Topic: The OFFICIAL Big N rumor thread *bring your own salt*

[Kytim89]

I forsee the Wii 2 being priced at $299.99 and the 3DS, or its Liter version, will be reduced to $200 even by the end of 2012. Although the pricing for the 3DS has me a little worried about Nintendo pricing their next home console way too high. There is no excuse to have a home console above the three hundred dollar mark. This is why I have not bought either HD system yet because I want them to be cheaper.

[Ian Sane]

I think it pretty likely that the Wii 2 will cost more than the 3DS.  Not so much because of the Wii 2 but because it would make the 3DS just look too overpriced.  At the very least the Wii 2 will cost more than the 3DS will then, even if the 3DS is more now.  $300 is pretty reasonable because that's pretty much when the PS3 stopped being an overpriced joke and people started actually buying the damn thing.  I think that's clearly the threshold price.

Wasn't the Blu-Ray drive a big part of the PS3 manufacturing cost?  Nintendo is probably not going to use Blu-Ray, and probably doesn't really need to since the Xbox 360 gets along fine with DVDs, so they won't have that cost to worry about.

[Kytim89]

I think it pretty likely that the Wii 2 will cost more than the 3DS.  Not so much because of the Wii 2 but because it would make the 3DS just look too overpriced.  At the very least the Wii 2 will cost more than the 3DS will then, even if the 3DS is more now.  $300 is pretty reasonable because that's pretty much when the PS3 stopped being an overpriced joke and people started actually buying the damn thing.  I think that's clearly the threshold price.

Wasn't the Blu-Ray drive a big part of the PS3 manufacturing cost?  Nintendo is probably not going to use Blu-Ray, and probably doesn't really need to since the Xbox 360 gets along fine with DVDs, so they won't have that cost to worry about.

I do not think that Nintendo will be able to keep the 3DS at a $250 price point forever. I consider myself to be a hardcore gamer and I do not want to pay that much when two HD consoles cost rougly the same price. I am not saying the 3DS will be a failure, but it just wont be $250 forever.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I think some of the biggest cost in manufacturing the PS3 was obviously the Bluray Drive and the Cell chip, but also I think it was the XDR RAM they were using.

Nintendo can find a much more efficient chip that is Power based with some cell built in for a cheaper price than what Sony has to charge to recoup Cell R&D, Manufacturing & Usage.

They can also find RAM that is just as good if not better for cheaper, like what they are using in the 3DS, and I'm sure that is likely their plan. Sell 3DS by the truck load and lower the manufacturing cost of their new Favorite RAM.

As as someone already mentioned, Bluray probably will not be the way they go, but I doubt they will use a standard DVD either. They will try to go with something heavily proprietary to stall the piracy for as long as possible and maybe incorporate some of their Holo tech if possible.

Nintendo could make a system capable of what the PS3 is capable of and much more for cheaper than what Sony is manufacturing a PS3 for today. If Nintendo was aiming for a $299 price point with tech they finalized earlier this year, I would expect atleast twice the performance of the PS360. I wouldn't expect it to graphically blow the PS360 out of the water or anything, but the game would be to leap frog current HD consoles just enough for long enough to be the lead console in multi-console dev and then force Sony & MS to leap so far over Nintendo's effort that that they will hopefully be too expensive to develop for and instead they get up ports from Wii2 instead for the first few years of their existence.

[Ceric]

Honestly I will say this again.  I believe that he next system will be Flash based.  Nintendo didn't really like to move to optical media to begin with.  Making there own cart format again they can go to High speed ROM with a flash chip built in for saves and updates.  Plus just use more of cheaper larger physical size chips.

Mark my words if Nintendo comes out with a purelly gaming home console again it will be cart based.

[Kytim89]

I am betting that the Wii 2 will look something like the 360 slim with a cartridge slot big enough for games about the size of a PS2 memory card. The only way I see them using whatever hologram technology they have been researching is if they use it in someform with this new cartridge system.

[Stogi]

A cart based home system, no matter how great peoples' memory are, will seem futuristic. Smaller, more efficient...that is the Japanese way after all.

