Topic: Something Something Wii U Successor Somethng

[Khushrenada]

Actually, that was something that surprised me. I bought Just Dance 4, Just Dance 2014 and Injustice all for Wii U and when I popped them in to the system to make sure they work, I had to wait for an update to be installed on all 3 and it was highly annoying especially when I wasn't even looking to play them but just test them. I had no idea this was an issue. I've been using my Wii U to play a lot of Wii games so it was a surprise. Do Nintendo games have this issue? I don't recall any problem when I popped in NSMBWU or 3D World to test them.

[ShyGuy]

Can't u skip the update and start playing?

[Khushrenada]

I saw that option but I didn't use it. I wasn't sure how it would affect the performance of the game and so I didn't want to start the game and it have issues making me think I had bought a defective copy when I just needed to allow the software to update. Plus, if I skip it now, won't I have to still update it later at some point? Might as well get it done now.

[Ian Sane]

It's Kotaku, but someone agrees with me (ie make a system that can load a game in seconds; do away with patching or at least trivialize it).

http://kotaku.com/i-dont-play-video-games-anymore-i-wait-for-them-1665496091/all

I find this stuff very annoying as well but I don't know how much value there is to getting rid of it.  To get rid of it don't you have to do away with internal storage?  If the option is there devs will use it.  It's similar to load times and while the PS1 had load times it wasn't so annoying that the N64 not having them helped it.  The trade-offs for eliminating load times wasn't worth it to consumer.  I imagine a console designed to specifically load games in seconds would have similar trade-offs.  Let's say you still have internal storage and online connections but you just ban patches.  Well won't third parties just leave or make the same buggy game on all the systems but only fix it on the patchable consoles and not yours?

[Mop it up]

I wish the average consumer did care about things like load times, constant lengthy updates, mandatory installs, etc., because I find it all intensely annoying, but unfortunately I don't think most people care about that stuff.

Actually, that was something that surprised me. I had no idea this was an issue. Do Nintendo games have this issue? I don't recall any problem when I popped in NSMBWU or 3D World to test them.

I don't recall if SM3DW had any updates, but NSMBU did have an update that added Pro Controller support. However, if you have the NSMBU + NSLU combo pack, I believe this update is already on the disc and you wouldn't have to get an update before playing it.

Other games have had more updates though, such as Mario Kart VIII, Smash Bros, Hyrule Warriors, etc. I remember I had to wait an hour to play when the MK8 August update came out, and that was about how long it took with the first DLC pack also. So annoying.

If you choose to skip updates for the time being, they will be downloaded in the background as you play. However, they do not install in the background, so you'll still have to sit through installs when you start up the games. There shouldn't be an issue if you play without the updates, except that any game with an online mode probably won't let you go online without the update.

[Soren]

Digital Foundry dips their toe in the Wii U successor waters...
 
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-in-theory-nintendos-next-gen-hardware-and-the-strategy-behind-it

In short, Nintendo's new hardware should be adaptable, flexible and capable of running the same core code and basic assets across a range of hardware. While Android and iOS represent the kind of framework Nintendo aspires to, they do not offer the kind of granular 'to the metal' access to the hardware a console-maker requires. They are designed to work across multiple generations of different architectures, but the end result is often unfocused performance. Nintendo has a golden opportunity to partner with a single vendor that offers the same core technology and feature-set across a wide gamut of power levels, accommodating handheld, console or any other device the firm wants to develop.

Creating a scalable platform isn't a vast undertaking in partnership with the right hardware vendor - but basing it on the Wii U is fundamentally a bad idea. The hardware make-up of Nintendo's last console is based on two key components - ancient PowerPC cores from IBM (the presence of which appears to have been dictated mostly by Wii back-compatability), along with DirectX 10-era graphics technology from AMD. While the Wii U was a power-efficient design, its PowerPC CPU architecture would be immensely difficult to scale down to mobile, while AMD left the kind of graphics tech utilised by the Wii U behind many, many years ago.

The question of just how powerful the hardware needs to be depends to a certain extent on Nintendo's approach to third-party support. Part of the problem with Wii U was the fact that it was attempting to do something new and different, while at the same time making a play for multi-platform developers - few of whom ended up putting a lot of effort into using the GamePad effectively, and who found it hard to translate Xbox 360 and PS3 titles across to a platform with a very different hardware balance.     (...)   In short, it's a case of quality over quantity, with tacit acceptance that it will be Nintendo (and 'second party' partners) that once again provides the must-have titles that define the console experience.

