Topic: Nintendo shake up could mean the end of Nintendo hardware as we know it

There's really no story here. Nintendo are simply merging divisions to increase productivity and efficiency and streamline their customer support/supply chain as many other companies have done in the past. Nothing more going on here.

(T-shirt reads) I checked out this thread and all I got was huge walls of text filled with a bunch of contradictions.

Exactly. It Is Nintendo trying to increase profitability by decreasing inefficiencies.
The real surprise is that this merger hadn't happened eons ago... if anything this is prolly why Gamecube-GBA connectivity sucked and Wii-DS connectivity never really happened.

If it'd just be a handheld mixed with a console, how would that be "the end of Nintendo hardware as we know it". That's pretty much a natural evolution of the WiiU if they want to continue down that line. Wouldn't be surprising.

it's just about cutting costs and increasing efficiency and ultimately profit. imagine how time and money much these guys now spend on travel between various buildings.

...because it would be the end of having both a dedicated handheld and dedicated home console as two totally separate products, which we've had forever? A lot of people still don't buy that they would ever drop one in favor of having the other completely integrated into one product. The whole Wii U thing still doesn't give us a direct idea on where they'll go from there, for all we know we could be getting eye contacts that sync with and stream from the next system...

business models always have to change by neccesity over the decades especially with technology... Businesses who have die out is simply becuase they either refuse to change or don't see the changes happening in the first place..and its to late for them...

The days of a company being HUGE and having multiple business models is IMO out the window..... though some don't believe the handheld/console hybrid might not work need to see further down the line.... I believe it will work.. that is the direction we are heading..... simplification....

I believe console/held model will be a definite cash cow in the future...... if you have kids, I wouldn't be surprise if you can by handhelds separately to accomodate this... got two tv's .. buy a separate hub.... not interested in console like play... don't get the hub... simple

I'm not liking this. To think; no more Nintendo home consoles? Or at least non-hybrid (the Wii U itself already sort of is though)? My point is, the potential fact that home consoles could go extinct in favor of pure handheld gaming doesn't settle well with me.

Sadly my co-worker and I was talking about this sort of thing a few months ago. And I know this may not mean anything right now with the merging but honestly Nintendo has always been more successful with their handhelds more so than their home consoles. Out of six systems Nintendo only ranked number one with two of them the first two systems. Starting with the N64 they have behind MS and Sony. However if you look at their handheld systems who will notice that they are at the top of the sales charts. Honestly it wouldnt really surprise me if Nintendo was to leave the home console market and just stick with handhelds. Hopefully though I hope I dont see that day.

The Nintendo Wii ranked number one just recently. Don't forget that one.

I don't see what difference it makes if the game machine that you carry around with you and the game machine that hooks up to your TV become one machine. I'm not shedding any tears because I plug my iPhone into my HiFi to listen to music instead of switching to some kind of plugged-in music storage device when I walk in the front door.

I think it will be a great thing myself.

One would have to naturally assume the next piece of game hardware Nintendo puts out will be more powerful than the current Wii-U. Do you think even today, something as powerful as the PS3 could be shrunken down to handheld size (with a high quality screen and buttons, and battery) and be sold for less than $300-400? I sure don't. But you think Nintendo will do this in the future?

I don't see a lot of parents rushing out to buy their kids a new Nintendo 'portable console' in the future which would cost hundreds of dollars, and allow them to take is with them to school, on the bus, etc, where it could be lost/stolen or damaged. I do think though that people/parents will still continue to spend $250-300 on a dedicated home console, and another $150 on a smaller portable.

Also, how would games work? Assuming they will be 'console sized' in portable form, we are talking 10+ GBs for many. If they are to be played on a portable system, will games be sold on SD cards? They can't be disk based if its portable.

There is a big difference between sticking an iPod into a docking station and playing an MP3 on a home stereo and taking a portable gaming unit and hooking it up to a 60" HD tv and having it display console quality graphics.

The other thing to take into account is that most people have zero interest in playing a 'current' console quality HD game on a portable device. Even if I could play something like GTA 5 on a portable console with a 6 inch screen, I wouldn't even bother and would just wait till I got home and could play on TV with a controller. Hell, the Vita is as close to a portable console as we have now, and no one is buying it.

@abe the Vita is a PS3 on the go for less then $400
I think it's possible
Also most parents actually buy Nintendo handhelds over consoles anyday since they're easy to hold on to, I keep my 3DS with me everywhere and would love to play games like skyward sword on the go, heck 15 years ago I doubt anyone would've imagined OOT on a GameBoy like devise

Yep, and this would release in 5 years. Technology changes rapidly in this industry of ours.

Now, I don't know if it'll happen. But the possibility is there.

You are happy about playing a 15 year old video game on a portable system today and think thats mind blowing? That's not really all that impressive when you think about it in those terms. In fact, it's quite disappointing when you take into account all the technological advances made in mobile devices in the recent past. Try to put a game like Fallout 3 or Red Dead Redemption on a current generation handheld system and see how that works for ya...

And that is my whole point. If Nintendo's next system is a dual handheld/home device, it NEEDS to at least be an upgrade graphically and power wise from the Wii-U. If you are bragging about Nintendo finally being able to re-release a game that came it in 1998 to a portable system in 2012, how are they going to get a next-gen console experience/games squeezed into a handheld device in the next 6-7 years? Seems very unlikely to me.

Also, the Vita is not a PS3 in terms of power or graphical output. If it was the same, why don't they just release direct ports of PS3 games to it? And if its a 'portable console' with 'console quality' games, how come people aren't buying it? It's affordable enough, is it not?

Um, they do. Look at Sly Cooper, Ratchet and Clank, or Playstation Allstars. Then there's that Final Fantasy X remake for both PS3 and Vita. Then there's Mortal Kombat, Ultimate Marvel Vs. Capcom 3 and Dead or Alive 5 Plus.

In regards to them not selling, I'd blame that on Sony not doing a very good job with letting others know about the system, it's horrid memory card prices, and the company's insistence on being bigger than they are by thinking 3rd parties will develop for it without a push. Then, the system is more expensive than a PS3 when one considers memory cards, so there's that too. It's a very mishandled device.

So even at around $250 you are saying the Vita is too expensive (and its maybe as powerful as a PS3, a 7 year old device), so how much would you expect a portable Wii-U 2 to cost then? Below $250? Unlikely. The 3DS launched at $170 and is FARRRRR weaker than current gen consoles.

And most of your examples of cross platform games between Vita and PS3 are fighting games, which are relatively easy to port to a handheld (and a remake of a 10 year old FF game). If the Vita is the same as a PS3, why isn't the Black Ops 2 game a direct port? Why isn't AC3 a direct port? Because the Vita is not a portable console nor as powerful as the PS3. Hell, look at the graphics on those games. Plug them into an HD TV using a HDMI cable and they wouldn't look half has good as the console versions do. Are they great graphics for a handheld? You bet. But they are not impressive on a tv.

The 3DS Launched at 250

My guess they'll release a hybrid handheld console for $400 and you can plug your 4DS into the TV and play using wii remotes/gamepads/zappers/balanceboards/wheels/ect... Ahhh you get it

@abe ok how about TotA on 3DS a 5 yr difference, it's getting closer, oh and Capcom got RE5 running on 3DS in 2011 a game from 2009