It's all about being frugal, cheap and capacitative. If Nintendo can nail those three points down with a flash card, then it is the likeliest of options.

[Chozo Ghost]

The PS3 was launched at $600 and even then it was selling for a loss, but that was only because Sony used cutting edge technology which was basically the best technology the year 2006 (or 2005) had to offer. Nintendo doesn't have to do that, though. If Nintendo made a console with the best most cutting edge technology of 2011 it would probably have to be $600 as well. Fortunately, Nintendo can step back and use technology from 2010 or 2009 and since that level of tech is a few years old, the manufacturing costs of it are much cheaper now. And keep in mind, even 2009 technology is still 3 years more advanced than what the PS3 is using. So the point is they don't need to use expensive cutting edge technology in order to have a system that can kick the competition's ass. They can use slightly older tech and that way they can have the console affordably priced and without selling it at a loss.

[Ceric]

The PS3 was launched at $600 and even then it was selling for a loss, but that was only because Sony used cutting edge technology which was basically the best technology the year 2006 (or 2005) had to offer. Nintendo doesn't have to do that, though. If Nintendo made a console with the best most cutting edge technology of 2011 it would probably have to be $600 as well. Fortunately, Nintendo can step back and use technology from 2010 or 2009 and since that level of tech is a few years old, the manufacturing costs of it are much cheaper now. And keep in mind, even 2009 technology is still 3 years more advanced than what the PS3 is using. So the point is they don't need to use expensive cutting edge technology in order to have a system that can kick the competition's ass. They can use slightly older tech and that way they can have the console affordably priced and without selling it at a loss.

Agree and how you package it becomes really important.  It needs to look and feel like its years beyond todays tech and considering how inefficient computers are now, really need an architecture change, that isn't super super hard...

[Louieturkey]

Nintendo is going to screw something up where 3rd parties won't like it and the Nextbox or PS4 will end up the lead console and the Wii2 will get the scraps rather than the cream of the crop.

[Ian Sane]

I think to ensure third party support they should be fairly conventional.  So no carts.  We are at a point where you could use carts again but if there was the slightest con in comparison to discs it will get rejected.  Despite what Nintendo thinks load times don't really matter.  No one cares if their game has load times.  If the carts cost more than a disc then it's toast.  No third party will want it.  It can't be "good enough" it has to either be better or at worst exactly equal.  If it's like 1 cent for a disc and 2 cents for a cart then you've just doubled the cost.  That is just not going to fly.

And the thing is I'm not stupid.  The reason Nintendo was so gung ho about carts with the N64 was not because of load times.  It was because they controlled the manufacturing of the cartridges and any third party had to go through them to get any.  Selling cartridges to third parties was an extra cash grab.  If they went with carts again the goal would be to get that arrangement going again.  And third parties have not forgotten the NES days.  Nintendo cannot even attempt to take the slightest advantage of them and get away with it.  When every third party worth a **** utterly ignores the market LEADER then you know the relationship is rocky.  The slightest hint that Nintendo plans to jerk them around at all is going to scare any of them away.

Nintendo has to bend over backwards if they intend at all to improve third party support.  No weird ****, no "good enough" excuses, no penny-pinching, no half-assed workarounds, and absolutely nothing to give Nintendo an advantage over everyone else (ie: secret microcode).  The slightest goofy bullshit and it's over before it starts.

And the ideal thing to do would be to work with the devs that matter.  Not just Retro and NST.  Talking with Capcom, Square Enix, Rockstar and most important of all Epic Games, holder of the widely used Unreal engine.  If it does not support the industry standard engines then it's done.  No one will make an exception for Nintendo and they will **** every thing up if they assume anyone will.

