Because it's January which is a slow as heck month for news. Any sort of significant findings (which even if they're complete BS) are better than talking about nothingBiH-Kira said:
Rumor: "Nintendo Fusion" Is Nintendo's New Next-Gen System
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Oh hey a Nintendo is failing thread on my Escapist? More likely than you think. Where's the Glorious N.D.F when you need their facts?
OT: And here I thought that after the rather lackluster 3DS sales and the Company having to apologize to a bunch of fans, that the 3DS really did come into its own as games started pouring in, many of them quite good, third and first party titles started flooding in, and then Pokemon X and Y happened and as always does when new Pokemon games come out, completely dominate sales. Where as the Vita is still getting its ass handed to it as it doesn't HAVE anything new to play.
But then shows what I know.
OT: And here I thought that after the rather lackluster 3DS sales and the Company having to apologize to a bunch of fans, that the 3DS really did come into its own as games started pouring in, many of them quite good, third and first party titles started flooding in, and then Pokemon X and Y happened and as always does when new Pokemon games come out, completely dominate sales. Where as the Vita is still getting its ass handed to it as it doesn't HAVE anything new to play.
But then shows what I know.
This isn't necessarily a bad rumor (unless you bought a WiiU) for the company as a whole. This is one of many potential ways for them to come back. The other alternatives are basically letting the competition have this entire generation.Dragonbums said:
Those specs are ultra high, though. I seriously doubt their authenticity as they'd be almost entirely unnecessary. You only need to be in the same ballpark as the other machines because the weakest link in the chain (XBO) is what the developers are going to program for. So they just need to be close enough to the XBO to get 3rd party support. Being significantly more powerful than the generation you're competing in usually means you rarely get games specifically catered to you and the next generation still ends up being too powerful to let you compete. Maybe they're thinking this machine would be enough to survive two generations but that's highly unlikely.
So I can believe that they're working on a successor to get into this generation, but I seriously doubt these are anywhere near the specs of this hypothetical successor. It'd be completely unnecessary and drive up the cost substantially for almost no benefit this generation. The specs are also wildly varying. You've got a huge upgrade in GPU with other things that are only mild improvements or even detractors.
Either way, a new machine will likely solve the 3rd party development issue. The wiiU was so weak they simply couldn't port to it even if they wanted to. I don't think Nintendo realized that the other consoles were going to go x86 which makes porting incredibly easy comparatively.
These numbers are obviously fake, yeah, but it doesn't mean they're not considering launching a different console.TKretts3 said:
I'm not sure what SSB U would have anything to do with this. Development cycles can be more than a year for a product and there's no reason why any WiiU game wouldn't hypothetically be playable on a more powerful machine.
My guess is that most people don't entirely understand what specs mean. I remember the life I led before entering the tech industry and a spec sheet like this was like reading gibberish unless I had other console specs lined up next to one another.BiH-Kira said:
I think people easily believe that Nintendo is working on a successor. I mean, the WiiU is selling at a slower rate than the Dreamcast did over the same amount of time. Slower. The best lies have a mix of truth to them or at least the ring of truth in the tone.
The biggest giveaway that its fake is one of the first listed specs. "Capacitive touchscreens." Nintendo firmly opposes cap screens.
"SDHC "Holographic Enhanced" Card Slot up to 128 Gigabyte Limit"
Since when did nintendo plan to build a holodeck? Is the new DS also powered by dilithium?
Since when did nintendo plan to build a holodeck? Is the new DS also powered by dilithium?
Hey guys, remember the Virtual Boy? 8 months. 22 games.
This wouldn't be the first time that Nintendo has washed their hands of a failure*, and if the Fusion plays WiiU games, the new system would have a good handful of games right at launch.
*Also, ROB, Super Scope 6, N64 microphone, eReader, Game Boy Micro...
This wouldn't be the first time that Nintendo has washed their hands of a failure*, and if the Fusion plays WiiU games, the new system would have a good handful of games right at launch.
*Also, ROB, Super Scope 6, N64 microphone, eReader, Game Boy Micro...
Mostly.TKretts3 said:
They'd have to be suicidal to assume that a new console would be a solution to bad marketing and no games.
But the specs aren't necessarily fake.
R&D is ongoing; they don't just go on vacation once the company gets their console onto the market. It's a tricky business designing a system that is consumer-affordable, attractive to developers and market-secure enough to keep investors happy.
