Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Adrock

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 305
Nintendo Console Discussion / Re: NX Launch Lineup
« on: Yesterday at 02:27:08 AM »
The Legend of Zelda Wii U/NX
Retro Studios' not-Metroid game
Super Smash Bros. for Wii U for NX
A straight port of Super Mario Maker (as a pack-in game)

I haven't been paying enough attention to third party games to know what's coming out around then. I think most of them know better than to try late 2016 ports so no Madden or Call of Duty. It isn't worth trying because the vast majority of those ports won't sell well enough to make it worthwhile. Maybe Final Fantasy XV. Maybe. And that's only because Nintendo hardware has a decent sized audience for J-RPGs even if Square Enix is admittedly trying to revamp the series to have a more global feel.

No reason why we can't have both. The components for Motion Plus are super cheap now that it can be sold on the side with little to no fanfare just for Virtual Console support. If it's appropriate for a game, I'd rather it be there than not. Motion controls have played such a big part in Nintendo's history that they'll always be a thing though I wouldn't shocked if certain games were retro-fitted with a traditional controls option just so Nintendo can sell more Virtual Console games. Super Mario Galaxy comes to mind.

I'd probably buy an NX Remote/Nunchuk just to have it.

(This ended up being longer than I expected so I went back and bolded the key points for skimming purposes.)

If you read around the internet (and not just Neogaf though forum members there have been good about culling rumors and quotes from Nintendo, and putting the tech stuff in context), I think there's enough to formulate a reasonable conclusion. There will be a console and a handheld. Reading over Iwata's interviews over the past few years, a shared library seemed like an obvious verdict. Once I started lurking Neogaf more frequently, I noticed the idea was gaining traction. I doubt I'm the first one to think of it, but I felt a little vindicated that others were arriving at the same conclusion.

The library will NOT be 100% shared because third parties will decide which of their games will and will not play on both though Japanese third parties that released successful 3DS software will likely have their games shared if only because it makes more sense to do so. It allows them to sell to a wider audience. Very rarely will we see PC/console games scaled down since that may affect the integrity of the product.

More often than not, first party games will be shared. If a game is too intensive for a handheld (probably anything Monolith Soft pitches), Nintendo will likely greenlight a console exclusive because it's been very good lately about not compromising a creator's vision (e.g. Bayonetta 2). I'm sure some are going to complain about Nintendo holding its first party output back by making games compatible on weaker handheld hardware, but those people are silly and they don't know what they're talking about. Nintendo has been making console-level games on handhelds for at least a generation. It has always valued gameplay over graphics. More to the point, it has always valued art direction and design over graphics. As Nintendo transitions to more powerful handheld hardware, the only difference in terms of its handheld and console output will be resolution. A shared library makes more sense now than ever.

Nintendo is abandoning optical media as it's no longer a viable storage solution for video games. The sheer amount of data of most modern games cannot be read fast enough from an optical disc to display on a screen. This solves a couple of issues. No disc drive cuts cost and no discs mean no installations. Shared library games can be scaled up, but a better solution would be to have the higher resolution textures on the game card and the hardware detects which to display. 540p scales to 1080p easier so expect the handheld screen(s) to be 540p. I suspect digital versions will simply include the texture pack you need depending on the hardware you're playing on. No need to have the larger, higher resolution textures on the handheld.

Nintendo would prefer people buy both console and handheld, but it's a software company first. The point of a shared library is to alleviate droughts and to ultimately release a greater volume of software. Nintendo's thinking is possibly that console owners will have access to all games, but handheld owners will have access to more games than they have before. If a console exclusive game is so desired that a handheld owner buys the console, that's just a win for Nintendo.

Since Nintendo is moving to game cards across the board, physical backwards compatibility is out of the questions, and I doubt Nintendo will bother with an external disc drive. People can still keep their Wii U and Wii, and they'll get over it in time anyway. Still, I expect Nintendo to strive for Virtual Console to include every past generation including Wii U, and be playable on the handheld. Speaking of, for Virtual Console purposes, I fully expect a rebranded Remote/Nunchuk. For simplicity's sake, I think NX's have the standard two sticks, four face buttons, four shoulder buttons, D-Pad, and start/select/home. I'm undecided if the console's main controller includes a screen, but a screen controller is definitely returning.

