Report: Nintendo NX expected to launch in July 2016
A new report claims we could be seeing Nintendo's next console as early as next summer.
The Nintendo NX may be coming much sooner than most previously anticipated as a report claims Nintendo’s next video game console will be released some time in July 2016.
The report cites sources familiar with the matter who say Nintendo has given Foxconn, a major Taiwanese supplier and manufacturer of a wide variety of tech products, the green light to start “pilot production” of the Nintendo NX. The pilot is expected to kick off by October 2015 and orders expected to be finalized by March 2016 with mass production to start by May or June 2016. Nintendo will be looking to ship 20 million units of the Nintendo NX during its first year.
We know things haven’t been that great for the Nintendo Wii U since its launch, but to release a new console just four years after the previous one seems a little hasty, especially when other console manufacturers are looking to have their respective machines in the market for several years.
The Wii U has been performing better over the last 12 months as games like Splatoon, Super Smash Bros., and Mario Kart 8 have been solid games for Nintendo. And with the holiday bringing Star Fox Zero, Super Mario Maker, and Yoshi’s Wooly World, the Wii U appears to have another strong lineup of first-party games so far.
[Via Digitimes]
-
Shacknews
replyDaniel Perez posted a new article, Report: Nintendo NX expected to launch in July 2016
-
-
Trying to be "on par" with the other consoles is suicide. Unfortunately Nintendo needs to rely on a gimmick to set them apart from the other 2. Knowing that it's android based, I wouldn't be surprised to see something like the Nvidia Shield that's a console/portable hybrid. They know their money is in handhelds so why not combine the 2?
-
-
They tried that for years and it didn't work. Sure, wiiU was a failure, but the wii wasn't so I'm sure they haven't learned their lesson yet and will still try to replicate that success. This is Nintendo we're talking about. They don't catch on very quick.
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
Not quite true about the attach rates. The Wii actually ended up with a decent attach rate. And if you want to get down to it, it looks like the Wii U currently has a better attach rate than either the XBO or the PS4.
1 360 11.24
2 xbox 11.01
3 ps3 10.6
4 ps2 10.54
5 GC 9.6
6 wii 9.31
http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/Tie-Ratio/Global/-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
Worked amazingly well for Sega!
-
[deleted]
-
In all fairness, Sega had some amazing shit during the Genesis/Mega Drive era...and even with the Saturn and Dreamcast, their first party stuff was generally solid as I remember. They put out some amazing stuff in the arcades too (Virtua Fighter, Virtua Racer, Virtua Cop, Sega Rally, House of the Dead, Crazy Taxi, Fighting Vipers, Die Hard, etc). They weren't on Nintendo's level when it came to output, but they put out a lot of good shit and interesting hardware.
I'm concerned that if they aren't trying to support everything they've built and they just become another software publisher/developer that they end up like Capcom or Konami. I have to wonder if its easy to justify the number of studios they have and everything else if they don't need to put out a big first party library to support a hardware platform. Given that, do they then slowly start to shrink?
I also don't see them leaving the portable market, just because they seem to have an interest in making solid portable games...and phones are really limited in terms of the games you can make.
-
-
-
-
-
I can't imagine they won't push the Zelda game back so it can be a launch title for this console.
-
-
[deleted]
-
I want to say that they nuked third party support with a firecane filled with sharks years ago.
I would love to see them enter the high end console market again, but they are going to need to release with must have titles and at an aggressive price.
I'm not certain what gimmick they could build off of at this point. VR needs impressive hardware to pull off.-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
Nintendo can't do VR. For all their attempts to innovate, the new tech itself is never very good and is always done better by other companies. The Wii had pretty piss poor motion control. The Wii u has a lame, antiquated attempt at a tablet.
Basically, if oculus can't yet get VR right, Nintendo has no chance.
-
-
-
-
Yeah, if it captures a third of the market (easy enough to do if it can be a competitive platform for cod, fifa, and madden) they will port to it.
-
It'll never capture a third of the market this generation unless Nintendo does something absolutely amazing.
And 20 million in the first year is laughable.-
I agree, 7ish would be optimistic imo.
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
What would be the point though? There's already little differentiation between PS4 and XBone, so why have a third console similar to the other two? I for one like Nintendo's attempts at gimmicky shit. Sometimes they pay off (N64 controller, DS, 3DS, Wii) and other times they don't (WiiU), but at least they tend to stand out and bring something unique....
-
You can like it, but it seems to be proving unprofitable for them to keep being everyone's second choice as a console.
