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

[EasyCure]

I'm pretty sure that by next gen, graphics won't really matter. I mean, what's else is there to do graphics wise?

Saying that, I bet that the Wii2 will be on par with the 360/PS3 of now and be a bit inferior to the 720/PS4, except being a familiar and easy to develop for system with a familiar GC/Wii arquitecture (spelling?). That familiarity will save the time and money they want to save, with the power to do basically anything they (any developer) needs.

Focusing on the online experience seems like a better area to focus on though.

They (non-nintendo developers) will just complain about the proprietary media disk or cart for that new system like they did with the Gamecube

[Toruresu]

I'm pretty sure that by next gen, graphics won't really matter. I mean, what's else is there to do graphics wise?

Saying that, I bet that the Wii2 will be on par with the 360/PS3 of now and be a bit inferior to the 720/PS4, except being a familiar and easy to develop for system with a familiar GC/Wii arquitecture (spelling?). That familiarity will save the time and money they want to save, with the power to do basically anything they (any developer) needs.

Focusing on the online experience seems like a better area to focus on though.

They (non-nintendo developers) will just complain about the proprietary media disk or cart for that new system like they did with the Gamecube

Well, hopefully Nintendo uses a common disc type thing...How much can a Wii disc hold? Perhaps something that doubles it?

[EasyCure]

I'm pretty sure that by next gen, graphics won't really matter. I mean, what's else is there to do graphics wise?

Saying that, I bet that the Wii2 will be on par with the 360/PS3 of now and be a bit inferior to the 720/PS4, except being a familiar and easy to develop for system with a familiar GC/Wii arquitecture (spelling?). That familiarity will save the time and money they want to save, with the power to do basically anything they (any developer) needs.

Focusing on the online experience seems like a better area to focus on though.

They (non-nintendo developers) will just complain about the proprietary media disk or cart for that new system like they did with the Gamecube

Well, hopefully Nintendo uses a common disc type thing...How much can a Wii disc hold? Perhaps something that doubles it?

If BnM's dreams come true and they use Holographic disk storage, which holds a lot more than needed, they'd STILL complain. So.. yeah

[Ian Sane]

except being a familiar and easy to develop for system with a familiar GC/Wii arquitecture (spelling?)

How familiar is the Cube/Wii architecture to developers anyway when the devs that matter never made games for the Cube or Wii?  Nobody worth a **** makes games with the architecture except Nintendo!
 
I think the real solution is to make something that is port compatible with the other systems on the market.  Being different doesn't attract ****.  Third parties clearly like the flexibility to make multiplatform consoles.  The majority of the big third party games this gen have been non-exclusives.  Nintendo themselves provides tons of key exclusives anyway so it isn't like having the same third party games as the other consoles is going to hurt them.  I think being the odd console out almost every single time is more damaging.  If they can match the third party support then it comes down to first party games which is to Nintendo's advantage.  Right now it's Nintendo's first party games versus EVERYTHING else.  Mario doesn't just compete with Halo and God of War.  He competes with Resident Evil and GTA and Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy and...
 
I also think that Nintendo provides too many excuses.  "Well this all you should need." "This will you help keep costs down."  "Being forced to use this will make you more innovative."  Nobody wants to be told what to do or be told what's best for them.  Nintendo needs to only worry about themselves and let third parties cut loose.  If some devs go broke, too bad.  That's how the free market works.  Obviously the key to attracting third parties is to provide a flexible model.  Nintendo has gone NOWHERE with all their restrictions to "protect" developers from themselves.  The model that provides the most freedom is the one that attracts the support.

[Toruresu]

Ian, I believe almost 90% of developers HAVE developed for either the GC or Wii. It's been crap games, sure, but they have had time with the systems.

The Xbox 360 and PS3 arquitectures are way different and are in no way similar, but they still get the same games. If Nintendo had a console that had similar horsepower graphics wise, was familiar to work for and had the user base to back it up, it'd be 3rd party heaven all over again.

Am I delusional or am I making sense here?

[NWR_insanolord]

except being a familiar and easy to develop for system with a familiar GC/Wii arquitecture (spelling?)