As far as hardware, specs are not the same as performance, and without proper context, it's hard to tell what Emily Rogers' source means. Still, I expect the console to be in the ballpark of Xbox One and PS4. Unless there's a noticeable jump in performance (which there likely will not be consider NX will not be sold at a launch and releasing over $300 is practically marching it out to die), it doesn't matter if NX is more powerful than PS4. As long as games can be ported, it's ultimately just a business decision whether NX gets support. I expect the handheld to have better performance than Wii U which won't be very difficult in 2017, and only displaying in native 540p would allow the hardware to allocate its power to other things.

I think it's in Nintendo's best interest in the long-run to transition to ARM on the console now, but x86-64 is still a very reasonable expectation. Most modern engines support ARM. The proprietary engines of a few major third party games currently do not. Compiling code for those engines probably isn't especially difficult though it is an extra step. However, the chances of Nintendo getting those games at/around launch or even ever were not very high to begin with. Since regaining support is going to be a long process, this isn't something Nintendo needs to concern itself with right now. And with ARM gaining more and more traction, those proprietary engines or their successors may eventually support ARM. Right now, Nintendo seems to be making all the right moves to create the anti-Wii U. If it has learned anything, I hope it learned that there are no quick fixes, no shortcuts. To improve its market position, Nintendo has to work with what it already has (excellent first party output and key third party output on its handheld) and build from there.

One bit I'm really looking forward to is where My Nintendo fits into puzzle. Right now, it's only compatible with Miitomo (which is weirdly addicting). Players are given "Missions" and completing them Platinum Coins which can be exchanged for discounts or even games. I doubt Nintendo opens up "Missions" to non-mobile games until NX.

I hate dried grapes. I'm sorry if that makes me raisinist.

You're the one making these assumptions about Nintendo charging $100 more.
The only assumption I've made about Nintendo charging more is that it'd be a bad idea. Nintendo isn't in a good enough market position to do so.
If the PS4 if $300 by the time the NX launches then why can't Nintendo make something on par with that and charge the same price?
Come on, man. That's what I've been saying. Again, Kimishima has already stated that NX will not sell at a loss so no razor and blade business mode. And again, Emily Rogers' sources put NX between Xbox One and PS4 which are generally on par with each other. PS4 is a little more powerful and the games have slightly better frame rates and textures, but the differences are negligible for most games unless you're looking at a Digital Foundry comparison. That said, I expect a NX to be priced similarly to PS4 and Xbox One when it launches unless Sony and Microsoft decide to undercut Nintendo at the last minute. They can slash the price, and Nintendo really can't.
And if the NX is $300 and so is the PS4 and the NX is LESS powerful despite costing the exact same price how is that going to go over?
Depends on how much less powerful. Better than Xbox One but worse than PS4? I don't think it'd matter. Obviously, NX would be able to handle multiplatform games then the question is a matter of whether Nintendo can convince publishers to support NX which is the same exact problem as if NX was more powerful than PS4.

Your consumer-focused mentality is understandable, just obscenely unreasonable.
Why is it unreasonable to expect that if company B wants to compete with company A they have to at the very least match company A's product?
You know goddamn well that isn't what I meant. You quoted one line in that entire post, cutting out the surrounding content that put it into context. Get the **** out of here with your straw man bullshit.

It is unreasonable to expect and demand powerful hardware without accepting the responsibility of having to pay a premium for said hardware.
Nintendo should at the very least offer a PS4 comparable product at the same price point.
Jebus, man... Emily Rogers' sources put NX right between PS4 and Xbox One which is exactly what you're stating here. I merely added that Nintendo really should not try to market a $400 console. $300 is the bar (if Rogers' sources are correct, $300 is probably NX's MSRP), and that's pushing it because PS4 will likely be $300 or less by the time NX launches. Do you really want to see how ugly it will get if Nintendo launches $100 or more above the competition mid-generation?
You might not think it is fair or that Nintendo has no other option but that's just how it is.  If Sony was selling supercomputers for 10 cents then that becomes the consumer expectation: 1 supercomputer for 10 cents and anyone that can't compete with that is left out in the cold.
That's a terrible analogy. That isn't a sustainable business model which was my first point. Had Sony continued on the path PS3 was originally on, Nintendo could have just waited until Sony put itself out of business. And NX at $400 like PS4 was at launch isn't going to work either because no one is going to buy it at that price for reasons that have been stated so many times before.