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
I'd say it needs to be more powerful than the ps4 which would be nearly 3 years old by then.
-
In a way, it might be smart for it not to be. Think of how much cheaper it could be if it were only built to match the current gen.
-
This has been Nintendo's strategy for the past ~10 years and it's not working out so well for them, revenue wise.
-
They need to be noticeably more capable in some way, shape, or form.
-
-
-
-
-
"We know things haven’t been that great for the Nintendo Wii U since its launch, but to release a new console just four years after the previous one seems a little hasty, especially when other console manufacturers are looking to have their respective machines in the market for several years."
Xbox -> Xbox 360 was 4 years.
They saw that the Xbox was dead that generation and decided to kickstart the new generation.
PS3 was released a year later and I doubt that it was gonna be released that early if MS didn't jump start the generation so early. Sony was living large with the PS2 and would surely like to milk it 1-2 years more.
This time its different.
Nintendo isn't starting the next generation - probably just getting in line with Xbox One/PS4 and perhaps a little more.
This generation will probably keep on for 7-8 years - a lot of time for catching up - much to long to wait for the next generation.
IF its a stationary console and IF its "just like PS4/Xbox One" architecturally and IF its 50% more powerful than Xbox One/PS4 - it sure will be interesting. Full 3rd party support (easy to port games and it will run "best" on Nintendo) and first party games that will utilize the extra power. Imagine a 50% more powerful PS4 with Nintendos first party games.
Perhaps this is why Zelda is so delayed - they already scrapped in for Wii U and will bring it to NX instead.
The ony thing that is strange is the 20 million expected shipped units. That is a bit high and could mean that its not a "proper" console. -
I don't know. For this to be true wouldn't this mean they have multiple unannounced titles that are already very far into development? I can't imagine a scenario where a Nintendo console launches without at least 2-3 exclusive first party titles in the launch window. Let alone having less than a year to get 3rd party support for upcoming multiplatform titles.
Also if they are seriously projecting 20 million shipped (wtf), then I would fully expect a sub $199 price. The whole thing seems strange who knows.-
I could see a Zelda and a Mario game being available at launch. What's the Super Mario 3D World/Galaxy team been up to since 3D World launched in Fall 2013? Probably working on a 3D Mario for NX. And Zelda U? I'm thinking that'll be on the U and NX at this point.
-
-
It's two contrasting ideas unless they do a major about face on loss per console.
-
-
-
I'm not surprised. I rode the "Holiday 2017" bandwagon pretty hard until I saw their E3 Direct video. The Wii U was not represented well. After it was over, I sat wondering what games--other than Zelda U--could possibly fill out their summer and fall 2016 months, let alone the first 9 months of 2017.
I think July 2016 might be a stretch. Pulling the lid off the NX at E3 in June, and launching a month later, would be a record turnaround time, I'd think. Of course, maybe I'm wrong in thinking Nintendo said they would reveal the NX at E3 2016 specifically; maybe they just gave a vague "we'll show it in 2016." If they want to launch in July, that means a reveal would come no later than January or February, I would think.
Who knows? I'm excited. I'm on board for a day-one buy whether they launch in July or December. And I'm pretty sure Zelda U will appear on both the Wii U and the NX at this point.-
What if the NX is just a reworked Wii U without the tablet controller? That would explain the rapid turn around time. If it was architecturally similar to the Wii U it would save on development time and hardware costs.
-
It's possible, but I unlikely, I think. Iwata (or Reggie; one of the two) referred to it recently as a new "dedicated gaming platform." If it were just a repackaged Wii U, they probably wouldn't be so secretive. I don't think they were so clandestine about the Wii that took away certain features; it was just another Wii when you got right down to it.
-
-
-
I don't see that happening but it's not impossible.
-
[deleted]
-
I'm in favor of holiday 2016. One of Nintendo's big mistakes this time around was not differentiating between the Wii and Wii U. Nintendo needs to unveil the NX with a completely unique name and set aside time to efficiently market the platform as something completely different their last two consoles. The last thing they need is a repeat of grandparents asking Gamestop for "that tablet for my Wii."
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
So would this fall into current gen? I think so since it's probably not going to be restrictive that there will be 3rd party games not on the PS4/XB1 if that's the goal.
-
It sure as shit ain't going to launch in July of all times.
I could see 2016 as realistic though, given how dead the Wii U's release schedule is going forward.-
I could see a Holiday 2016 launch. Especially if Zelda and a Mario game are ready to go by then.