How familiar is the Cube/Wii architecture to developers anyway when the devs that matter never made games for the Cube or Wii?  Nobody worth a **** makes games with the architecture except Nintendo!
 
I think the real solution is to make something that is port compatible with the other systems on the market.  Being different doesn't attract ****.  Third parties clearly like the flexibility to make multiplatform consoles.  The majority of the big third party games this gen have been non-exclusives.  Nintendo themselves provides tons of key exclusives anyway so it isn't like having the same third party games as the other consoles is going to hurt them.  I think being the odd console out almost every single time is more damaging.  If they can match the third party support then it comes down to first party games which is to Nintendo's advantage.  Right now it's Nintendo's first party games versus EVERYTHING else.  Mario doesn't just compete with Halo and God of War.  He competes with Resident Evil and GTA and Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy and...
 
I also think that Nintendo provides too many excuses.  "Well this all you should need." "This will you help keep costs down."  "Being forced to use this will make you more innovative."  Nobody wants to be told what to do or be told what's best for them.  Nintendo needs to only worry about themselves and let third parties cut loose.  If some devs go broke, too bad.  That's how the free market works.  Obviously the key to attracting third parties is to provide a flexible model.  Nintendo has gone NOWHERE with all their restrictions to "protect" developers from themselves.  The model that provides the most freedom is the one that attracts the support.

Those are all arguments that Nintendo's supporters have made in favor of what Nintendo did with the Wii, but I don't think Nintendo has ever really argued most (if any) of those things.

The fact that the PS3, a console that is both in last place and the most difficult of the three to develop for, gets pretty good third party support proves that developers don't really care about familiar or easy architectures, and would much rather have a comparable level of hardware capability.

[Ian Sane]

Ian, I believe almost 90% of developers HAVE developed for either the GC or Wii. It's been crap games, sure, but they have had time with the systems.

Yeah, but I feel the relevant experience is important.  If you've only made crap with that architecture how much experience do you have?  I think of experience meaning that the dev knows how to get good performance out of the hardware.  If you're some third party who is capable of making good games but has never bothered on the Wii how do you go from making shovelware to making a great game?  You can't have Dreamcast graphics, you can't have laggy online or a chuggy framerate, the controls have to be tight and responsive, there can't be bugs.  If you've just half-assed it every time how do you know how to do this the first time you put a real effort in?
 

 The Xbox 360 and PS3 arquitectures are way different and are in no way similar, but they still get the same games. If Nintendo had a console that had similar horsepower graphics wise, was familiar to work for and had the user base to back it up, it'd be 3rd party heaven all over again.

Am I delusional or am I making sense here?

I think that makes perfect sense.  I figure the most likely reason why third parties don't port their games to the Wii is because they designed the games for better hardware and it would be too much work to downgrade it to the Wii... and even then they may have to compromise the quality of the game too much for it to be worth it.  It's way easier to go up than down.
 
I think next gen the controller has to be addressed too in that they have to include the classic controller with the system so that all devs can assume the player has one.  The idea of motion control being the new standard has failed.  There are too many Wii games that control like complete balls because devs feel that they have to make every Wii game a motion controlled one, and they kind of do because having something that ONLY supports the classic controller would restrict the potential audience.  The remote needs to be one of multiple options, not the MAIN option.  If each system came with a nunchuk, remote and cc then devs can focus on just making great games, and use whatever control scheme they feel is most appropriate.  Again it's about providing flexibility to the third parties.  Nintendo may want to exclusively use the remote but that doesn't mean every developer does.

[NWR_insanolord]

Developers don't have to exclusively use the remote now, they just have to support it. There's no reason they can't also use the Classic Controller, or even make it the primary method of control; hell, Nintendo did it themselves with Brawl. They can't outright require it, which I think is good because I want them to at least try to make the game work with Wii-specific controls, but it's always been an option for developers, they just often ignore it. Don't blame Nintendo for that.

[Adrock]

You guys are crazy to think Nintendo won't follow the path set by Wii.

I think it's crazy to think they will. What has changed since then and now? Nintendo is in 1st place. I don't think anyone is expecting them to "do what Sony did." Nintendo will never launch a $600 console ever. However, Gamecube was a beast. It was more powerful than PS2, comparable to Xbox and still cheaper than both. Is it really hard to believe that Nintendo couldn't do that again? Nintendo selectively chose the components that went into that console. They were efficient, cheap yet powerful.