"Cheaping out" means not matching the industry standard expectations of hardware specifications.  It means Nintendo going with something that doesn't match up because it will cost them less money and they're usually hoping they can create a larger profit margin for themselves on the hardware.
1. Selling hardware at a small profit was the norm until Sony stupidly started selling at a significant loss (fun fact: even GameCube was sold at a loss at launch). The razor and blade business model is a bad idea for hardware because hardware costs hundreds of dollars. It easy to talk yourself into a razor especially since you probably need one. This worked out so poorly for Sony that it minimized losses with PS4 but ended up with a comparatively sub-par CPU. You can't have it all. Your consumer-focused mentality is understandable, just obscenely unreasonable. Someone has to pay for it yet you don't want that responsibility. In two generations, Sony went so high end that it barely sustained itself then it went middle-of-the-pack yet still sold at $400. I don't see either scenario as ideal, particularly for Nintendo.

2. PS4 was like a mid-tier PC at launch which is where Nintendo would have to be to meet your lofty expectations of what kind of specs NX should have in 2017. I'm still waiting for you to explain how you expect Nintendo to sell a $400 console. Kimishima has already stated NX won't be sold at a loss which is smart (even Sony didn't really want to **** with that anymore), and Nintendo really isn't in a position to retail NX at $100 or more than PS4 and One.

If Nintendo goes with ARM like the most recent run of rumors suggest, it'll be the most forward thinking Nintendo has been in a while. It may cost Nintendo some power now, but it's a better long term move.

That's like every IanSane post boiled down to its purist essence. Can a mod make a script that just replaces every future post of his with that one?
It's like he doesn't understand that a company doesn't "cheap out on specs." A custom chipset is still millions of dollars (billions of yen?) in research and development. Nintendo could dump high spec off-the-shelf parts in there and save a ton. Custom hardware is meant to optimize performance so the power it has isn't wasted through inefficiency and/or bottlenecks. Nintendo can't go too high because it still has to sell the thing. I can convince myself to buy a $400 Nintendo console, but I'm an outlier.
On topic, there's a dude on the Neogaf thread who seems to be respected as a source, who says that PS4 Xbone ports will be easy and that any barriers will just be business related. Pretty much what was expected.
Exactly. NX has to be in the ballpark of PS4 and One. Modern engines are highly scalable. If a game plays like ****, the publisher didn't care what it played like when it released the game.

Ultimately, Nintendo isn't getting Western support until it can prove its platform is worth supporting. Big Western publishers generally don't care about dedicated handheld gaming or, you know, the only thing has consistently done well in the last 25 years. Personally, I'd love to see Nintendo release a higher spec machine, but I know it won't be the difference maker. Nintendo has a long road ahead of it, and regaining support is going to be a process. Rumors point to Nintendo battling software droughts with a shared library and focus on Japanese third parties that still see at least Nintendo's handheld as a viable platform. It's a start. Getting multiplatform Western games like Madden and Call of Duty is also important. If you think higher specs are going to blow the doors wide open, you need to manage your expectations.
Thoughts? I'd this not a successor in the sense that the original DS wasn't a successor to the Gameboy?
I took that to mean that NX is the successor to both Wii U and 3DS due to the shared library rumor. It could also mean a stronger focus on the core audience which is also something Nintendo has talked about in the last year or two.

What I mean to say is that just because Nintendo might be saying "modern" doesn't mean I'm ready to speculate that they're picking up some cutting-edge tech... like Polaris for example.
Except Nintendo didn't say that, at least not publicly. Emily Rogers said she spoke to seven different people, and all, some, or none may work for Nintendo.

To expand on what I said earlier (not necessarily as a response to you), I believe the biggest clue to what modern means within the context of Rogers' info is Nintendo joining the Khronos group and likely using the Vulkan API. That's as far as I want to speculate without more info on this since Nintendo has never valued raw hardware power. It has, however, made some really smart design choices such as Sony's sound chip in SNES or MoSyS's 1T-SRAM in GameCube.

Speaking of GameCube, this is a console with clear hardware advantages albeit launched a year later yet Nintendo trotted out real-world performance numbers versus Sony boasting theoretical peak performance outside of an actual game environment. That said, when I hear "very modern hardware" or "industry leading chips," I think about ways Nintendo can improve performance through efficiency rather than pushing more powerful hardware.

