Topic: Switchmas Eve Rumors and Speculations Thread

[Ian Sane]

Super Mario Maker is the sort of game where a sequel would contain all the content from the original game plus more.  What are they going to remove features we can put in our levels?  That just doesn't make sense.  So they could port it with a huge amount of new exclusive content (Charging Chucks, slopes), a game's worth of new exclusive default levels, and backwards compatibility with the existing servers and uploaded stages and that would probably be enough new stuff that it would be a worthwhile upgrade for existing owners.  Because, really, what else would you even expect from a Super Mario Maker sequel?  Just call it Super Mario Maker Ver. 2.0 or something like that.

[Mop it up]

It is a normal want, that's why nobody's said it. It's just taken as a given, of course people want new games. These would ideally be in addition to that.

I'm not so sure if that's true. Enhanced ports and re-releases have become extremely popular, and they've even sold the PS4 and XBone at certain points. Plus, I see a lot of people (not just here) requesting a wealth of enhanced ports and re-releases for NX, not just one or two. They seem to be something a lot of people want several of, a mindset I just can't get behind.

[MagicCow64]

I also generally find the "remaster" trend to be distasteful and indicative of the poor state of the current gen release schedule. It also speaks to the "whaling" of the industry, as publishers are depending on people double dipping for questionable benefit (this will soon expand to consoles themselves!). Obviously Nintendo is not free of this sin, but as with many other dubious industry practices they've yet to go whole hog.

That said, WiiU re-releases are sort of hard to argue against given how small that audience was and how high-quality many first-party games were. But this would also assume that the NX is going to be dramatically more successful, which I'm skeptical about. Worst case scenario the early slate of the ~15M-lifetime-units NX is larded up with WiiU ports, and later original NX games are in the same position as under-exposed WiiU games were.

[nickmitch]

It is a normal want, that's why nobody's said it. It's just taken as a given, of course people want new games. These would ideally be in addition to that.

I'm not so sure if that's true. Enhanced ports and re-releases have become extremely popular, and they've even sold the PS4 and XBone at certain points. Plus, I see a lot of people (not just here) requesting a wealth of enhanced ports and re-releases for NX, not just one or two. They seem to be something a lot of people want several of, a mindset I just can't get behind.

People buy what you give them.  Nostalgia is in, for sure, but if the high profile games are ports, then that's what people are gonna buy.

For the NX, I think the clamor for Wii U ports mostly relates to games Wii U owners don't want to stop playing and Nintendo's inability to properly support the Wii U.  You don't want to see that happen again, so you expect Nintendo to pad with up ports, but you'd also like them to be good up ports.

[nickmitch]

Super Mario Maker is the sort of game where a sequel would contain all the content from the original game plus more.  What are they going to remove features we can put in our levels?  That just doesn't make sense.  So they could port it with a huge amount of new exclusive content (Charging Chucks, slopes), a game's worth of new exclusive default levels, and backwards compatibility with the existing servers and uploaded stages and that would probably be enough new stuff that it would be a worthwhile upgrade for existing owners.  Because, really, what else would you even expect from a Super Mario Maker sequel?  Just call it Super Mario Maker Ver. 2.0 or something like that.

Or, they could go all out and make Super Mario Maker Maker: a game where you design level editors.

[Ian Sane]

The funny thing with a re-release or a remaster is that it does do a service for gamers.  It gives someone the ability to buy a game that is otherwise out of print.  I've bought re-releases before in situations where I didn't own the original version of the game and in some cases didn't even own the original system.  Videogames are specifically tied to hardware.  It's not like music or films where you they can just transition from record to CD and it all just works.  Lots of games don't get re-releases and force people to seek out used copies or resort to piracy to play them.  It can be a big convenience to see an old game get a modern release.

The problem is that the customers for these games aren't just those that missed out the first time.  People double-dip and the publishers know it so they try to exploit that.  Then you get an over-abundance of re-releases, sometimes sharing shelf space with the original versions (if I go to Wal-Mart I can find PS3 and PS4 versions of Last of Us and GTA V effortlessly) and release schedules treating these not as an extra for those that missed out but as a key part of the release schedule.  Nintendo in particular tends to do that.  Re-releases tend to fall into lulls in the schedule which gives the impression like I'm supposed to buy those instead of playing something actually new.  Like those "count" as a proper game and I can't complain about the release gap.  But then I think that aspect is very Nintendo specific as it doesn't appear that way on the other consoles since there is enough third party support that release schedule gaps aren't really a thing.

