Topic: Will the Wii U be Nintendo's Last console?? Will they go handheld only??

[Ian Sane]

There was some talk that once the wii u connected to the 3ds then it couldn't connect online at the same time. That could be fixed through some work-around though.

Isn't that just a restriction of the Wii U?  This handheld/console hybrid would naturally be a new product entirely.

[pokepal148]

There was some talk that once the wii u connected to the 3ds then it couldn't connect online at the same time. That could be fixed through some work-around though.

Isn't that just a restriction of the Wii U?  This handheld/console hybrid would naturally be a new product entirely.

why would they go all in on one product instead of currently being able to fall on one if the other fails

[MagicCow64]

There was some talk that once the wii u connected to the 3ds then it couldn't connect online at the same time. That could be fixed through some work-around though.

Isn't that just a restriction of the Wii U?  This handheld/console hybrid would naturally be a new product entirely.

why would they go all in on one product instead of currently being able to fall on one if the other fails

This would be a situation where it would be totally futile to try and release a feature/graphics parity competitor with PS4/Durango, and around the time a 3DS follow-up would be due.

[Shorty McNostril]

For all those saying the Wii U is not underpowered.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/08/ea-frostbite-nintendo-wii-u/

Frostbite 3 powered games will not be ported to the Wii U because it is too limp wristed.  According to the article, Frostbite 2 gear ran quite badly, which makes it even worse. 

This means things like Battlefield 4, future Star Wars games (ie all of them for the foreseeable future) and Mass Effect will never see the light of day on the Wii U.


Since these apparently will run on the competition systems, it would seem that the Wii U is again behind the 8 ball.\


Edit: I see this has already been mentioned in another thread.

[pokepal148]

Oh I love the smell of bullcrap in the morning... honestly the argument about frostbite 2 not being able to run is broken right off the bat thanks to the PS360 which makes me skeptical that EA isn't just too lazy to port the engine over when they can say the wii u is underpowered

[ShyGuy]

Most engines run like crap the first time on new hardware. I've posted it before, but I will post it again:

From Valve's Linux blog:

We are using a 32-bit version of Linux temporarily and will run on 64-bit Linux later.
Running Left 4 Dead 2 on Windows 7 with Direct3D drivers, we get 270.6 FPS as a baseline. The data is generated from an internal test case.

When we started with Linux, the initial version we got up and running was at 6 FPS. This is typical of an initial successful port to a new platform.
Performance improvements fall into several categories:

    Modifying our game to work better with the kernel
    Modifying our game to work better with OpenGL
    Optimizing the graphics driver

An example of the first category would be changing our memory allocator to use more appropriate Linux functions. This was achieved by implementing the Source engine small block heap to work under Linux. The second category would include reducing overhead in calling OpenGL, and extending our renderer with new interfaces for better encapsulation of OpenGL and Direct3D.
The third category is especially interesting because it involves working with hardware manufacturers to identify issues in their drivers and, as a result, improving the public driver which benefits all games. Identifying driver stalls and adding multithreading support in the driver are two examples of changes that were the result of this teamwork.
After this work, Left 4 Dead 2 is running at 315 FPS on Linux.

http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/

[Stratos]

So what you are showing is that Valve has better computer engineers than EA. Too bad Valve isn't doing Wii U development.

[Spak-Spang]

An engine that is not optimized for the hardware at hand (when the hardware is specially optimized for a specific purpose itself) will of course perform badly.  However, it does not matter why games are coming...or whether it is a real concern or an excuse.  The simple fact is Nintendo's Wii U is missing out on games...and gamers will have to decide if it is worth missing out on games to own the Wii U. 

Nintendo has been always pushing the industry to do something different.  And Nintendo has been moving each generation to focusing more and more of its core business on its handhelds.  I believe this is because where Nintendo lost ground in the home console fight, Nintendo only continued to gain ground in the portable market.  To me everything points towards Nintendo moving towards another industry and company shake up for them.