3rd parties aren't going to start developing for a new Nintendo console just because "it's a beast".

That's oversimplifying and you know it. Being comparable in power essentially allows third parties to port over. The days of one console getting a majority of exclusives are over. There may be a few here and there, but cross platform releases are the best we can hope for. I would think Nintendo has observed that much from the market. Should Nintendo remain market leader, 3rd parties will likely choose it as the lead platform then port to other consoles, granted it's not pathetically underpowered.

Oh, and have you not listened to anything said by Nintendo executives since 2005?

Yeah, I have. This is the same Nintendo that talked about simplifying controls then added a f*cking analog stick to the DS. Nice job there, Nintendo. I'm glad they did too, because it makes sense. Playing 3D games on DS sucked sweaty nuts without one and the whole simplified controls thing succeeded, not by limiting the number of buttons and doodads, but by seeing someone use motion controls or a touchscreen. However, you're living in a dream world if you think executives of any company aren't just justifying current choices. At the drop of a hat, they will abandon those so-called convictions should their respective company's circumstances change. If the successor of the Wii remote has an analog stick and 4 face buttons, expect Nintendo to PR spin the sh*t out of it. Why? Because they have to.

I think this is a complete fantasy.  I don't think Nintendo cares about third party support.  All they care about is if they make a profit off of their own products.  They SHOULD care because they get a cut out of every third party title but I don't think that matters to them.  Nintendo systems exists to sell Nintendo products and anything else is a bonus.  They will only go nuts on hardware if THEY want it to be that way for their own games.

Of course Nintendo cares. It comes down to profit margins. They want that money and it does matter to them. They just aren't getting it. If the Wii was on the same level as PS3/360 power wise, 3rd parties wouldn't think twice about porting over games. It would make sense to port because they'd be reaching that many more people. And they would cease porting if sales were low. However, the Wii requires its own version which sucks for them. If they can't sell people on gee-whiz graphics, the experiment fails.

[Toruresu]

Ian, I believe almost 90% of developers HAVE developed for either the GC or Wii. It's been crap games, sure, but they have had time with the systems.

Yeah, but I feel the relevant experience is important.  If you've only made crap with that architecture how much experience do you have?  I think of experience meaning that the dev knows how to get good performance out of the hardware.  If you're some third party who is capable of making good games but has never bothered on the Wii how do you go from making shovelware to making a great game?  You can't have Dreamcast graphics, you can't have laggy online or a chuggy framerate, the controls have to be tight and responsive, there can't be bugs.  If you've just half-assed it every time how do you know how to do this the first time you put a real effort in?
 

 The Xbox 360 and PS3 arquitectures are way different and are in no way similar, but they still get the same games. If Nintendo had a console that had similar horsepower graphics wise, was familiar to work for and had the user base to back it up, it'd be 3rd party heaven all over again.

Am I delusional or am I making sense here?

I think that makes perfect sense.  I figure the most likely reason why third parties don't port their games to the Wii is because they designed the games for better hardware and it would be too much work to downgrade it to the Wii... and even then they may have to compromise the quality of the game too much for it to be worth it.  It's way easier to go up than down.
 
I think next gen the controller has to be addressed too in that they have to include the classic controller with the system so that all devs can assume the player has one.  The idea of motion control being the new standard has failed.  There are too many Wii games that control like complete balls because devs feel that they have to make every Wii game a motion controlled one, and they kind of do because having something that ONLY supports the classic controller would restrict the potential audience.  The remote needs to be one of multiple options, not the MAIN option.  If each system came with a nunchuk, remote and cc then devs can focus on just making great games, and use whatever control scheme they feel is most appropriate.  Again it's about providing flexibility to the third parties.  Nintendo may want to exclusively use the remote but that doesn't mean every developer does.

On your first statement, I think that every system has a NEW learning curve and with Xbox360 and PS3 it seemed to be a steep one. Presumably, with the Wii2 it shouldn't be that hard if you had experience working with a Nintendo home console for the last 3 generations. I admit I know nothing on how to develop a game, but if it uses the same tools but get upgraded with a new system, it should be like upgrading from Windows XP to Vista to Windows 7. Yes, your first efforts might not be awesome or perfect, but by that same logic, the Xbox720/PS4's curve would be steeper (unless they do what Nintendo did this generation, highly unlikely).