-
The Original XBox was a financial failure and it was replaced by Xbox 360 only four years after launch. So the NX launching just 4 years after the Wii U seems logical to me. However, July is an awfully strange time to launch a new games console. On the other hand, a July launch would allow them time to ramp up production to the holiday season.
-
[deleted]
-
there's an enormous difference in releasing a console and planning to replace it in 4 years vs planning to replace it in 6-7 and then having to suddenly cut years off your schedule
-
[deleted]
-
-
Agreed. I'm thinking Holiday 2016.
-
-
-
Yeah, it's a crazy world I don't understand. It's hard to shake the feeling that if there were three consoles equal in power and third party support, but one of them had Nintendo exclusives versus the ones MS and Sony currently have, that Nintendo could reclaim the position they once had.
But maybe that's just among nerds in their 30s that grew up with Nintendo consoles. Maybe all the gamers in their teens and even 20s who played FF7 as their first RPG or Halo as their first FPS don't give a large number of fucks about Nintendo IP compared to former NES/SNES owners.-
This is most certainly true. Younger people that came up with PS1 and later don't have the same fondness for Nintendo and their properties. That's why Nintendo is doomed if they try to compete on Sony or Microsoft's level. Only a small percentage of the market is going to be convinced to go Nintendo instead of XO/PS4 thanks to Mario/Zelda. Halo/Uncharted are more important to other people.
They have to create something unique, probably a hybrid system that combines their handheld and console markets, and saves them development costs by only needing to make games for one system (and thus increasing the size of the library). From there, they can make an incremental increase to their base. They have to understand they'll never have something as successful as the Wii and DS again, thanks to tablets and phones.-
while things like Uncharted and Halo definitely have their fans I wouldn't discount how many kids are still exposed to Nintendo IP through the DS/3DS and Wii.
-
True, I forget about that sometimes. But I still don't feel it's enough to give Nintendo solid marketshare if they tried to compete on the same hardware level. The Xbox and Playstation brands are "cooler" in a lot of peoples minds. Not much Nintendo can do to overcome that in the short term.
-
-
-
Yeah, looking at first party exclusives I always find it weird when people are talking about how amazing MS or Sony are this generation, but I think its just that I never really got into Uncharted and being a Quake guy, I never really liked Halo that much (it was too slow and plodding I guess, I've given it many tries and I just don't enjoy it that much outside of the occasional co-op session). Gears was ok, but I don't really care that much about it (I think I still haven't opened up Gears 3 to even play it). On the other hand, I'm always going to want to play the new Zelda game, or a good new Mario game, or whatever. I think part of it is that I have a connection to those older games...I don't give a flying fuck about a new FF game, but a new Dragon Quest warrants a look for me.
-
-
Hell, id isn't really that relevant anymore...and that blows my mind. Same with so many things.
-
-
Assume the Wii U was intended to do better and not be replaced until the usual timeline (6-7 years). The Wii U was released ~3 years ago now. When did Nintendo actually give up on it and accelerate development of their next console? It couldn't have been before the Wii U's second holiday season (2013), but it could've been shortly after that (I think most would agree that was a turning point). That would make for an extremely compressed R&D cycle. Likewise an extremely compressed dev cycle for any games.
That seems to suggest less chance of a breakout new input device (the Wii U was their best idea in > 3 years of R&D). Suggests an increased chance of off the shelf parts rather than lots of custom silicon. If they change architectures for that purpose (ex to x86) then they have to spend a bunch of that shortened cycle rewriting core systems (like OS/online functionality).
Really not where you want to be.-
There are two more salient questions: when did Nintendo begin laying the groundwork for its new console; and how did the Wii U's lack of success affect its successor's timeline?
Most manufacturers begin concepting and prototyping new hardware immediately before or after launching a console. We can assume Nintendo began to define pieces and parts of the NX in mid to late 2012. That answers the first question, although obviously not definitively; I'd expect them to divulge that information in the usual flood of post-reveal interviews.
Regarding the second question, I'm betting Nintendo decided to fast-track NX late last year or early this year, when it became clear that not even heavy hitters like Mario Kart and Smash Bros. could revivify interest in Wii U.
The only Nintendo consoles to last more than 5 years were the NES and the Wii, both of which were earth-moving success stories. For the Wii U, Nintendo will probably end up roughly following the original Xbox's timeline: a 4-year lifespan in order to move on from a failure to the next big thing ASAP.-
Most manufacturers begin concepting and prototyping new hardware immediately before or after launching a console. We can assume Nintendo began to define pieces and parts of the NX in mid to late 2012. That answers the first question, although obviously not definitively; I'd expect them to divulge that information in the usual flood of post-reveal interviews.