[broodwars]

I think a big olive branch Nintendo could extend to 3rd parties is one that's easily overlooked: drop the proprietary storage device.  Have you guys ever considered the cost that your Wii discs (which are not typical DVDs) have for 3rd parties, and I don't mean just the final manufacture of the disc you buy in stores?  When developers test their Wii games, while these things can be tested digitally eventually they have to be tested on disc as well to ensure there are no new errors.  Every disc used for either development or production has to be acquired from Nintendo, and Nintendo are eventually the ones who manufacture the final product.  All that costs money that adds up quickly.  The same probably goes for the DS and 3DS.  Nintendo just loves their proprietary formats, because they can make money off every disc or cartridge used by developers, and then turn around and make money off the final product and licensing fees as well.  Sure, Sony might do that as well with Blu-Ray, but they would have a reasonable reason for that: Blu-Ray discs hold dramatically more data than DVDs.  I don't know if Microsoft does that as well with the 360's DVDs, but probably not based on personal experience.

[Kytim89]

I think a big olive branch Nintendo could extend to 3rd parties is one that's easily overlooked: drop the proprietary storage device.  Have you guys ever considered the cost that your Wii discs (which are not typical DVDs) have for 3rd parties, and I don't mean just the final manufacture of the disc you buy in stores.  When developers test their Wii games, while these things can be tested digitally eventually they have to be tested on disc as well to ensure there are no new errors.  Every disc used for either development or production has to be acquired from Nintendo, and Nintendo are eventually the ones who manufacture the final product.  All that costs money that adds up quickly.  The same probably goes for the DS and 3DS.  Nintendo just loves their proprietary formats, because they can make money off every disc or cartridge used by developers, and then turn around and make money off the final product and licensing fees as well.  Sure, Sony might do that as well with Blu-Ray, but they would have a reasonable reason for that: Blu-Ray discs hold dramatically more data than Blu-Rays.  I don't know if Microsoft does that as well with the 360's DVDs, but probably not based on personal experience.

Let's assume that the Wii 2 is released and third parties develop for the system with DLC. If Nintendo wanted to appease third parties then all they have to do is not require that non-mature content has to be rated by the ESRB since Nintendo is a member of the ESA. They could simply check it themselves and save third parties a lot of money, which would be an even bigger feather in their cap.

[broodwars]

Let's assume that the Wii 2 is released and third parties develop for the system with DLC. If Nintendo wanted to appease third parties then all they have to do is not require that non-mature content has to be rated by the ESRB since Nintendo is a member of the ESA. They could simply check it themselves and save third parties a lot of money, which would be an even bigger feather in their cap.

Unfortunately, you can't drop the ESRB rating process.  Stores like Walmart and whatnot won't carry games that are above a certain rating or unrated altogether.  No one can afford to lose those sales venues.

Now, Nintendo could make the submission process faster and easier.  Right now it's...well, let's just say that part of a game's development can be "interesting" for developers.

[Kytim89]

@ Broodwars
 
"Unfortunately, you can't drop the ESRB rating process.  Stores like Walmart and whatnot won't carry games that are above a certain rating or unrated altogether.  No one can afford to lose those sales venues."
 
I should have been more explicit, but what I meant is DLC like the Lair of the Shadow Broker for Mass Effect 2 that would never be in a retail store. If that game was on Wii 2 then Bioware would still have to pay for the game to be rated if it were to be on Nintendo's console, but a Teen rated game like Red Steel 2 would not have to have its DLC rated by the ESRB and thus would make more money, which would incentivize even more development. By being a member of the ESA, Nintendo could vouch for the non-mature content via word of mouth by saying, "Hey, we have checked this DLC out and it is all good."

[Chozo Ghost]

DLC isn't sold at Walmart, so a lack of ESRB rating would neither harm nor help it in that respect. I suspect if they could get away with it, many developers would try to evade the ESRB thing if possible. The system is certainly not without flaws. For example, I read that Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was given an M rating even though by all rights it should have only been rated T. The reason it was rated M was because of some unofficial mod that made it possible for female characters to become naked, but this unofficial mod was only possible on the PC version of the game, so it didn't even apply to the 360 or PS3 version, but the retarded ESRB people forced those versions of the game to be rated M as well.

So you have an M rated game which has no nudity or profanity and basically no reason to justify having an M rating.

