusing instead on being spectacular. The game will feature a heavy focus on online play and vehicle handling will be adapted to give the game a much broader appeal.

And of course, the arcade mode will be dropped in favor of a more robust singleplayer campaign.

 

2021: 1080 Alpine

As a final sendoff for the NX, Nintendo release a new 1080, featuring online, a much upgraded character customisation options (When compared to Waverace 3) and a very robust career mode.

While focus will remain on racing, the game will fill the void of the Tony Hawk's Pro Skater games, by featuring specific challenges involving both tricks and humor.

[dazzybee]

MArio kart must come out immediately, it is a genuine system seller and can be a title they continue to build on throughout the life of the nx. First Christmas alongside Mario 3d