I heard they had combined hardware teams for the first time.  What is the benefit of that...unless they are looking at all their options for the next console. 

Also, I know people are saying developers won't want to spend the extra time to make exclusive controls and features for at home play and on the go play.  That things won't be optimized for both.  But I think this is less of an issue than you think. 

If Nintendo pushes for a more traditional gaming front....then controls wouldn't need too much optimization.  Have the system be a 3DS XL with 3 analog sticks and a dual touch screen and you have a perfect controller for a home console and a portable.  Most of the time, games don't require you to constantly use both screens...and if they do...Nintendo could allow you to use 3DS alone or implement a special TV view that combines the images. 

I think developers could be more interested, because it allows them to create one game to reach two markets. 

[Adrock]

I heard they had combined hardware teams for the first time.  What is the benefit of that...unless they are looking at all their options for the next console.

Combining the handheld and console divisions should have happened ages ago. Ideas weren't being shared between teams. That's a waste. Now, they're better positioned to prepare new ideas simultaneously or at least with minimal delays.

Also, I know people are saying developers won't want to spend the extra time to make exclusive controls and features for at home play and on the go play.  That things won't be optimized for both.  But I think this is less of an issue than you think.

I'm one of those people. It is an issue and we've already seen it be an issue. I've already addressed this at least twice so I don't want to get into it again.

Have the system be a 3DS XL with 3 analog sticks and a dual touch screen and you have a perfect controller for a home console and a portable.

Why stop at three analog sticks? Quite frankly, I think there should be at least seven.

[Spak-Spang]

Hehehe.  nice catch thanks Adrock.  I needed to proofread my post better.  2 analog sticks.  Though...you could do 4 maybe...and replace the analog triggers with analog sticks for your pointer fingers yeah....that would work. 

[Stratos]

Hehehe.  nice catch thanks Adrock.  I needed to proofread my post better.  2 analog sticks.  Though...you could do 4 maybe...and replace the analog triggers with analog sticks for your pointer fingers yeah....that would work. 

And the next generation of kids is born with carpel tunnel. My hands hurt just thinking about that idea Spak.


The divisions being combined allow for then to make a seamless network interface. No more of this fractured crap. Then both systems get designed at the same time and 'connectivity' between the systems isn't an after thought or a last minute, glitchy addition.


Imagine if the GBA and the Gamecube teams were talking with each other. Or better, the DS and Wii. There could have been a lot more interactivity than there was and with better performance.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Nintendo has been always pushing the industry to do something different.  And Nintendo has been moving each generation to focusing more and more of its core business on its handhelds.  I believe this is because where Nintendo lost ground in the home console fight, Nintendo only continued to gain ground in the portable market.  To me everything points towards Nintendo moving towards another industry and company shake up for them.

Nintendo seemed to really start focusing on pushing the industry to do something different with the Wii and now with the Wii U.  The N64 and Gamecube were really good traditional game systems.  It's like Nintendo knew it was losing 3rd party support and wanted people to focus on features(experiences) for purchasing their game systems.  They thought if enough consumers bought in 3rd parties would have to develop for their systems instead of trying to entice 3rd party developers with either partnerships or money changing hands. 

Ian Sane - If they combined the two then they wouldn't have to worry about spreading their resources thin trying to supply games for two formats. 

Software is hugely profitable for Nintendo.  They could expand their teams to make more games if they wanted to.  I don't think they want to flood the market with their games because it will drive down the value of their brand and the profitability of individual games they release as people would be more inclined to skip iterations of their games.  For example, the Wii had 3 tradional Mario games and the DS had 2 Mario games.  Would the market support 5 Mario games on one console?  The Wii U will soon have 2 Mario's and the 3DS already has 2 Mario's. 

I think the more reasonable expectation if Nintendo were forced to focus on one console would be that they would shrink development teams and possibly close some of their development studios.  It will be much harder to squeeze the same profit from just one system without a systemized cost reduction or significantly increased demand. 