Yes, so this fact isn't really interesting other than to note that they're prototyping with a much later date in mind than they actually will get this time around.
Regarding the second question, I'm betting Nintendo decided to fast-track NX late last year or early this year, when it became clear that not even heavy hitters like Mario Kart and Smash Bros. could revivify interest in Wii U.
That's even later than I expect and would result in an even more compressed timeline. You're talking about essentially being in a position where the various dev teams think they have 2-3 years left to work and then shaving an entire year off their schedule. That is not going to yield great results.
The only Nintendo consoles to last more than 5 years were the NES and the Wii, both of which were earth-moving success stories. For the Wii U, Nintendo will probably end up roughly following the original Xbox's timeline: a 4-year lifespan in order to move on from a failure to the next big thing ASAP.
As I said above, planning for a short cycle (which I fully believe the original Xbox did from the start) and having to short circuit your cycle and fast track the next box are very different. The Xbox 1 comparison doesn't really seem apt to me. It did what it was supposed to do, grew mindshare, built IP, taught them how to do things. The Wii U has simply failed to do anything it was meant to do.-
I actually should have been more conservative in some of my estimated. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Nintendo assigned their internal teams to NX game development even earlier. For instance, what has the Super Mario Galaxy/3D World team been up to since shipping World in late 2013? Probably developing a 3D Mario for NX.
-
For instance, what has the Super Mario Galaxy/3D World team been up to since shipping World in late 2013? Probably developing a 3D Mario for NX.
I would hope that until late 2013 they were working on a Wii U title. Then if that's when Nintendo pivoted (which is when I think they would've had to at least start seriously considering an accelerated generation shift) maybe they move that team to NX development. But what does that really mean? The hardware guys are currently a few years into prototyping a device they don't think will be in the market for 4 more years. They're still in the "try wacky ideas" phase when they're suddenly told to get in the "start locking down your big ideas and move on them." How is the software team going to do anything useful with that? Now you get to repeat all the pain of launch window games working against moving hardware targets except this time your hardware targets are even more rushed and your software isn't starting from scratch but trying to pivot onto a new, unknown machine?
In any case, even in the best case scenarios where Nintendo has planned well ahead of time for their console launches they've struggled to get their software pillars aligned with launch windows. This only makes that harder and increases the chance that the launch window games are more Twilight Princess than Skyward Sword.
-
-
-
-
The usual timeline for Nintendo systems is five years. They begin development on their new systems right after they ship their old one.
Either way, 2016 seems awfully soon given that their pattern is "announce and show new console after four years, ship the new one on the fifth", but we'll see.
-
-
Fuck. I hope they will offer an upgrade program for us suckers buying the WiiU. Yea ... I should probably just eBay this thing soon.
-
I just bought a Wii U because there are 10-15 exclusives that I will play on it. It will last me long enough to find out if the NX is successful or not. If they do a trade in program that is worth it and everything is backwards compatible I would jump on it, but I wouldn't be upset to wait a few extra years to switch to the NX if not.
-
Then you will have to buy the next system to play the next exclusives. And I just got this thing last year with Mario Kart. Really frustrated.
-
[deleted]
-
Because it's all but certain that the new console is coming sometime next year. Reggie even said so in the E3 briefing.
Also the fact that nothing noteworthy for the WiiU came out of e3 makes it obvious they want the WiiU out of the picture sooner than later.-
[deleted]
-
-
-
If anything, you bought at the right time. Go to Gamestop and load up on exclusives from the last 2-3 years. There are more than enough great games on the Wii U to justify your recent purchase. Don't worry; be happy!
-
you guys are ridiculous sometimes. People buy these hardware devices looking both forward and backwards, with varying weights on each direction. Yes the Wii U has a bunch of good exclusives now. People don't buy consoles just for what's already out. They buy it for what's to come as well. That's absolutely a big part of choosing which console to get. Someone could reasonably buy the Wii U because they like the current lineup and they're more excited for 3D Mario and Zelda than they are about Uncharted and Halo. Well now if they're not going to get that 3D Mario and Zelda they're understandably sad. They might've bought a different console if they knew such different futures were involved. Nintendo knows all this, that's why they're not actually announcing anything until they absolutely have to.
-
We've got Super Mario Maker, Star Fox, Xenoblade Chronicles X, the Wii U Zelda game, and Shin Megami x Fire Emblem coming minimally.