The PS4 and XB1 tend to have more of a problem of their games also being available on the old hardware making there less of a need to own the new system.  But they also get remasters of games that are like two or three years old which is ridiculous.  What is the remaster for?  Last gen they played it up an HD remaster so that the game looked good on a modern TV.  So why do PS3 games that already look good on an HDTV need a remaster?

[Adrock]

Get your NX rumors. NeoGaf user, 10k, was passed some info. He was holding onto it for a while, but got the okay not too long ago to post it by the mods there. My understanding is that his sources didn't want the attention, and Nintendo is apparently watching threads like that one. It seems like Nintendo is stupid serious about protecting NX secrets. Why anyone would risk their livelihood to leak sensitive info is beyond me? I'll take it though. Anyway, 10k split the info into tiers based on number of sources backed up the claims (e.g. Tier 1 = one source etc.).

Tier 4
1. NX is more powerful than PS4 "by a noticeable amount" from CPU to GPU to RAM. NX's CPU being more powerful than PS4's was previously mentioned much earlier in that NeoGaf thread by LCGeek.

2. Super Smash Bros. and Zelda Wii U remasters are 100% confirmed. Emily Rogers mentioned there were four ports/remasters. The other two are Super Mario Maker and Splatoon. Nintendo is struggling to transfer player data and doesn't want courses to be lost. It is also struggling to transfer player data for Splatoon, but also wants to make the game cross-compatible with Wii U players. 10k expects a screen in the NX controller though this seemed to be his own musings and not something his sources gave him. Read between the lines and that's the conclusion you should arrive at. If Nintendo wants NX and Wii U players to play Splatoon together, NX is going to need a version of the Gamepad.

Tier 2 (there was no Tier 3)
1. NX Non-Disclosure Agreements are extremely strict. No surprise. However, a source mentioned they know more Nintendo hardware people than software people yet they're being fed info from the software people. The hardware people aren't saying anything.

2. Nintendo is cracking down on leaks.

Tier 1
1. NX software development kits are out and developers have them.

2. NX is easy to port to. Apparently, developers are having no trouble porting current generation games over. It's a quick process and developers seem happy with it.

3. NX architecture is under NDA, but is speculated to be x86. 10k disagreed, but his source said porting from x86 to ARM (handheld to console) and x86 to x86 (PS4/One to NX) is easy while porting from x86 to ARM (console to handheld) is trickier. 10k gets a little technical from here, mentioning compiling and changing integers and recompiling. I'm not going to try to explain that. I just wanted to write out a summary since I have 10k's post on my phone (didn't want to attempt to copy and paste all of that) and I'm typing this out on my laptop.

4. A different source (a coder who works Nintendo) laughed off NeoGaf's focus on x86. 10k speculates that this source is alluding to the console also using ARM.

5. No one knows anything about the handheld. None of his sources or his sources' sources know if "NX"  also refers to the handheld or if it has a different codename. The handheld is speculated to get some exclusive games, but it won't get many downported console games. The console could theoretically play all games. It sounds like a partially shared library. If I had to guess, I'd say Mario Kart is a game that would be a perfect shared title. It's a waste of resources to recreate assets for handheld and console. The Mario Kart team could instead focus on creating DLC packs instead developing Mario Kart 9 then starting over with Mario Kart 10.

---

Anyway, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if NX was more powerful than PS4. It's launching mid-generation. I'm similarly not surprised by the four Wii U ports. Those are the ones I'd pick to start. A Mario Kart sequel could easily be ready in 2017 so no need to port MK8. If true, it's nice to know developers have SDKs and that NX is easy to port to. I still don't expect a ton of ports. Nintendo is going to have to work for third party support. Obviously, start with the big ones (e.g. Madden, Call of Duty) then work its way down.

[NWR_insanolord]

It's very like Nintendo to just go completely nuts with secrecy here in response to how much leaked about the 3DS and Wii U really early. There's a new president, but the spirit of Yamauchi lives on.

[Nile Boogie Returns]

The NX app is a solid workaround for Super Mario Maker if the New controller is screenless.

[Shaymin]

That sounds like a lot of "that would make sense".