On your second statement I agree 100%. Nintendo should have included a Classic Controller with every Wii from day one. A mistake that 3rd parties used as an excuse not to develop for the platforms. I agree that if Nintendo want Motion Controls as a new standard they should just use them, but leave the door open for the rest of the developers who want to use a CC for their games.

Problem is, the Wii was designed specifically to disrupt the market. If 3rd parties just released their games with CC only and no Motion Controls, the other faults of the console would've been more apparent (weak graphics, online is subpar, etc.) and would've probably resulted in Nintendo not selling as many systems as they currently did. It wouldn't have been a game changing system, but an option only enforced by Nintendo themselves.


Edit: This was in response to Ian.

[Ian Sane]

  Developers don't have to exclusively use the remote now, they just have to support it. There's no reason they can't also use the Classic Controller, or even make it the primary method of control; hell, Nintendo did it themselves with Brawl. They can't outright require it, which I think is good because I want them to at least try to make the game work with Wii-specific controls, but it's always been an option for developers, they just often ignore it. Don't blame Nintendo for that. 

I think the flaw comes from the fact that they have to support it.  That makes it their first template so they compromise the idea so they can make it work in waggle.  What we get is waggle games mapped to classic controllers, if we're lucky.  I think being able to completely bypass the remote is more ideal because then you just make the game for the controller that works best and you don't have to think about it.  If your game's basic controls cannot be shoehorned into the remote then that idea is scrapped.  But then the big problem is that the classic controller isn't standard so there is reluctance to support it at all.
 
I think that having the remote as the standard is like if the Super Scope was the standard controller for the SNES.  It isn't a good choice as the default controller.  Despite what Nintendo thinks it's a specialized controller that works well for some games.  The remote is creative.  A default controller has to be generic.  It's a more functional design if it's uninteresting.
 

 Problem is, the Wii was designed specifically to disrupt the market. If 3rd parties just released their games with CC only and no Motion Controls, the other faults of the console would've been more apparent (weak graphics, online is subpar, etc.) and would've probably resulted in Nintendo not selling as many systems as they currently did. It wouldn't have been a game changing system, but an option only enforced by Nintendo themselves.

I don't see how third parties making CC games with no motion controls would have exposed the console's faults anymore then how making tons and tons of complete horseshit did.  The Wii's flaws have been blatantly obvious to anyone in the know since day one.  Wii Sports sold Wiis and it used the remote.  I don't think anyone bought a Wii for NPC Zelda that wouldn't have bought it if it just used the Gamecube controls.  People bought a Wii to use the remote in the games that made proper use of it.  The core games that map a button press to a shake didn't sell Wiis because of the remote shake.
 
The disruption of the market was more in targetting casuals who have not noticed all the of the Wiis many many flaws anyway.

[NWR_insanolord]

The only games on the Wii that couldn't be easily mapped to the Classic Controller are games that make significant use of the pointer and games that use meaningful motion control, i.e. not just a button press mapped to waggle, and games that do those things are making good use of the remote. This is pure laziness on the part of developers; don't let them off the hook by blaming Nintendo.

[Guitar Smasher]

You guys are crazy to think Nintendo won't follow the path set by Wii.

I think it's crazy to think they will. What has changed since then and now? Nintendo is in 1st place. I don't think anyone is expecting them to "do what Sony did." Nintendo will never launch a $600 console ever. However, Gamecube was a beast. It was more powerful than PS2, comparable to Xbox and still cheaper than both. Is it really hard to believe that Nintendo couldn't do that again? Nintendo selectively chose the components that went into that console. They were efficient, cheap yet powerful.

And GameCube was a failure in most people's eyes.  The majority of current Wii gamers won't buy a new console just because it's got better specs.  Why abandon this giant 'blue ocean' you've just created all for yourself?

3rd parties aren't going to start developing for a new Nintendo console just because "it's a beast".