Tons more in the link.

[Ian Sane]

Interesting article.  It comes across that the priority is on what Nintendo wants to do with the hardware.  The real key to Nintendo regaining any sort of relevance in the console sector is to regain the strong third party support they haven't had in almost 20 years.  To do that they have to design the system for the third parties, not for Nintendo themselves.  Since the N64 the approach has been to design specifically for Nintendo's own needs and that idea has failed 3 out of 4 times and failed 100% of the time in regards to attracting even acceptable third party support.  It would be idiotic or insane to do that yet again.  If any developer has to make due with a design they're not that familiar or comfortable with it should be Nintendo themselves.  They're the odd man out.

The article seems to focus a lot of Nintendo's desire to have it easy to port between their handheld and console.  But why would that matter?  Why is that a priority?  So they have the same games on both?  Cool idea if you buy one game and it works on both but I wouldn't be very excited if it was the Sony model where the same game is made on both and you have to buy two copies.  It would seem to fit the hybrid idea but in that scenario the hardware would be the same so you don't need to port anything.  It's just one system.  If they need to port games between the two formats then they're doing the hybrid idea wrong.

Though I do fear that the hybrid idea kills something that we gamers would like to be rid of but companies like Nintendo would want to maintain - the need to buy two systems with two libraries of games.  I'm sure Nintendo likes having two product lines and that there is a fair amount of customers that regularly buy games for both formats.  Having one system that meets both needs would in theory cut those sales in half, though the idea is that the concept would sell well enough to make up for that.  Ultimately I think the hybrid is the future and whoever successfully implements it first will make the two platform approach obsolete overnight.  Nintendo can be the company leading the way or they one stuck with their pants down.  Of course if stubbornly sticking to an outdated model that they would benefit more from in the short term is an option I figure that's what they'll take.

Right now Japan likes handhelds, America likes consoles.  In theory a hybrid allows for one single product that can sell with both markets.  Nintendo, however, is probably looking at the approach they demonstrated with SSB.  A handheld for Japan and a console for America and effectively one game made for both platforms to appeal to each group and get some bonus sales from double-dippers.

[Soren]

The article seems to focus a lot of Nintendo's desire to have it easy to port between their handheld and console.  But why would that matter?  Why is that a priority?  So they have the same games on both? 

A handheld and a console sharing the same architecture means you cut development time/cost greatly, the console team could take a game from the handheld team and build up from it, instead of having to start from scratch in order to fit the specific architecture of the other machine. It's not so both systems have the same game, but rather being able to build from a game you already finished to have the next version of the franchise on the other platform. (Mario Kart 7 to 8 )

Nintendo is in a precarious position, but it's not so bad that they would feel the need to jettison 1 of their 2 systems. I firmly believe Nintendo will still have two distinct follow ups to 3DS and Wii U with their separate library of games. But they'll share the same architecture, have improved levels of connectivity between both of them (unified Nintendo Network, shared eShop, Virtual Console, etc.) with speedier development times allowing for a more robust release schedule.

The problem is Nintendo still feeling like they need to hang on to those old-ass PowerPC cores and DirectX10 era graphics from AMD. Nintendo would have to start fresh for the first time in over a decade, and sacrifice backwards compatibility to do so. That's more than a fair trade-off for me.

[Ian Sane]

The article seems to focus a lot of Nintendo's desire to have it easy to port between their handheld and console.  But why would that matter?  Why is that a priority?  So they have the same games on both? 

A handheld and a console sharing the same architecture means you cut development time/cost greatly, the console team could take a game from the handheld team and build up from it, instead of having to start from scratch in order to fit the specific architecture of the other machine. It's not so both systems have the same game, but rather being able to build from a game you already finished to have the next version of the franchise on the other platform. (Mario Kart 7 to 8 )

I hadn't thought of that.  That's a good point.  Though that would continue the situation with the Wii U where so many of the major games have their thunder stolen by a fairly similar 3DS game being released shortly before.  Of course it doesn't have to work that way, depending on scheduling.