[Soren]

A lot of it is logical. I will say this RE:GamePad. Given the challenges they've faced with implementing meaningful second screen experiences that don't sacrifice performance (see Digital Foundry's Star Fox video) I can see Nintendo supporting the GamePad for a second generation but completely phasing out everything that's not Off-TV play or inventory management. NX will be a resource hog(duh, like any other console) and Nintendo can't afford to have an additional peripheral syphoning off extra processing power where it might be needed most.

Yes, it would mean have to dedicate resources to yet another legacy controller but Nintendo dug themselves into this whole with the Wii. I hope with NX they can finally phase out Wiimotes,Nunchucks, CC,CCP and (sigh) the Wii U Pro Controller and just focus on having a good solid controller that builds off the Pro Controller. And then pair that with the NX handheld and (optional) support for the GamePad.

As for the porting issue, I just want Nintendo to not make the porting process so difficult it prevents devs from even wanting to touch the system. For good or worse, it's a selfish desire on my part.

[Evan_B]

They may have faced some challenges with streaming, but their streaming is very optimized, and I also think they would be hesitant to let that effort go to waste.

Splatoon and Mario Maker confuse me, seeing as both utilize touchscreen heavily. I feel that porting them and removing that functionality (specifically in the case of Mario Maker) would be an awful way to go about things. Honestly, I think that the touchscreen-in-controller is a great mechanic that doesn't need to be a huge focus, but should be present. This is a repeat of what I have stated in the past when considering the NX's controller design, though it makes all the more sense if they'll be porting gamepad-centric titles to the new console.

[Soren]

I don't think Mario Maker is as resource intensive in its second screen capabilities, so it could work. I'm just saying Nintendo will phase out things like the second screen experiences in Star Fox Zero that are a definite impact on performance.


More importantly, it won't require 3rd parties to support the thing.

[Ian Sane]

A console more powerful than the PS4 with a screen controller sounds like it would be expensive.  Or is the screen controller part optional?  Maybe make the handheld the optional screen controller like with the Cube?  I think the biggest stumbling block with the GC-GBA connectivity was selling the damn cable separately; while I knew lots of GBA owners and very few Cube owners the GBA owners weren't willing to buy a $20 cable for something to use solely at my house and I wasn't going to buy myself four of them.  With today's tech it would all just connect wirelessly.

If the console can theoretically play all the games then I won't bother with the handheld.  I get the concept of one platform but if there are a handful of exclusives on either side it's going to feel like a damn rip-off to buy two systems where 99% of the games are the same, in order to access everything.  One thing that is kind of nice about prior Nintendo handheld/console combos is that they were different enough that it was really worthwhile to own both.  I'm fine with them both being very different or literally exactly the same but not so much where they're only mostly the same.  A side effect of this approach is also that Nintendo will probably not get as many customers buying both so hopefully they're anticipating that.

I don't like the idea of the console using ARM.  Quit bullshitting around, Nintendo.  If you give third parties an excuse to not support you, they won't.  The only valid excuse I could see for not going with x86 is if they really have to have the same type of processor in both the handheld and console for the concept to work.  But I can see Nintendo going with ARM because they're familiar with it.  They're never going to fix the third party support if they design things with too much focus on their own wants.  And if they don't fix the third party support problem their consoles are not going to sell.

The good thing about these rumours is that there isn't something outrageously stupid that looks like it will sink the console before it even launches like Nintendo still going with outdated hardware.  This rumoured design sounds like it could have a chance to succeed.

[Evan_B]

Not if you keep talking like that, Ian!

Lighten up! It's going to be hilarious no matter what situation pans out, right???

[Mop it up]

The funny thing with a re-release or a remaster is that it does do a service for gamers.  It gives someone the ability to buy a game that is otherwise out of print.  I've bought re-releases before in situations where I didn't own the original version of the game and in some cases didn't even own the original system.

Right, I'm fine with straight-up re-releases, especially when they are older games that are long out of print. The Virtual Console is a good example, I have no problem with that because it takes little effort and doesn't feel like it gets in the way of new releases. The stuff you went on to say in your post is what I was referring to as my issue with things.

[Adrock]

A console more powerful than the PS4 with a screen controller sounds like it would be expensive.