And I think that is the key to this argument.  Nintendo wouldn't want to focus on one system because it will mean less profit for them.  It's possible that the market may eventually move this way, but the Wii, PS3, Xbox360 all are going to sell > 100 million units so there is still a strong market there.  I think the home market could shrink as handheld entertainment becomes mainstream but I think people still want the TV to be the entertainment centerpiece of the home. 

There are alot of good reasons why the home console/handheld markets would struggle and are iterated within this thread.  But I'd like to add one other reason.  They are almost two different markets in and of themselves.  Home consoles focus on performance, 1080p and big screens.  TVs will continue to get bigger and 4K screens will be appealing eventually.  I don't see a handheld that costs <$400 having a hope of creating the experience I'm looking for on my big screen and this is complete overkill for mobile gaming where I want a 5" screen to look good. 

I also think we are ignoring the effect that kids have in the market.  I'm not happy if my kid breaks their $150 3ds but it's a risk I'm willing to take.  I'm also willing to buy a 3ds per child because that is what is needed for a road trip experience.  I'm not willing to buy multiple Wii Us for multiple children, and I'm not willing to risk my child taking a $350 Wii U to school and risk it breaking.  So I think a $400 unit that can be a handheld fails.  I think this would cause a collapse in the handheld market dominance where a $100-150 unit seems to flourish.  I also think that people are willing to have a handheld as an add on because the cost is not seen as a dealbreaker(maybe even an impulse buy) and is much cheaper than other alternatives such as an ipad. 

[Ian Sane]

The kids argument is hurt by all the times I see kids playing around with Smarphones.  Just because you're a responsible parent who won't spend himself into oblivion buying his kids everything they want doesn't mean a hundred other parents will do the same.  It's a reasonable concern for reasonable people but I just don't think the market acts that way.

Ultimately I feel that the dedicated videogame system is going to become restricted to the gaming enthusiast as people that just want a mindless distraction to pass the time move to other handheld devices.  Both consoles and handhelds will see their markets shrink and the whole distinction is largely a technological limitation anyway so once that limitation is gone, they might as well join together to survive.  Nintendo in particular would be helpless to compete with handheld devices that are not specifically for gaming.

And when I talk about Nintendo's resources being spread thin I'm mainly talking about their inability to supply the Wii U with games.  I don't think they release enough games now so combining their handheld and console output together wouldn't be overkill or even come across as an exceptional amount of content.  Now five Mario games in one generation wouldn't make sense anymore but I would expect them to adapt their specific products to the new approach.

Of course in my most pessimistic moments I figure that any form of dedicated videogame system is endangered and that videogames as I like them is going to die out, not because there isn't a market for it, but entirely because the casual market is so much bigger.  They were fine targeting kids and geeks when kids and geeks were all that would buy videogames but now that they don't have to limit their product to those demographics, they won't (and they know kids will play complete garbage so they can give them the same casual junk).

[pokepal148]

given my experience i strongly suspect mobile gaming as we know it will begin to heavily implode in the next few years, the question is how much it will affect standard gaming...

[MagicCow64]

The kids argument is hurt by all the times I see kids playing around with Smarphones.  Just because you're a responsible parent who won't spend himself into oblivion buying his kids everything they want doesn't mean a hundred other parents will do the same.  It's a reasonable concern for reasonable people but I just don't think the market acts that way.

Yeah, I see too many iPads on the subway to think the cost will be a dealbreaker. Toting around expensive electronic devices is only going to become more common.

Ultimately I feel that the dedicated videogame system is going to become restricted to the gaming enthusiast as people that just want a mindless distraction to pass the time move to other handheld devices.  Both consoles and handhelds will see their markets shrink and the whole distinction is largely a technological limitation anyway so once that limitation is gone, they might as well join together to survive.  Nintendo in particular would be helpless to compete with handheld devices that are not specifically for gaming.