-
-
That and SMTxFE are pretty much all that's left for me.
-
-
-
Exactly this. With a weak e3 there is nothing to look forward to for my WiiU at all. Sure there are great games already released but I bought it for the next few years of great games also.
-
See the post above yours.
-
Yes there are a few interesting games coming but most will agree that the WiiU showing at e3 was below average at best. Star fox was so underwhelming imo. Mario maker looks great but it's not something I'm really interested in spending $60 on. Maybe $30 after a year or two.
-
I'm not sure Mario Maker will cost $60.
-
-
Whoa. That's surprising.
-
-
-
-
-
-
I put a lot of stock in back libraries and presume others do as well. Why miss out on games just because they came out days, months, or years before you bought the platform on which to play them?
And this has nothing to do with my Nintendo fandom. I'd use the same logic to anyone wondering if they should buy a PS3, 360, or any previous platform.-
This isn't a previous platform, it's a current platform. Obviously if you buy a PS3 or 360 now it's all about which back catalog you value. If you're deciding between a Wii U, XB1 or PS4 then you are actually likely weighting the future very heavily since their current catalog is like less than 50% of the final catalog (exacerbated further by the fact that quality games are generally weighted towards the end of generations rather than the beginning).
It's a significant change in the value of the purchase if its value is now closer to the known, fixed value of its current releases (plus a few to come) rather than another 3-4+ years of great new releases.-
Sigh. Whatever, man. I stand by everything I said.
-
-
-
-
He can buy all the exclusives from 3 years ago at the same price they originally went on sale for.
-
Unless he buys used, and not necessarily from GameStop.
My point is pretty fucking obvious: there are lots of great games to play on the Wii U.-
everyone gets your point and agrees, but you're using that to discount the future value people place on a platform when deciding to purchase
-
Why do you have such a big hate boner for the Wii U?
We know what the majority of consumers want in a home gaming device. The sales for the PlayStation and Xbox versus their competition demonstrate this. That doesn't mean the Wii U or the PC aren't great gaming platforms. Mass market appeal isn't the only metric by which to judge a device.-
you guys seem consistently confused about how things can be analyzed. I don't hate the Wii U. I have no emotional connection to it or its success. I gain nothing from either its success or failure. Its success or failure in the market is in some ways distinct from its quality. None of that affects whether I think Nintendo did a good job on strategy or execution with it. And none of that affects how I look at their future strategy or execution. You seem to think I'm interested in having a console war. I'm interested in looking at Nintendo as a business and their latest, biggest product is a failure and it is worth understanding why when you look at what their future holds. It has nothing to do with which Nintendo games or consoles I personally do or don't like.
-
For the most part I feel this from you. The proposed solution where they chase after Sony's market by focusing on console specs is doomed to fail though.
Creating a new market, as Nintendo did with the Wii and Apple did by successfully executing on "post-PC" devices, seems like a much more logical (and interesting!) solution.
A third generic console that is focused on performance isn't only boring, it would be financially disastrous. Sony has had the third party market locked up for 20 years, Nintendo isn't going in with intent to sell at a loss, and they're not going to launch a base system at $400.
There is no way they can compete on specs, and if they did they wouldn't steal the same third party market that has 50%-90% penetration, depending on the territory. Sony has ~80%-90% market in EU and the MIddle East, which is insane.
I know its not an argument of quality, its just that your arguments don't really give good solutions. Its like saying ten years ago that Apple should have made a cheap Mac that's just like a tower PC instad of creating a new market of their own. As much as some people say they'd have liked to have seen Apple do that, they'd have been eaten alive. And again, its boring!
I'd rather be surprised seeing inventive companies do inventive things.-
I'd rather be surprised seeing inventive companies do inventive things.
As a consumer, certainly I agree. I will happily watch numerous companies fail at this to eventually get me something fun. But if I'm Nintendo I'm not super excited by the high variance strategy. I just tried it twice and hit big once and failed hard once. The problem is big failures are more costly than big successes are valuable (in the sense that while the Wii got them lots of money it currently has no strategic value, while the Wii U cost them money the bigger problem is losing mindshare).
The other problem with the high variance strategy is that it's not like I'm lacking for bullets. My first party IP/quality is a big advantage in my favor. When my high variance strategy doesn't work out then I negated my own strength (ie Mario isn't a sales monster if there's only 1/2 as many Nintendo consoles out there as the nearest competitor). Obviously the flip side of this is I can use that IP as a hook for something strange and new, but it's still got to be strange and new and good.
