3D World and NSMBU did sell very well on the Wii U...but yeah, I'm not sure where the heck they got that number from. I like the Wii U, but even I thought that was beyond ridiculous.

I'd rather just keep watching what's happening, before it's over. Knowing Nintendo, they plan on riding out Wii U for 10 years, 1.5 of which are already past. There's still alot of time to see what happens.

Knowing Nintendo, they only support a console for 5-6 years before moving on to the next. Why would the Wii-U be any different? Using a realistic scale of time, the Wii-U is nearly 1/3rd into its total lifespan, not the 2/5ths that you are implying.

Well, Nintendo thinks they have a powerful game console that can rival Microsoft and Sony, so however long those consoles plan on sticking around is probably Nintendo's goal, too.

Also, having a console available for longer builds the software library, which sells more consoles. Just because they want Wii U to last 10 years, doesn't necessarily mean that it will, but understanding that that is the goal makes it seem like there's alot more time left before this generation is over.

EDIT: Also, I was implying that Wii U was between 1/6 and 1/7 through it's life cycle. 2/5 is more than 1/3.

The next console has to be backward compatible CrossFingers

I could see a situation where in the next generation, Nintendo is the only company that doesn't have backwards compatibility.

Sony and MS have already reached the destination, there's really no point from moving beyond x86. Nintendo, on the other hand, have 3 choices. Go to x86 (loose backwards compatibility), go to ARM for the supposed Fusion project (and loose backwards compatibility), or stick with PPC.

The latter would allow for more backwards compatibility, but would they be able to catch up on power and still be able to keep the cost down? I honestly don't know the answer to that one.

Wii U will probably last as long as long as the older HD consoles unless Mario Kart and Smash Bros don't do great numbers or whatever.

@Kodeen
Well, ×86 can still technically run PPC games, and vice versa. You do relize that PS3 and Xbox 360 were PPC? Then the original Xbox was x86, too, so alternating between architecture types isn't really as drastic as people are making it out to be.

It can, but it requires a lot of overhead. An XB1 or PS4 might have the hardware to emulate a Gamecube at full speed. Anything beyond that would probably require beefier hardware (my PC with 8-core AMD FX and GTX 770 struggles with Wii something something in a lot of cases.

Yup. Their successors aren't, there's a good reason for that.

The reason that MS moved to PPC for the 360 was that x86 was in a transitional period that was not well suited for consoles. The main processors at the time were the Pentium 4 and AMD Athlon, both of which generated too much heat. x86-64 was in its infancy, and again, generated a lot of heat (and consumed ever more power). Neither of those were suitable for a video game console. At this state it's a moot point, x86 can generate competitive power levels with lower heat generation and power consumption. Through brute force budgeting and man-hours in R&D, it has pretty much become the perfect non-mobile architecture for the foreseeable future.

ARM and PowerPC are also architectures with a good deal of similarities, one of which they both adhere to the RISC paradigm( x86 on the other hand is CISC). I could see ARM64 emulation of PPC being a reality if they choose to go down that path. x86 and PPC don't mix up that well, I think the emulation of original Xbox games on 360 left much to be desired. Having ARM architecture on the handheld and also on the home console could be useful. Maybe the future is fusion, indeed. If they choose to keep PPC, I wouldn't be surprised either, a Power 8 machine could conceivably be a cost-effective way of delivering 4K games.

@Kodeen
Ok, so if there's a good reason for Microsoft and Sony to have ×86, for the foreseeable future, then who's to say that Nintendo doesn't have just as good of a reason to have gone PPC? I completely understand that it depends on transition, but switching between the 2 implies that neither is better or worse.

I'm sure Nintendo has good reason to continue down a PPC path.

Like I said, I don't know if it'll make sense to stick with PPC or not. It all depends on how the two architectures progress, if PPC continues to advance at the same rate as x86, etc... Will it be competitive in 3-5 years when planning for the next console starts? Dunno.

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/q0cyv3/pach-attack--time-t...

Reggie for Nintendo President instead of Iwata is what Pachter thinks should happen I disagree and feel someone newer blood needs to be given a shot but it will most likely be another Japanese executive or something, what do you guys think?

Edit: Did not notice a thread has been made about this.

Wii U is better than PS4

@Jazzer94 & @Unca_Lz (since you're a mod) Woops! Sorry, should I just move my thread into here? I forgot about this thread.

I don't think NL has a feature like that anyway we might as well continue the discussion there as you posted the information first.

It can be done PPC -> X86 - Transistive did it for Apple when they switched with a reasonable overhead. Problem is IBM bought and gutted them and they won't do anything to help their last volume customer leave. (I personally observed them do sparc -> X86 with about 5% overhead and 100% reliability - well enough to run a complicated expensive sparc only application that had to work perfectly).

x86 is great for mobile as far as I am concerned the Motorola Razr i I have used seems to have a reasonable battery life (And performs quite well even running arm only stuff). Not tried any of the more modern ones. The new atom looks like it would be fine.