I agree, the larger trends in electronics and entertainment are most likely going to wash away the "console industry" as we know it, and it will probably be lame. The 3DS is doing pretty good, but the Vita is not, and by the time the next Gameboy will be due, I think its going to be very difficult to compete against equivalent tech smart phones.

And when I talk about Nintendo's resources being spread thin I'm mainly talking about their inability to supply the Wii U with games.  I don't think they release enough games now so combining their handheld and console output together wouldn't be overkill or even come across as an exceptional amount of content.  Now five Mario games in one generation wouldn't make sense anymore but I would expect them to adapt their specific products to the new approach.

The future with a hybrid device is also a future where the WiiU died on the vine from lack of support, so an in-one-device would likely become a monolithic Nintendo machine with a release every month. Now, at that point, you might question why there needs to be a Nintendo machine at all, but at that point I think you can question whey there should be differentiated dedicated consoles at all.

[smallsharkbigbite]

The ipad and smartphones being popular is a double edged sword.  They may be popular but there is a large portion of the population that is priced out of buying a $500 ipad or paying $90 a month for a smartphone.  From what I could find online less than 10% of US homes own an Ipad. 

Then you have the other side of the coin.  If you think money is no object then you can have an Ipad and a 3DS.  I think an Ipad is an inferior gaming device to the 3DS and I think there will always be a market for a cheap dedicated device that does it's job well. 

Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft make some really good games that they make console exclusive.  As such, games will drive a portion of the market to consoles.  These makers make money off of licensing fees and incentivized to be really competitive in the market even if their competitor becomes the Ipad.  That's why they are looking at FTP games, DLG, and the future delivery models.  They also know that $60 games won't work on an Ipad and they want to conserve that future revenue stream.

Consoles may eventually die, I just don't think tablets are the technology to make that happen.  I also think that Nintendo going a hybrid home console/portable will not make any headway in the home console market and will probably lose portable market share quickening the death of the model for Nintendo. 

[Ian Sane]

The need for a dedicated videogame system is entirely a matter of quality.  Smartphone games have too low a pricepoint for games with any real depth to make a profit.  Smartphones and tablets also lack the proper controls to have truly sophisticated gameplay.  But then if shitty controls were an issue the Wii and Kinect would both have failed.  The need for a dedicated gaming system only applies to devoted gamers.  Random mainstream rubes that see videogames as a disposable time filler have no need of them.  Now PCs have enough control options to allow for sophisticated gameplay so perhaps the future for anyone with any serious interest in videogames is in PC games.  PCs will continue to exist out of workplace necessity.

I feel like I'm some car guy talking about how cars NEED to have a manual transmission in order to have proper control while most of the world is content with their automatic and does not understand what car guys are talking about.  "Fruit Ninja and Angry Birds play like a dream on my iPad so what the hell are you talking about, weird videogame guy?"  Like my Mom would NEVER understand why I would need twin analog sticks and eight buttons to play a game.

[Fjurbanski]

That's a pointless analogy. Sure a motor enthusiast may prefer manual, but the end result is the same. You drive the car. The difference between manual and automatic is much smaller than the difference between Angry Birds and Dark Souls (or a hundred other games). You can drive the car either way. You can't play Dark Souls with a touchscreen.


Being satisfied by a game like Angry Birds doesn't mean these mobile gamers are idiots. Anyone with a brain would understand that some games can be played with the one input, while others are more complex. They may not want to play more complex games, but they're not going to say "Fruit Ninja and Angry Birds play like a dream on my iPad so what the hell are you talking about, weird videogame guy?", when they see a more complex game.

[Spak-Spang]

Well one assumption is that Nintendo would use all those refocused resources to make MORE Mario games.  But, what if those resources were used to make just more games. 