The problem is Nintendo still feeling like they need to hang on to those old-ass PowerPC cores and DirectX10 era graphics from AMD. Nintendo would have to start fresh for the first time in over a decade, and sacrifice backwards compatibility to do so. That's more than a fair trade-off for me.

This is the crux of the whole "design for Nintendo" vs. "design for everyone else" dilemma.  Sorry, Nintendo, you either start fresh and give up backwards compatibility or you have effectively no third party support (think EA and Ubi would even give token efforts next time if Nintendo stuck with this design?) and your console sells like dog ****.  I don't see it as there even being two options.  "We make everyone else change instead of ourselves" is like a little kid hissy fit decision that no business that stays in business makes.  "Everyone else changes" won't happen.  That choice is failure.  Change or fail.

The funny thing about backwards compatibility is not only do consumers not care anymore (and maybe never really did) but not offering it better suits the desires of the greedy corporation.  There are PS4 versions of PS3 games like Last of Us and GTA V and they're selling.  Doesn't Nintendo love double dip sales?  Why even have the option for people to buy some old used Wii game rather than rebuy the same game new for the Wii U?  You figure Nintendo would LOVE making consumers start fresh each time.

[Triforce Hermit]

I do like backwards compatibility. I use Gamecube games on the Wii, I use A LOT of PS1 games on the PS2, I use a lot of DS games on the 3DS, I used a lot of GBA games on the DS, and I did occasionally use the backwards compatibility for the Xbox 360. It is a trade off, yes, and its one I'm not comfortable with. My N64 is still kicking perfectly fine and so are the games. Hell, my SNES is still perfect and it sat in a barn for 12 years straight. There even isn't any yellowing. My Wii? It can't play Xenoblade, the only game worth playing on the Wii in my opinion. So therefore its only use is GC games. Newer consoles die faster. I don't want to beg for a remake or a port. I want a durable console, which I don't have and probably won't get anymore. So therefore I have a problem with letting go of backwards compatibility.

[Ian Sane]

I like backwards compatibility as well but would that be the "make or break" factor in buying a system for you?  For me it's a "nice to have" feature but nothing I see as essential.

[Ceric]

Seriously BC I be fine them dropping if it allow them to produce something that could drive an 8k TV and the media features need for the enthusiast.

[Triforce Hermit]

Essential? No. But like I said, I'm uncomfortable with letting it go.

[Adrock]

A handheld and a console sharing the same architecture means you cut development time/cost greatly, the console team could take a game from the handheld team and build up from it, instead of having to start from scratch in order to fit the specific architecture of the other machine. It's not so both systems have the same game, but rather being able to build from a game you already finished to have the next version of the franchise on the other platform. (Mario Kart 7 to 8 )

This is essentially what Nintendo has been trying to do for over a decade when they made one Mario character model to use in multiple games during the Gamecube generation. Didn't people call it lazy back then? It makes sense though. How much better can Mario really look now that he's already in HD?

As for backwards compatibility, I've advocated dropping it at the beginning of this very thread. I like backwards compatibility, but for the purposes of moving forward and allowing Wii U's successor stand on its own, I think it would be wise drop backwards compatibility as well as keep costs lower.

[Soren]

This is hardly a debate. If Nintendo decides to roll out another version of the same CPU they've been using since Gamecube for its successor platform in order to have backwards compatibility then they're making the wrong decision.

The problem is Iwata is already quoted as saying that he wants the new systems to absorb the Wii U architecture in some way.

"It of course does not mean that we are going to use exactly the same architecture as Wii U, but we are going to create a system that can absorb the Wii U architecture adequately. When this happens, home consoles and handheld devices will no longer be completely different, and they will become like brothers in a family of systems."

This is essentially what Nintendo has been trying to do for over a decade when they made one Mario character model to use in multiple games during the Gamecube generation. Didn't people call it lazy back then? It makes sense though. How much better can Mario really look now that he's already in HD?

Maybe it was, but back then there were 4 consoles, a healthier handheld market and more developers than we have today. Right now, development costs need to go down desperately for all platforms.

[BranDonk Kong]

They don't have to drop backwards compatibility - but they should, at least with Wii and Wii U games, unless they are going that route again. Either way, if they wanted to keep backwards compatibility, they could easily write a Wii emulator to run on a modern CPU like those in the Xbone and PS4. Hell, Wii U emulation probably wouldn't be that difficult either since it's largely based on the same architecture.