Number 3 though tells me frankly nothing. "Modern" hardware to me is just marketing talk about how they're not off-the-shelf and they're doing some custom work on it.
Taken in context, I don't think it's marketing talk. "Modern hardware" refers to more recent feature sets and newer technology. Nintendo joining the Khronos group was an under-the-radar announcement that said a lot about Nintendo's seriousness with keeping up industry standards.

Hot hot hot rumors floating around today...
Recap of Emily Rogers' sources regarding NX:
1. No x86. She didn't say ARM, but that's the only other viable option because Nintendo sure as **** isn't sticking with PowerPC.
2. Polaris rumors are "wacky."
3. Uses "special, custom made chips," hardware design is very modern.
4. Closer to Xbox One than PS4. Cue Ian freaking the **** out.

Recap of Adrock's thoughts:
1. I started leaning toward the ARM camp about a month or two ago once I actually read up on it. ARM makes the most sense for what it seems Nintendo wants to do and where the industry is heading moving forward.
2. Polaris would have been nice, but the timing was off. It seemed more feasible with a March 2017 launch but still iffy.
3. No surprises there. Nintendo always uses custom chips. The modern hardware design is the most important bit. NX needs to be able to run current engines. It's more important to be powerful enough to run these than more powerful than PS4 let alone PS4K/Neo.
4. This is the part I suspect will get the most attention, and it shouldn't. For how Nintendo has to approach NX, its place in the market, and consumers, price is more important than hardware power. Nintendo cannot launch NX for more than $300 and expect anyone besides its own fanbase to give a ****. In fact, $300 might be pushing it since that's around where PS4 and One are now. If NX hardware could outperform PS4 at $300, great, but that gets into economics I'm not privy to. There are ARM chips that outperform PS4's Jaguar-based CPU, but it wouldn't come cheap.

I'm not sure how my suggestion that Nintendo find a small team to develop a near-straight Ocarina of Time 3D-style remake of Super Metroid (graphics update and item switching overhaul being just about it) devolved into a discussion regarding fears that Nintendo would allow another developer to practically change the entire game. Are we talking about the same Nintendo? I don't think it has ever greenlit a complete overhaul of one of its most beloved games so I don't know where this concern is coming from. At that point, the developer would be making an entirely new Metroid game. There is no point of a Super Metroid remake if the team wasn't making Super Metroid anymore. This entire discussion started because I doubted Nintendo trusting just anyone with one of its properties. Any team that gets its hands on a Nintendo IP is under strict supervision. You either make the game Nintendo wants or you don't get to make that game. Any concerns that a team handling a Super Metroid remake overdoing it seem unfounded to me.

I think you're downplaying how great a game Super Metroid is.
I have stated on numerous occasions for nearly ten years on this forum that Super Metroid is my absolute favorite game, and it's not even really close. In the paragraph you didn't quote, I even call it "one of the best and most influential games of all time." So no, I don't think I'm downplaying how great a game it is.
I read that same post today. It's not just carts vs discs, or the cost of an optical drive. Smaller cases means you can fit more of them on boxes when you ship. You don't have to order two different kinds of boxes, print two different kinds of paper, etc. The savings would ultimately extend beyond the more cost difference of where you put the game.

At this point I seriously question why they even bothered to go to E3.
Nintendo probably bought the space before NX was moved to 2017.

Kimishima admitted that NX is launching next year so more games will be ready. Good. I'll gladly take a delay if it means there won't be a repeat of Wii U's ass cancer of a first year. Unfortunately, that leaves an NX shaped hole in Nintendo's E3 floor. Still, will it matter? EA, Activision, and Disney are all ditching E3 this year. Granted, I care about Nintendo's output a lot more. And I have always loved E3 season, but I've been spoiled by the Nintendo Directs. With social media and all the other ways to reach fans, huge press only events like E3 are getting harder to justify.

Apologies for being blunt. I just think remaking a game just to change item switching and wall-jumping (a precision-based move that demands mastery of the mechanic) is kind of silly.
Perhaps, though saying it's just to change item switching and wall-jumping is reductive. I'd argue that those things would make an already excellent game even better (excellenter?), something Nintendo has done quite successfully in the past such as the aforementioned Ocarina of Time 3D. I mean, Wind Waker HD only changed item switching and sailing (a precision-based move that demands mastery of the wind mechanic). I'm joking, of course. Obviously, there were other changes, point being, you can downplay anything if you try hard enough.