That's oversimplifying and you know it. Being comparable in power essentially allows third parties to port over. The days of one console getting a majority of exclusives are over. There may be a few here and there, but cross platform releases are the best we can hope for. I would think Nintendo has observed that much from the market. Should Nintendo remain market leader, 3rd parties will likely choose it as the lead platform then port to other consoles, granted it's not pathetically underpowered.

Then why didn't GameCube get all this 3rd party support?  If Nintendo launches a new console, it instantly becomes the 3rd place console in terms of userbase.  Even with GameCube Nintendo was in 2nd place for most of the generation and developers/publishers ignored it.  It's become a cliche, but the industry will find any reason to ignore a Nintendo console ("it's a kiddy system", "only casual games sell", etc...).

Oh, and have you not listened to anything said by Nintendo executives since 2005?

Yeah, I have. This is the same Nintendo that talked about simplifying controls then added a f*cking analog stick to the DS. Nice job there, Nintendo. I'm glad they did too, because it makes sense. Playing 3D games on DS sucked sweaty nuts without one and the whole simplified controls thing succeeded, not by limiting the number of buttons and doodads, but by seeing someone use motion controls or a touchscreen. However, you're living in a dream world if you think executives of any company aren't just justifying current choices. At the drop of a hat, they will abandon those so-called convictions should their respective company's circumstances change. If the successor of the Wii remote has an analog stick and 4 face buttons, expect Nintendo to PR spin the sh*t out of it. Why? Because they have to.

You must have missed it when Iwata said "we can't just make a Wii HD and expect it to become another phenomenon, we have to provide a whole new experience", which Reggie then parroted shortly after.  Nintendo 2005 - present has all been about expanding the market, always explaining that graphics =/= sales.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I'm gonna jump in here, so excuse me if I'm off topic since I've skipped half the post on this page so far [Toruesu - it's spelled Architecture]

But if you think about how powerful should Nintendo's console be and argue that as powerful as they can make it and still turn a profit on day 1 at a mass market price of < $250, then I think it should easily be better than the 360 or the PS3 but not quite as powerful as the 720/PS4(as was mentioned earlier).

Why would I say that? Well if you look at the cost of a 360 right now, you can find them in stores for about $99-$199 if you know when and where to look. Considering the fact that if Nintendo wanted a chip like that, they would have worked really hard to make it cheap to manufacture on a sliding scale so that it drops quickly from the get-go and steadily over time. So for Nintendo to leapfrog a 360 and still hit a $250 price tag with onboard memory and whatever else they have planned should be all that hard to do by end of 2011 (assuming that's the expected release window at this time.) and even easier to pull off by 2012.

And even being less powerful than the 720/PS4 wouldn't really matter since the graphics wouldn't be all that different or noticeable to the untrained eye that didn't have the clearest 1080p TV configured to optimal setting

[Toruresu]

Thanks for clearing the spelling for me

Yeah, I agree with you. By the next console generation graphics won't matter and it's all going to be about art style/direction and gameplay. I think Nintendo knew this with this generation and underestimated the Wii internal systems, but by next generation, this will be the norm. All three systems will have awesome graphics, all three systems will have new architectures, possibly all will have different motion controllers, but Nintendo's will be the same/similar architecture from the past two generations. This means development times should/will be shorter and cheaper. I believe Microsoft and Sony both will just do what Nintendo did this generation with their systems, upgrade them slightly and sell them at a profit.

That next generation will define and refine this entertainment we all enjoy and love as real art, all consoles might have the same 3rd party support (minus exclusives) and first party games will define the experiences of each.

Ok, now I AM delusional

[Mop it up]

Personally, after three generations of "Just wait until the next system!", I've long since accepted that to get the best third-party games, you have to own more than one system. It isn't worth continuously hoping for what will likely never happen, when the simple solution is to purchase an XBox 360 or PS3. Though I, myself, aren't interested enough to do so.

[Kytim89]

I had the idea for Nintendo to create a DLC service called "wiiware Video or theater." This would be a service centered around 10 to 30 minute animated shows created by independant studios that are not game developers. For example, one animater turns a comic book into an animated series or talking story board and you pay 500 wii points to buy it or 1000 wii points for an entire season, or something. Just a thought.