The specs listed are probably just a working concept; not proof that Nintendo is necessarily committing to this design.
Normally, we don't hear about concept works because they don't get far enough to be interesting.
However, given the dire straights Nintendo is in, this is unusually "relevant".
Mostly.TKretts3 said:
They'd have to be suicidal to assume that a new console would be a solution to bad marketing and no games.
But the specs aren't necessarily fake.
R&D is ongoing; they don't just go on vacation once the company gets their console onto the market. It's a tricky business designing a system that is consumer-affordable, attractive to developers and market-secure enough to keep investors happy.
The specs listed are probably just a working concept; not proof that Nintendo is necessarily committing to this design.
Normally, we don't hear about concept works because they don't get far enough to be interesting.
However, given the dire straights Nintendo is in, this is unusually "relevant".
The Coax is the biggest red flag there is. I work in the cable industry, we still use coax as signal carrier, much like fiber optics uses light, not really meant to carry data without some sort of mean to convert the data back to a digital format. There almost no such thing as analog cable anymore (well within the next couple years). Nintendo console would require extra electronics in the console to do this job, where an HDMI or other digital format would work much better.
Well, let's assume that the power of the console and the price/use of the gamepad are seen as the core issue with the WiiU? We know that the power of the machine has something to do with a lack of 3rd party games and that's only going to get worse.Atmos Duality said:
So maybe they see this as their only way foward? They wouldn't be wrong about needing a better console.
Again, I think these specs are entirely bogus. 4.0+ TFLOPs would be SOOO overpowered as to serve almost no purpose in this generation while driving up the price and likely being too weak for the next. Then there's all the smaller components. If it was just the quality of the GPU then I could believe that droping the gamepad gave them enough wiggleroom to pump into it. But there's all kinds of little inconsistencies here and there. The ps4 is one of the cheapest $/TFLOP we've seen in the history of computing. That's more than double the ps4's TFLOP for what that means.
Well, the Wii was grossly underpowered compared to its competition and it was extremely successful.Lightknight said:
Mostly because the Wii was so similar to the Gamecube it was cheap and easy to develop on.
The WiiU's biggest issues, from I keep hearing, are difficulties stemming from its stupid gimmick.
But on the business side of things there's always Nintendo; notoriously uncooperative in terms of timing release schedules, localization efforts and most recently, hosting certain online services for their business partners.
They needed a less gimmicky console in the first place.
But now, they've made their bed and they have to lay in it, one way or the other.
Switching production lines always incurs costs; the more quick the switch, the more expensive it gets (generally speaking).
One of the biggest economic advantages of consoles over PCs from a production standponit, is that console hardware becomes cheaper to produce each year.
Which is part of why older consoles routinely run out of stock in their first year; it's more than just a matter of rushing units to market ASAP. Even if a company were to anticipate a shortage, if the production cost per unit is still high it's better to try and trickle systems out onto the market to avoid paying the highest costs best as possible. (PS3 went through this in the worst way possible for Sony)
It's balancing production based on the console's popularity and cost.
So reducing/stopping production for the WiiU in favor of "Fusion" not only negates any benefits of cumulative production costs, but starting production on these Fusion console(s) would start the process over and at a higher cost.
Then there's the cost of R&D...creating a working product is pricy compared to concepts, though again, that's an ongoing process so I'll just leave it at that for the sake of brevity.
And that's just the production side of things.
I think it's more important that Nintendo changes their business methods to avoid repeating the same mistakes that has cost them third party support, which I've briefly mentioned before. The short version is that if Nintendo isn't able to produce the necessary games to make their console a success in a timely manner (they saved the 3DS with 1st party titles, where's the games for the WiiU?) they need to stop being such a pain in the ass to work with.
It looks pretty erratic to me; like an R&D kitbash.
Which is why I think it's just numbers from a concept model and not something that would actually go into mainline production. Parts of it might make it into the next phase of development, but most of it just seems unnecessary.