I'm under the impression that Metroid has been dormant for the better part of a decade because Nintendo didn't know what to do with the series though it still cares about how Metroid is handled. If Nintendo is looking for a team to "inherit" Metroid or so to speak, giving that team an intimate look at and the opportunity to rebuild one of the best and most influential games of all time isn't a bad move. I'm sure there's brilliance in Super Metroid that one would only really see and appreciate on the development side. Of course, that isn't the only way. If Nintendo had the utmost confidence in a team to make a new Metroid, **** it, let's see what they can do.
If it uses some form of "cartridge" then it will likely be some kind of game card similar to the 3DS. To my knowledge, even the largest sizes on 3DS are still just a few bucks each to manufacture, which is far less than with N64 cartridges which could cost up to $20 for a lot less space than these game cards can provide.
I'll have to do some digging, but I read a really great post on NeoGaf a while back about how the smaller size of the game cases as well as further trimming the packaging would help offset the higher cost of cartridges.

There are also other ways Nintendo could further bridge the gap between cartridges and optical media such as lowering licensing fees and incentives for meeting sales goals.

I'm aware they did, but I don't think a company (or them) needs to. Just my opinion, man.
Understood. I was only pointing out that it worked before. If Nintendo is being cautious (and it usually is), testing a small, third party development team with an arguably easy remake before handing them the keys to the entire IP isn't a bad plan. I'd certainly take a remake that rectifies Super Metroid's weird choices then a remake of Metroid II: Return of Samus that actually makes it a good game. By then, we'd definitely have a developer who "gets it." I mean, if that team can skip those steps, also awesome.

I don't think someone would need to start that small, but that's just me.
Grezzo did.
I think remaking Super is a dumb idea. What needs updating? Nothing.
It was just a suggestion. You can disagree without flat-out calling it dumb, but sure. I'd update the item-switching. To each his own.

I don't think that game needs to be remade. How about a remake of Metroid II instead? That one desperately needs it.
That's exactly why I think it should be Super Metroid. Grezzo got its feet wet with Zelda by mostly redoing textures and the inventory system in Ocarina of Time. Super Metroid's visuals mostly hold up. Like I said, the game is just about perfect. The only thing I'd change is the somewhat clunky item-switching. A graphics update would be expected if Nintendo is going to go back to the game at all.

For a Metroid II: Return of Samus remake, I'd rather see a Metroid: Zero Mission-esque overhaul in which the team just started over. The game hasn't aged well; it's really not that good. Hand the keys over once they handle updating a much better game.

I think it would be best for Nintendo to find Metroid's equivalent to Grezzo. Nintendo trusts Grezzo with Zelda who in turn do an admirable job. For a 2D Metroid, there are any number of companies that would jump at the chance at working on the series. Super Metroid's influence is found in dozens of games over 20 years later. The trick is finding the right team. I think Super Metroid is just about perfect, but in the interest of following Grezzo's path, maybe a remake of Super Metroid would be a good test to see if a team has what it takes to inherit the 2D games.

The Punisher gets his own series on Netflix!!!
It’s official: The Punisher is getting his own TV series.

EW has learned that Marvel has ordered a spin-off starring the viglante character introduced in Daredevil season 2.

Jon Bernthal will reprise his role as vengeful military veteran Frank Castle, who brings his own lethal form of justice to Hell’s Kitchen.

Writer and executive producer Steve Lightfoot (Hannibal, Casualty) will serve as showrunner.
*fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap*

That seems backwards to me. If you want a broader group of people to buy your console, you need a diverse lineup (or at least the promise of one) first. When you devote a lot of internal resources to putting out New Super Mario Bros. U, New Super Luigi U, and Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze within the first 1.5 years of your console's life, you're catering to the same audience over and over again. I'm not trying to say that Metroid should be a priority over New Super Mario Bros. U. It's blatantly clear which one of those should come first. I'm saying Metroid (or something like it) should be a priority over an expansion to NSMBU, or another 2D platformer from one of your best studios, even if these two things outsell Metroid on a software basis.
New Super Luigi U isn't a good example considering it was made by a small team in under a year using another game's engine. It wasn't taking up too many resources, and Wii U's big problem at the time was lack of any content. I thought it was pretty obvious why Nintendo fast-tracked that game. It needed something out to release. Had Nintendo forced the game onto Retro Studios or something, I could see where you're coming from.