If Nintendo had the resources to release a single Nintendo published game a month for a system, wouldn't that be a good thing?  Since Nintendo releases several 3DS and Wii U games a year.  It is likely Nintendo could easily strive for this kind of release schedule if Nintendo refocused its efforts on a single system. 

Notice I said Nintendo published and not developed, because I realize many of those Nintendo games are in fact contracted out.  I think Nintendo realizes they have an obligation to release new games from each franchise each year...and it is pretty stressful to meet that goal, which is why some games are contracted out, and others feel rushed.  I also believe this is why Nintendo isn't making new IPs, because they don't want to add to that list of games they need to release each generation.  However, I think new IPs are important and refocused games division making games for a single unit would help Nintendo to achieve both new IP creation and releasing the updates Nintendo fans desire. 

[pokepal148]

but the issue is your going all for nothing in this case...

[Spak-Spang]

Yes, true.  But is that an issue.  Microsoft is kinda going all for nothing.  So is Sony. 

If you want to be honest, content sells media devices.  If compelling content and user experience is not there then consumers will not buy.

Right now, the User Experience is there with the Wii U, but the content is not.  And we all know the content is coming, but so are the other systems and their competing content. 

If Nintendo had on central device, then they could produce and have available more content...which means more money for Nintendo, from more buyers of hardware and software.  And honestly, if you got 1-2 games every other month would you really need 3rd party content?  It would be nice, and I would say SURE...but it would not be killer like it is now. 

[pokepal148]

Microsoft is also one of the biggest names in tech with windows, office, and Android patent abuse all giving them huge amounts of revenue

Sony also has its hands in several other markets and has found itself leaning on the PlayStation brand for profit while trying to revitalize its other brand,

Nintendo would have none of that, if the WiiDS fails for whatever reason, what happens?

[paleselan]

First of all, you CANNOT discount the Wii U yet. Just look at the 3DS. It started off even worse than the Wii U, and look at its turn around.

Next, I want to point out that Nintendo has 11 billion dollars sitting in the bank. Nintendo can continue producing failed consoles for the next 50 years and still have money. They have too much pride to EVER exit the console business. Plus, as long as the 3DS stays this profitable, Nintendo won't lose money and will stay profitable each year.

The last point I'd like to make is that the Wii U doesn't have to sell a lot of units in order to be profitable. Just look at the GameCube, a console which only sold 20 millions units. That's abysmal, by any standards. But, the console still was profitable for Nintendo because the hardcore gamers continued to buy games.

[azeke]

Microsoft is kinda going all for nothing.  So is Sony.

Wait, when did this happen?

Sony is SO going all or nothing for next gen they're releasing GT6 on PS3 exclusively around the same time PS4 hits (with later upport to PS4). That's how they're committed to PS4. They're releasing their biggest series bar none on PS3.

And Last of Us, Puppeteer, Rain and that visual novella with Page and Dafoe are also hitting around that time. All on PS3.

Of course we don't know much Microsoft is doing, but they never went all or nothing for Xbox. They never even went half or quarter.

[broodwars]

First of all, you CANNOT discount the Wii U yet. Just look at the 3DS. It started off even worse than the Wii U, and look at its turn around.

I'm getting really tired of seeing people throw that statement around.  The 3DS had way less competition than the Wii U does, especially outside Japan.  The Wii U is (and will be) competing with the PS3, 360, PC, PS4, and Durango for relevancy.  By comparison, the 3DS competes with the PSP (which only matters in Japan) and the Vita (which doesn't really matter anywhere, sales-wise).  You could also argue it competes with iOS devices, but just about everything does these days.  The deck was somewhat stacked in Nintendo's favor there.  For that matter, the 3DS also had a major price drop as well as major revealed software already in the works (Super Mario 3D Land, Kid Icarus Uprising, Luigi's Mansion 2).

Nintendo's near-monopoly of the handheld market allowed them to salvage the 3DS, but that does not mean the same will happen with the Wii U.