No, it wasn't successful because it was easy to develop on. It was developed on because it flew off the shelf and even then had limited 3rd party support because of the power difference. The wiimote saved the Wii. The difference this generation is that everyone and his brother now has comparable peripherals because they saw the success of the WiiMote. Nintendo tried to win again on the peripheral front and the gamepad just isn't doing it. The WiiMote gave people a new gaming experience. The gamepad doesn't. Most of us have smart phones and a lot of people grew up with handheld gaming devices. Being able to control a game at the wave of a hand was new back then. Buttons and touchscreens aren't new.Atmos Duality said:
Here's a question for you, and you seem objective in this as well. Do you think the Wii would have succeeded with a traditional controller? I personally don't think so. The gamecube was the most powerful console of its generation and cheaper than the competition by a fair margin and only sold 22 million units (the lowest since the 1st generation where they sold 3 million units which was the most sold of any other console but Nintendo's next generation sold 62 million units). Nintendo was circling the drain in the home console market when the wii popped up its head. The games were the same IPs, it was the WiiMote.
Yeah, it's clunky and unintuitive. The elderly have more trouble with it than they did with the glorious magic wand that was the wiimote and the casual gamers can't easily get past the price when a little more gets them a ps4. Hardcore gamers have trouble with it because they know it is too weak to get most 3rd party support in the next few years.
Removing the gimmick only gets rid of an expensive controller. I've been arguing they do this from day one but at this point it may be too little too late. I do not think they can turn the ship around with the current console.
Yes. But your points (I just cut them for space) fail to account for something known as a "sunk cost". Nintendo already spent R&D on the WiiU. That's never coming back and that is a sunk cost. They were already losing money at the $350 mark and have since reduced the cost to try to encourage buyers and it didn't really work. So on every console they sell they're hitting large negatives and the sales are slowing down. Continuing to sell it could be more costly than producing a new console that can compete with the 8th generation competition that will eventually profit.
I agree, they are acting like a company that is over 100 years old (which they are). They do not think that they need to incentivize major publishers to develop on their console (a quote of their management) and basically believe that developers need to crawl to them. All this while Sony and Microsoft have departments in their gaming divisions whose only job is to court development studios. Sony even has a division to seek out indie developers which is why they're getting a significant number of console exclusives like Transistor and Don't Starve.
But again, the Wii, even as popular as it was, did not get as much 3rd party support because it was so damn underpowered. Nintendo being the nicest company to work with ever wouldn't have allowed Skyrim to get ported to the Wii. The WiiU is in the same boat.
I agree that both things need to change. But the day the WiiU was launched it came with something like 30 3rd party games that just hadn't been possible to port to the Wii. Had they been able to launch on the Wii, they would have. You've got to see consoles as nothing more than a platter and utensils to eat from it. The bigger the platter, the more it can hold. The more cumbersome the utensils, the less desireable it becomes. The WiiU is a small platter with cumbersome utensils. Double whammy.
These are out in left field erratic. Why would someone put those numbers together? It's like whoever put them together doesn't understand consoles or cost effectiveness.
It was very much a factor; but it was a factor from the Production side of things.Lightknight said:
While Popularity was a factor stemming from the consumer side.
They're both very very relevant to the Wii's financial success. No doubt about it.
Nintendo gets the same royalty from a quality game sale as a shovelware game sale, and boy did they exploit the shit out of that with the Wii.
Just looking at the sheer amount of quick cash-in garbage that came out on the Wii there is no doubt that being familiar and simple to program for made it appealing, because it enabled STUPIDLY FAST, DIRT CHEAP development schedules that still turned a good profit.
I mean, even Nintendo got their hands dirty doing that with crap like Wii Music.
NINTENDO. The company who is obsessed over their 1st party titles and image.
Aye.
Which is bitterly ironic when you consider how a remote touch screen can actually introduce new mechanics into the game, while the Wiimote added a pointer to the screen and absolutely nothing else. Every other function was just remapped buttons from a Gamecube controller, but a casual gamer wouldn't know the difference.
Of course, the greater market isn't really concerned with gameplay mechanics as they were with just enjoying their 2 bit sideshow fad. (yes, I fucking hate my Wii)
Well, it was a rhetorical question given the answer snipped.
I 100% agree that the Wiimote was a major factor in making the Wii successful.
But it's not the only factor because of that.
I knew the WiiU wasn't going to do anything unless it came running out the gate in its first year.
It had a small window to get its install base, and it failed utterly.
Developers didn't want it because it was complicated and underpowered to develop on.
Consumers didn't want it because the gimmick wasn't fresh (your point), and it didn't have any games.
Hardcore gamers...hah! Nintendo all but gave core gamers the middle finger with the Wii.
There was no fucking way the hardcore crowd was coming back after that.