The elephant in the room here is VR/AR. As a company that prides themselves on inventing new input methods and ways to play they already know that all their competitors have a pretty forward looking plan on that front. Making your own market is extraordinarily difficult. When citing previous successes (whether Nintendo's past, Apple, etc) we're talking about massive outliers. When you look at Nintendo's last 2 consoles it's just not clear why that's in their best interest. Their core franchises haven't been taking advantage of their hardware innovations. You mention they wouldn't sell a $400 device but they sure were close with the Wii U. Take that $100+ COGS from the controller (and the R&D hole it created) and put it towards core hardware and it sure looks like they could sell a good enough console to be in the game with third parties.
As far as third parties go, certainly it's an uphill climb but we've seen the crown go from Nintendo to Sony then MS then back towards the middle of Sony/MS as each one as prioritized it. They just have to actually care to change and realize that they need to.
Obviously solutions here are hard to come by, in some sense just doing the status quo (another equal powered console) is the "easy" choice. It's an easier to forecast one too though.
We talked about what I see as some of the problems with a mobile/hybrid strategy.
Most of my frustration with Nintendo's execution this generation is because of how obvious some of their problems have been and how steadfastly they've refused to address them. Now they're really in a hole.
/ramble-
I've been so happy with the Wii U I skip along and wonder why everyone else doesn't love it. It's like being pissed chocolate doesn't taste like peanut butter or something.
It seems to me they have some interesting input devices, and it shouldn't be too expensive or hard to get to par with the ps4. What I think will be Nintendo's biggest problem is system selling games at launch and the momentum to sell all their standard fare through the first years. -
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
I only said that he had a solid back catalog to choose from, and that that works in his favor. Anything else was you putting words in my mouth.
You're so damn aggressive in Nintendo threads.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Old-ish article: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-05/15/nintendo-nx-not-wii-u-3ds-replacement
This will definitely not be a living room console to replace the Wii U and compete with the PS4/XBOne, it's far too soon for that even if the Wii U were a catastrophic failure. However this is all very reminiscent of the "third pillar" comments they made about the DS, which in reality did completely replace the Game Boy line. My expert prediction is that this will represent some sort of hybrid approach, leaning towards portable play with TV streaming as a feature, and the 3DS and Wii U will be the last of their kind with the company focusing fully on this new style of console (whatever it is) into the future.-
[deleted]
-
-
-
Why? They have every reason to be the market leader in the home console business. If they determine that that is a profitable business (hint: it is), they have the trump card: the best first party titles. There's no reason they shouldn't compete in the hardware arms race. They bowed out of it 8 years ago for no good reason.
-
-
-
They did build it with the Gamecube. It's architecture wasn't too crazy or anything, and they had pretty good third party support. People just didn't buy it, because Playstation was just the cooler, more attractive brand to most people. Then GTA 3 came out and kinda sealed the deal. Nintendo couldn't catch up.
And they can't catch up. Their next console needs to be something affordable and accessible. Adding another $400 living room PC (to compete directly with XO and PS4) to the market would be suicide. By all indicators it would do worse than Gamecube, which barely sold enough to keep them in the red. -
[deleted]
-
Slightly OT, that was such a different time. Consoles aren't going to hit that sales level again.
The hardware requirements for mainstream usage (movies, casual games) are very low now. You don't need a $300-$500 console anymore, you need a Chromecast, or a Roku, or a smartphone that people are going to buy anyway because its an essential good.
Microsoft fucked up with the "Movies! Sports!" strategy of the XBox One launch because they saw so many people with XBox 360s using them for Netflix and Peggle. Well, yeah, in 2005 you needed that level of hardware to run that sort of thing. The mainstream market has no "essential" need for consoles anymore because you can run Netflix and play casual games on anything.-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
How does any company land 3rd party support? It's not an accident. You have to actually prioritize it from your system/services design to actual developer outreach. Look at all the stories of how differently Sony approached this problem for the PS3 vs PS4. It's entirely possible. The GC is simply an example of what not to do.
-
I'm sure it's theoretically possible for them to end up on top again if they decide today to fall in line with Sony/MS, and they dedicate all of their resources to making that happen no matter the cost or how long it takes. But the cost would be massive and it would take at least one full generation of playing catch-up, plus the very real possibility that they never succeed. I don't think it makes sense for them as a business to do that. It's not even clear that the next generation of consoles will still look like this.