The screen on the controller isn't what would make it expensive which, based on dozens of your previous posts, is your concern despite being corrected on this every time (e.g. what parts/manufacturing costs ≠ what Nintendo charged for replacements). If your issue is that you don't want to pay for something more powerful than PS4, you really need to pick a side. You have spent a literal decade derailing almost every discussion to complain about Nintendo not matching competing consoles' specs, and now Nintendo may finally do the very thing you've been asking for, it's too expensive. You can't have it both ways. If you want powerful hardware, you have to pay a premium.

I don't like the idea of the console using ARM.  Quit bullshitting around, Nintendo.  If you give third parties an excuse to not support you, they won't.

Third parties don't need an excuse. If they want one, they'll find one. More importantly, I'd recommend reading up on this. ARM is supported by every modern engine, and porting from x86 is apparently easy. Due to the rise of mobile, ARM isn't going anywhere. The most important thing is that Nintendo is moving away from PowerPC.

[Ian Sane]

A console more powerful than the PS4 with a screen controller sounds like it would be expensive.

The screen on the controller isn't what would make it expensive which, based on dozens of your previous posts, is your concern despite being corrected on this every time (e.g. what parts/manufacturing costs ≠ what Nintendo charged for replacements). If your issue is that you don't want to pay for something more powerful than PS4, you really need to pick a side. You have spent a literal decade derailing almost every discussion to complain about Nintendo not matching competing consoles' specs, and now Nintendo may finally do the very thing you've been asking for, it's too expensive. You can't have it both ways. If you want powerful hardware, you have to pay a premium.

Yeah, THAT is what to read out of this.  That I don't want up-to-date specs to raise the price.  Not, you know, the fucking screen controller.  If the controller didn't affect the price then why is the Wii U the price it is?  No price cut, not at a price point that works as a secondary console and yet with outdated specs that in theory should make it easier to lower the price.  I can come to two conclusions - either the Gamepad costs a fair chunk and keeps the price of the console high or Nintendo for some idiotic reason has willingly decided to keep the price high on a console that has failed to sell at the current price point but could perhaps sell better at a lower one like its predecessor was able to.  Nintendo is either handcuffed by the Gamepad or fucking stupid.  Nintendo pretty much saved the 3DS by lowering the price so why would they NOT do it for the Wii U if they could?

Considering that the PS4 has no screen controller I'm assuming that a console that exceeds its power and also has a screen controller will cost more than it.  The specs are important, the screen controller is not so it should be optional.  It would not be worth it to inflate the price of the console so Nintendo can port Splatoon and Super Mario Maker.  Also if the price point is higher for essentially a mandatory Gamepad purchase how does Nintendo sell consumers on that when in general the Wii U's use of the Gamepad was underwhelming?  This isn't a new concept where Nintendo can sell it on potential.  We've seen a console with a screen controller and it really isn't that great of a feature.  I'm totally on board with it as an optional feature and I think using the handheld would be the best approach (it would be more adopted than selling a separate Gamepad).  But I think bundling it in is a stupid idea, unless by magic it does not affect the price.

[Mop it up]

I think if the NX console has a touchscreen in its controller, it will be a small one, more like the size of the 3DS top screen (or maybe the XL). If its main use is things like maps or inventory management, and it isn't intended for off-TV play, then it won't need to be very big. Heck, it won't really need to be HD in that case either. Keeping the size down will also allow the controller to be shaped more like a traditional controller (such as Nintendo's own Pro or Classic) instead of the rectangular monstrosity that is the GamePad, which would be a good idea too. I can't imagine a single screen like this costing very much at this point either.

The only Wii U game that I feel might suffer from a smaller controller screen is Super Mario Maker, but I'd have to see it first.

[Stratos]

I wonder if they could get the Wii U gamepad to sync with the NX on its own, allowing for backwards compatibility that way. It would also be an encouragement to Wii U adopters to upgrade because they could continue to get use out of their previous system investment.

[NWR_insanolord]

The controller isn't the reason it won't be backward compatible, that's because of the architecture change. They'd have to either include the Wii U hardware as part of the NX or do a whole lot of work with emulation for limited compatibility like Microsoft is now with Xbox One.