Given the numbers they've produced for their second year being WORSE than their first (a feat we haven't seen since the Dreamcast), the WiiU is completely sunk barring a miracle.
A very specific miracle at that:
1) It gets a large surge in quality 1st party games (the latest Smash Bros has been in development for at least 3 years now)
2) A price cut to make it more affordable for casuals running on a tighter income, and to also undercut the new Xbone and PS4.
It's going to be supremely costly no matter what Nintendo does at this point.
WiiU is a sunk cost, I know.
But how much does a competitive next-gen console like the Xbone or PS4 actually cost to develop?
I don't know; Sony and M$ aren't sharing that info, probably for good reason.
But I have been able to find a snippet here and there for the Xbone budget.
Microsoft and AMD spent "well-over $3 Billion" developing the APU in a joint venture.
Split, 1.5 billion USD for M$ and that's just for the APU.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20130527231722_Microsoft_Xbox_One_APU_Cost_Over_3_Billion_to_Develop.html
If I had to guess blindly, I'd place the total development and initial production at around $4 billion.
(more for advertising, which I'd place at 200 million at Christmas season premiums)
So, the question becomes: Can Nintendo add costs of that magnitude onto their budget after slashing their annual projections so sharpy?
They do have a lot of capital from the Wii nest egg, so they could probably absorb the hit.
But their investors aren't going to be happy at all chasing a major loss with another major loss. That loss of confidence and investor support could cripple Nintendo, since Nintendo is also a 1st party developer.
Nintendo games sell Nintendo systems. They've snubbed and been snubbed by third parties for well over a decade now. The Wii's third party support was overwhelmingly shovelware with maybe 2 dozen original games with ANY real effort put into them over the life of the system (with more domestically, but that's a Japan thing. Lots of smaller RPGs...)
If Nintendo starts development on a new console now, they have to rush or shitcan whatever WiiU titles they have in the works to ready software for the new console; lest they repeat the failure of the WiiU.
As for attracting 3rd parties: A new console might be more appealing on paper to 3rd Parties but if they're already making good bank on the other consoles with a larger install base, the smart money says that they will be very wary of supporting Nintendo's late entry regardless.
AT BEST: It will be the Gamecube all over again.
There is no choice here where Nintendo wins out, not even in the long run.
Which is why I said Nintendo made their bed, now they have to lay in it, one way or another.
Sony's doing the right thing in the long run by courting new talent. PC gaming has undergone a sort of Renaissance while consoles have badly stagnated. Nothing unusual about that; all markets go through that cycle of growth, stagnation, erosion an regrowth.
I'm seeing more buzz for them from indies than the others.
That's because most of what goes through R&D gets scrapped. That applies to any industry, ESPECIALLY the electronics industry (I don't presume to guess what you know about the business, but the amount of trial-and-error that goes into developing new chipsets and circuits is mind-boggling.)
I wouldn't doubt it if these figures were based real concept models just to test a grab bag of tech at once, but there is no way these would see ANY sort of mass-production.
Nintendo should be working on the Wii U's successor by now but if they drop support for Wii U before November 2016 (that's 4 years from launch), it will hurt their reputation.
Ridiculously fake. Nintendo have made a few mistakes lately but even they wouldn't be stupid enough to abandon the Wii U. There's still, what, 4 million people that bought a Wii U so far? If Nintendo turns around and effectively says "Fuck you guys, we're starting over" I can bet a sizeable chunk of that 4 million will be too pissed off to bother investing in another Nintendo. Abandoning the Wii U early would OBLITERATE consumer trust, which is exactly what happened with Sega. Nintendo needs to keep supporting the system and show people that they care about their customers, and try for something more appealing next gen.
That said, it would be fucking awesome if Nintendo brought out a 3DS player for the Wii U, where you can use the tv/gamepad or tv/3DS-lower-screen as the two screens. From the start Nintendo have stated in developer contracts that all games for the 3DS MUST be fully playable with the 3D effect off, so there should be no problems. 3DS games on the big screen? Yes please!
That said, it would be fucking awesome if Nintendo brought out a 3DS player for the Wii U, where you can use the tv/gamepad or tv/3DS-lower-screen as the two screens. From the start Nintendo have stated in developer contracts that all games for the 3DS MUST be fully playable with the 3D effect off, so there should be no problems. 3DS games on the big screen? Yes please!