-
-
-
Its a model that is unprofitable and risky. Microsoft has yet to get in the black after fourteen years of XBox and Sony lost somewhere around $6 billion on the PS3. The PS4 is priced for profit at $400, a price that Nintendo won't do.
The generic third party console market also belongs to Sony. Its belonged to them since the mid-90s. Nintendo fucked that up and they have to continue lying in that bed. Competing with Sony on a console that emphasizes horsepower over everything is a losing proposition given that there is such a strong association with Playstation and third party. The Gamecube was way faster than the PS2, all ports looked better on it, it had an incredible first party library with many classics, and it still got so clobbered that the only way it could sell was dropping the GCN price to $100.
Yeah, I dunno.
-
-
-
-
It needs to be a direct competitor to the Xbox and ps4 or else it will fail again just like the WiiU. I expect them to be much more conservative and release a dedicated gaming system on par with Xbox and ps4.
-
-
-
-
-
the 360 came out a little early but roughly on schedule. The competition was in full swing a year later. A new Nintendo console right now will be straight up in the middle of a generation like 3+ years before successors from MS or Sony.
-
-
-
I think they kind of feel that VR is their answer.
-
until Nintendo proves they care about catering to CoD and Madden types neither other platform owner has anything to worry about from them
-
This was what I was trying to get across like 89432234897 times to Serpico74 in the last thread lol
http://www.shacknews.com/chatty?id=33673229#item_33673229
http://www.shacknews.com/chatty?id=33673300#item_33673300-
Since when did I ever argue against derelict's point? All I said is that those old games you referenced are shit and that most third party EA/Activision/Ubisoft games are shit.
Also look at my post below saying specifically that Nintendo lost third party 20 years ago and that this isn't going to change.
Not a hard concept.-
It really has been 20 years hasn't it? If they had embraced optical media back then... such a different world.
-
Two decades of third party association and markets that are so deeply entrenched in the Sony ecosystem.
People in NA really don't understand how bananas Europe and the Middle East are for Sony and Playstation. We're talking 80%+ marketshare, a market that Microsoft and Nintendo have no hope in competing against directly.
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
Absolutely agree.
Competing directly on hardware is a losing battle because they're not aiming to sell at a loss, they're not going to sell a base system for $400, and they're not going to win the third party Playstation audience back with a system that has competitive specs.
Nintendo's best shot is creating their own market on top of the market of people that buy Nintendo games. Going head to head with Playstation would be catastrophically stupid on every level.
As much as people talk about Nintendo's financial failures over the last several years, they're more or less flat since the launch of the 3DS and have $10 billion in the bank. Microsoft has lost about $4 billion chasing after Sony, and that number is only going to get worse with every XBox One they sell at a loss. They can do it though, software licensing and enterprise businesses can pay for multiple failures that would individually sink any other company (XBox, Bing, Surface, Windows Phone, Nokia, Kin).-
Yup, in the long game Sony has to spin off the games division and a few others while the rest of the business falls into bankruptcy which isn't an issue Microsoft needs to look at any time soon.
-
Yeah, Sony and MS are in opposite positions. Playstation is one of the few things Sony has that's currently making money (Sony as a whole lost $2.1 billion last year, jeez), while XBox/Bing/Surface/Windows Phone can lose billions until the end of time and it doesn't matter as long as Office and Windows keep printing money.
-
-
TVs are not good business, their phones weren't good, cameras aren't exactly hot these days, etc
-
[deleted]
-
Yeah, the Xperia Z3 Compact is the best phone I've ever used...I love the thing.
-
[deleted]
-
My Z2 Tablet was the reason I went with the Z3 Compact phone. I loved my Moto X, but the 2nd Gen was made too big and I wanted something about the same size as my original Moto X and the Z3 Compact fit that need and had the things I liked from my tablet.
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Selling loss leaders in a market that won't be moving away from Sony platforms is one that seems doomed to fail.
They aren't going to win that race in the same way Apple was never going to run the race with desktop PCs, so better that they create a new market instead. This is where innovation comes from.-
[deleted]
-
They created a market for tablets that didn't exist before. Tablets existed for a decade but none of them sold. Creating a technology and creating a successful market for it are two different things.
If we're talking about why tablets weren't successful before its because Microsoft's method of shoehorning a Windows XP/7 UI and desktop apps that were designed for a mouse onto a touchscreen and expecting it to just work was misguided. Hardware reasons are because good performance:battery ratio in a light package was impossible with x86 CPUs of the time. On the other side of that you had iOS designed specifically for touchscreens, only running apps designed specifically for touchscreens, in hardware that was just over a pound with 10 hours of battery life.