[Adrock]

Yeah, THAT is what to read out of this.  That I don't want up-to-date specs to raise the price.  Not, you know, the fucking screen controller.  If the controller didn't affect the price then why is the Wii U the price it is?  No price cut, not at a price point that works as a secondary console and yet with outdated specs that in theory should make it easier to lower the price.  I can come to two conclusions - either the Gamepad costs a fair chunk and keeps the price of the console high or Nintendo for some idiotic reason has willingly decided to keep the price high on a console that has failed to sell at the current price point but could perhaps sell better at a lower one like its predecessor was able to.  Nintendo is either handcuffed by the Gamepad or fucking stupid.  Nintendo pretty much saved the 3DS by lowering the price so why would they NOT do it for the Wii U if they could?

Yeah, that is what I'm taking from your post because this has already been addressed many times so spare me your sarcasm. Here's the link to this three year old CNN Money story again. The Gamepad components were estimated at $79.25 in 2013, $24.75 of which was the touchscreen. The rest is basically a wash between the GamePad and DualShock 4 (the latter also has all that motion control stuff you hate). You're kicking up a fuss over less than $25 in 2013 so that cost is actually less now because that's what happens when technology matures. A 480p screen was hardly top of the line even when Wii U launched. If a Gamepad successor included a better screen, that screen would probably be around $25 in 2016.

Nintendo didn't drop the price of Wii U because it wouldn't have had nearly the same impact. It has dominated the handheld market since 1989. Crawling on bloody stumps over hot coals to save 3DS during the handheld's first year was the only logical choice. And do you not remember how badly the 3DS price drop fucked up Nintendo's financials? That fiscal year was Nintendo's first ever full-year loss since going public. To further put that in perspective, Nintendo went public in 1962. That collective clusterfuck was so bad Satoru Iwata took a 67% pay cut.

I'm totally on board with it as an optional feature and I think using the handheld would be the best approach (it would be more adopted than selling a separate Gamepad).  But I think bundling it in is a stupid idea, unless by magic it does not affect the price.

Here's the thing: I actually agree with the first part. I've been saying for quite some time that while there should absolutely be a version of the GamePad on NX, it should be optional. The GamePad can be packaged with games that largely require it like a follow-up to Super Mario Maker with the understanding that both game and controller are also sold separately. There's definitely a place for that controller (namely Virtual Console), but it isn't the point of NX.

Bundling the GamePad with NX wouldn't be a bad move because of the price (as painfully explained to you for the eleventy billionth time). It'd be a bad move because Nintendo should be distancing itself from Wii U (at least until nostalgia kicks in years from now). Nintendo can't do that by launching a similar package. Let NX be NX.

[MagicCow64]

Beyond Adrock's correct point that the screen itself wasn't a huge cost sink in the WiiU, in a GamePad-less scenario it still would have cost $300 bucks. I can't see how a generic 360-level Nintendo console at that point would have fared noticeably better. The screen at least gives the WiiU an identity and provided a solid benefit with off-screen play and second screen management, even if actual showcase uses were rare. There were some cool ones though! There's nothing quite like the Nintendo Land Mario Chase-type games, had great fun the few times it came together to play it with people. It's looking like a failed evolutionary tree, but like the second screen of the 3DS I think having the extra panel is totally worthwhile going forward even if it's just a convenience thing for the most part.

I am also a huge proponent of second screens for general computing, I've been doing it for years in the home office and I feel very claustrophobic when cut back down to one monitor elsewhere.

Edit: Sort of an aside, but I was just trying to think about what game I would be viscerally excited for at this point, and I think it's down to whatever Retro's got cooking. They've lost attention do to the DK games, but between the Prime games and the Returns games, I think they're arguably one of the very best studios working today. I've been going on the assumption that I'll hold off on whatever the NX is, but if there's an awesome Retro roll-out at E3 I could change my tune.

[NWR_insanolord]

I think Retro and EAD Tokyo are arguably the two best development studios in the industry, and both of them are in a position to have something ready at or near the NX launch based on when their last release was. Nintendo wants to hit the ground running, to give people reasons to buy the thing early, and that would be a hell of a one-two punch early on.

[Evan_B]

While I think EAD is NOW a great studio (not too fond of their previous efforts), Retro has been consistently good for a while, and that's factoring in some of the people that have come and gone through the company.

I assume that EAD would be doing a Mario title, but I'd honestly like Retro to have the opportunity to do their own thing. A new IP, perhaps. I mean, yes, I DO want a new Metroid, but that could be given to just about anyone.