[Adrock]

And GameCube was a failure in most people's eyes.  The majority of current Wii gamers won't buy a new console just because it's got better specs.  Why abandon this giant 'blue ocean' you've just created all for yourself?

Gamecube being a failure has nothing to do with Nintendo's ability to put together powerful hardware. Wii owners will buy a successor as long as Nintendo gives them what they want (i.e. fun, engaging software). Nintendo is perfectly capable of doing that with competitive yet affordable hardware. And who says they have to abandon the "blue ocean?" I don't know how you're coming to these conclusions.

That's oversimplifying and you know it. Being comparable in power essentially allows third parties to port over. The days of one console getting a majority of exclusives are over. There may be a few here and there, but cross platform releases are the best we can hope for. I would think Nintendo has observed that much from the market. Should Nintendo remain market leader, 3rd parties will likely choose it as the lead platform then port to other consoles, granted it's not pathetically underpowered.

Then why didn't GameCube get all this 3rd party support?  If Nintendo launches a new console, it instantly becomes the 3rd place console in terms of userbase.  Even with GameCube Nintendo was in 2nd place for most of the generation and developers/publishers ignored it.  It's become a cliche, but the industry will find any reason to ignore a Nintendo console ("it's a kiddy system", "only casual games sell", etc...).

Seriously, dude? My response is essentially unchanged from the segment you just quoted and replied to. You can't compare this generation to last because the rules have changed. 3rd parties are porting far more often and offering fewer exclusives, mostly offering exclusive bonus content. Not even Final Fantasy is exclusive anymore. What 3rcd parties are generally unwilling to do, however, is make a completely separate Wii version. If they Wii housed comparable hardware, I have no doubt 3rd parties would port games over. It's cheaper and easier than making a console specific version.

You must have missed it when Iwata said "we can't just make a Wii HD and expect it to become another phenomenon, we have to provide a whole new experience", which Reggie then parroted shortly after.  Nintendo 2005 - present has all been about expanding the market, always explaining that graphics =/= sales.

I swear, you didn't read a word of my post. I didn't miss anything. I read every interview but I take them with a grain of salt. What they say is true today, tomorrow it probably won't be. In fact, I gave you an example of this. See, Nintendo wants everyone's money. Not just casual gamers and not just core gamers. Everyone. You'd be silly to believe otherwise. I've never suggested that Nintendo just release Wii HD. It won't work. Rather, my point is that Nintendo has to offer something new as well as competitive hardware. That way, everyone wins. Innovative and powerful.

[Chozo Ghost]

The Wii already has the innovative aspect locked down. What other direction is there for them to go than more powerful?

[Mop it up]

Innovative

Adjective
1. Characterized by the creation of new ideas or things
2. Forward looking; ahead of current thinking

It won't be innovative if the next system is the same thing with better specs.

[Chozo Ghost]

There really isn't much more Nintendo (or any company, for that matter) can do to innovate hardware anymore. Now its all about the Peripherals instead of the systems they run on. For some peripherals (Natal, for example) you need powerful hardware to run it, so its necessary to have a powerful system for the sake of Peripherals.... but the Peripherals is where the actual innovation takes place. That said, Nintendo needs a far more powerful system, because hopefully at some point they will come out with an updated version of the NES power glove and a VR headset addon, and the Wii isn't powerful enough for that.

[Chozo Ghost]

Nobody worth a **** makes games with the architecture except Nintendo!

Well, I guess Capcom, Square-Enix, Namco, EA, Sega, etc. aren't worth four asterisks to you.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Not saying something like this is gonna happen and I've posted a video on something like this before, but does anyone thing we might see games using this tech on the 3DS?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvOHGj0MZqY

A pokemon/Yugioh/Beyblade type game would be pretty cool to utilize something like that.

Weren't there augmented reality demos for the 3DS @ E3?

[that Baby guy]

There was one, and it was far more advanced than that, even going as far as to warp the dimensions of the table the camera was focusing on.  We're calling it the "Augmented Reality Tech Demo," but I think just about everyone is calling it something different.

[BlackNMild2k1]

you got a link?

I've only heard about it, I didn't see it.

I still haven't watched the Nintendo or Sony conference either. I feel like the moment has passed for those.