Had Microsoft done this then they'd have created the tablet market instead.-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
Lifetime sales of the PS3 were a notch than the XBox 360 despite coming out a year later at a higher price. There's an argument that 360 sales were also padded by failures that happened outside of warranty (I myself had three RROD systems and a friend of mine had five.)
Its also important to note that North America is the only place Microsoft dominated. Sony has always had majority marketshare in other territories like Europe (about 90% right now, insane).
I understand what you're trying to say here, but even with more powerful hardware at a lower price and many superior ports, the Gamecube still failed to outsell the Playstation 2. The Playstation brand is very strong and has been for twenty years. Maybe I'm too bullish on them but I have a hard time believing that if you presented the standard mainstream gamer who buys the annual EA/Activision/Ubisoft franchises, that given the choice between a Playstation and an equally powered Nintendo console that they wouldn't just go with the Playstation. Hell, I have friends who got the XBox One at $500 when it was clearly underpowered and price inflated just because of their XBL friends and that's what they associated with Call Of Duty.
Brands are powerful things and Sony just owns it in the mainstream third party market. Microsoft can only "sort of" compete by burning billions of dollars.-
Maybe I'm too bullish on them but I have a hard time believing that if you presented the standard mainstream gamer who buys the annual EA/Activision/Ubisoft franchises, that given the choice between a Playstation and an equally powered Nintendo console that they wouldn't just go with the Playstation.
In aggregate this is certainly true, for now. But some number of them would actually buy the Nintendo console, and/or be exposed to the Nintendo offering and realize it might be for them this time unlike recent Nintendo consoles. And the generation that follows you build on that, it's not going to flip overnight of course. It's not like this brand loyalty happened by accident, hell, Nintendo had that claim before Sony did, they just let it lapse. Sony has shown themselves more than capable of missteps too.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
It has to do something special with an existing library.
-
-
I think if the android OS rumor ends up being true and they take advantage of that market then it won't matter.
-
if the Android rumor is true then they're on their way to being a software only company
-
-
If it's a big fork of Android then they won't be able to use the Google Play Store. Asking Android devs to patch and resubmit their apps for their device seems strange. It hasn't worked super well for Amazon as far as I can tell. It's not clear to me what they'd need Android for then since they're not making a phone. If they do use the Google Play App Store then what's the difference between their device and an Android phone with a controller attached?
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Whatever, I've long since accepted that I'll continue to buy their systems to play their 1st-party exclusives. I can't wait to see what the Mario team that made SM3DW is doing next. That was the best Mario hands down since Mario 64.
-
-
Look at pretty much all Sega systems. The DC\GC\PS2\XB generation had the PS2 sandwiched between the Dreamcast at the beginning and the GC/XB at the end. This is pretty much going to be what would've happened if Sega released another console after the Dreamcast, so we've reached uncharted territory here.
-
-
As far as historical success/failures releasing mid-cycle, they had quite a few released in a short time span. The 32x and the Dreamcast being closest to what we're seeing here timeline wise. I'm saying we're in uncharted territory because for all intents and purposes here the Wii U is Nintendo's Dreamcast, so this next one can't also be compared to the Dreamcast and we've reached a point where no other competitor has released enough consoles to be comparable.
-
[deleted]
-
It's the best we've got. Saturn/DC were purposefully put out before the competition much like the Wii U (although that was a year late IMO). Nintendo has always done best, save the GC era, launching later than the others.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Well that's a big part of what DeNA is supposed to help with right? Not sure about VoIP, although if they still don't have that going through the OS I won't hold out hope that they ever will. The OS isn't complete shit now, but it definitely didn't start that way. They need to continue to improve in features, stability, speed, and usability.
-
-
-
Ask yourself (or Google), did we get Twilight Princess on Gamecube after the Wii was released?
-
Miyamoto has gone on record saying it will be on Wii U. Whether it will ONLY be on Wii U remains to be seen.
-
[deleted]
-
Oh yeah, I forgot to add the comment that I think this "report" is bullshit. Nintendo is not releasing the console that soon. Mid 2017 at the earliest.
-
Yes they are, all the garbage being made for Wii U- upres, profit. That's not a prediction that's a fact.
-
You're right, except maybe the upres part. I wouldn't be surprised if the NX isn't much more powerful than the Wii U.
-
-
-
I'm going to make a bold prediction that the NX will flop hard, and will be the last console we see from Nintendo.
-
Well that's a given, have a less obvious prediction?
-
-