Additionally, I'm not sure why you're bringing up Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze. This entire arm of the discussion was started from a rumor that Retro Studios isn't working on either Metroid or Donkey Kong. If true, I think that's a great thing as it shouldn't be working on either IP. As a Metroid fan, I'd be excited if Retro Studios was working on Metroid again, but I can, at the same time, state that Metroid is not the kind of game Nintendo needs right now, particularly from one of its best teams. Metroid wouldn't be a waste of Retro Studios' talent. Rather, it could be a potential missed opportunity to strike gold. We all know what to expect from Metroid. Despite Nintendo's best efforts, Metroid isn't a heavy hitter for the company, and it wouldn't bring anyone new to NX which is the opposite of what Nintendo should be prioritizing. Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon would largely take care of the Nintendo crowd at or around launch. Unless Retro Studios is working on one of those three, it should be working on something new to diversify the lineup and hopefully draw people to NX.

There is some discussion on whether or not sales are a good indicator of whether or not a company should make a game.
Ladies and gentleman, here's an example of how to completely misconstrue someone's point.

I'm going to stop you right there, Perm. Let's go back to what I specifically said.
Software sales are a good indicator of whether a company should prioritize a specific series or type of game.
Making something and prioritizing it are entirely different things. The former is about that thing's existence, the latter is about when that thing should exist. A niche game with a small but loud fanbase has no business being a priority, especially for a company like Nintendo that is coming off its weakest home console. Metroid can't carry a holiday season, doesn't sell, and generally doesn't appeal to anyone except its own fanbase. It isn't the kind of series Nintendo should try to sell a console with. Metroid isn't an appetizer; it isn't the first thing people generally eat at a restaurant. And it sure as hell isn't the meal they went out for. If anything, it's the dessert most people can talk themselves into buying after getting their fill. For some, they go out specifically for the dessert, and that's great for them, but they're the outliers.

And again, Metroid is my favorite series. Of course, I'd want a new game. However, what I want and what I think should happen are entirely different things. Metroid isn't going to help Nintendo sell NX in any significant way. I'd rather wait for a new Metroid game if it means Nintendo gets off to a much better start in part because Retro Studios worked on the next Splatoon-esque success instead. Release a new Metroid when NX is rolling. And if it doesn't and Nintendo doubles down on its own fans again, release it then. Launch, near launch, or even the first year is really not the time for it.

There are other priorities. Metroid is a game Nintendo should release when it already has a stellar lineup.
Ehh, that still stands in regards to your response.

Software sales are a good indicator of whether a company should prioritize a specific series or type of game. Metroid is a great supplementary title. However, Nintendo needs something to supplement first. Metroid will always have its dedicated fanbase, but that audience, unfortunately, isn't big enough to be worth catering to first or even second. If Nintendo wants to diversify its lineup, it needs games a broader group of people care about to actually buy its console. Then, it can concern itself with games like Metroid, Bayonetta, Xenoblade etc.

Is there really a "need" for Metroid? The series doesn't sell. Sure, it's nice for all 37 fans, but I'd hardly call it a need. There are other priorities. Metroid is a game Nintendo should release when it already has a stellar lineup.

Yikes. I'd rather Nintendo push NX into 2017 than release a consecutive inept mess of a console, but I doubt Wii U can limp through another holiday season. The focus should be on making sure NX is the best platform it can be, and the cost may be that Nintendo has little to nothing for six to eight months. One would hope Nintendo could get its act together and launch a competent console without its current console dragging itself to the finish line, but here we are. I'm on #TeamMakeItRight. Don't rush new hardware because you think you have to. Make it right so it has a chance to be successful. And hey, a 2017 launch increases the chances of Nintendo going with Polaris which might be worth the wait if its more than just AMD PR hype.

NX skipping E3 is disconcerting though Nintendo will have to unveil the thing at some point in 2016 if it's launching in less than a year. I'm not worried about that so much as Wii U's release schedule being a barren wasteland after Paper Mario: **** RPGs LOL. I suppose there will be some unannounced Wii U and 3DS games at E3, but I'm skeptical of any of them being enough to hold people over through a holiday season and a transition to NX.

I wonder if rumblings of Sony's PS4k/Neo forced Nintendo to reevaluate a 2016 launch, not out of fear but as a golden opportunity to strike during a potential moment of weakness. If Nintendo uses those extra months to load up on decent launch window titles and create a stable operating system and online infrastructure, it could be worth it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 305