[Ceric]

DLC isn't sold at Walmart, so a lack of ESRB rating would neither harm nor help it in that respect. I suspect if they could get away with it, many developers would try to evade the ESRB thing if possible. The system is certainly not without flaws. For example, I read that Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was given an M rating even though by all rights it should have only been rated T. The reason it was rated M was because of some unofficial mod that made it possible for female characters to become naked, but this unofficial mod was only possible on the PC version of the game, so it didn't even apply to the 360 or PS3 version, but the retarded ESRB people forced those versions of the game to be rated M as well.

So you have an M rated game which has no nudity or profanity and basically no reason to justify having an M rating.

I wonder if the developer opted to have them reviewed as one game instead of doing each version separately to save on cost.

[Chozo Ghost]

It seems to me that the ESRB has a tendency to over-regulate games and give higher ratings than what is really necessary. The last thing they want to do is have parents and the family-friendly lobby angry at them, so they give the ratings a wide margin of error just to be "safe". They are far less concerned about the well being of the developer whose sales will be hurt by the consequences an M rating brings.

[Ceric]

Consider the history of videogame ratings, and comics before that, can anyone blame them.

[Chozo Ghost]

If you're a regulator its safer (from your perspective) to over-regulate something than to under-regulate. People get much more pissed off at you if you under do something than if you over do it, even though over doing it can be just as destructive. It would be interesting to see exactly how much of an impact the ESRB really has on video game companies. We hear about studios shutting down left and right and other ones scaling back and laying people off. How much of that is the ESRB's fault?

[rad.i.kal]

Wii 2 could be great. BUt what would wii 2 entail? I think it will be between 250 and 300 and hope it works with the 3ds better.

[Chozo Ghost]

$249.99 isn't what it used to be, thanks to inflation. Nintendo's traditional policy is to price their consoles no higher than that, but the value of money has dropped since 1996 when the N64 was released. That was 15 years ago. The further back in time you go the less stuff costs, like you used to be able to buy a bottle of coke for a nickel, but it wasn't so much that the coke was cheap, it was more that the nickel was worth a lot more back then.

So $249.99 in 2011 dollars isn't worth as much as $249.99 in 1996 dollars, or even in 2001 dollars or 2006 dollars. So its gradually getting to the point where it would become impossible for Nintendo to keep their consoles at that price while still having competitive hardware capability. It would be like Coca-Cola keeping the price of their product at a nickel. That might have worked back in the 50s or whenever it was, but it was a losing battle and it couldn't stay that way forever.

[Stogi]

I can see Nintendo releasing the WiiD for $300 especially since the 3DS is $250. But Nintendo is going to have to provide a significant list of features to make people justify the added cost. Nintendo can get away with it for the 3DS, because of 3D, but the WiiD has to be more than a Wii with HD and built-in Motion Plus.

[Ceric]

The inflation equivalent of $249.99 in 1996 would be $343.78 in 2010 (last year with inflation stats.)  So if Nintendo built a console with the same costs associeated with it as the N64 then it would be losing at least $100 per console.

I was crunching the numbers and there is a $199.99 pack on Amazon with Wii Motion Plus and the Component cords are 4.95 or so now.  So you be looking at a $95 Premium for new tech.  Though you are looking at $300 - $400 dollars of the new versions of the competitors.  Which makes the price not that unreasonable.

It would have to come in with better tech then the PS3 and XBox 360.  The more I think about it the more Audio tech starts to come to my mind.

[Nick DiMola]

The GameCube and all Nintendo home consoles before it released at $199.99 - the Wii was the first to buck that trend by releasing at $249.99.

I think that Nintendo would be foolish not to release their next home console at $299.99. Pricing it at $249.99 might hurt perception of the system because their handheld is similarly priced. They'd need to drop the 3DS price ahead of releasing their next home console if they expect to price it at $249.99. I think $299.99 is a very reasonable price because it's still in the realm of affordability; however, anything greater will make it a tough sell regardless of what's in the package. I think the PS3 perfectly demonstrates that point, as does the Xbox 360 which really hit stride with the $299.99 Elite model.