I'd agree with you, but this last point of yours just screams out "change and progress don't exist." The way advancement in technology works is by finding ways around problems like this.
Name one hugely successful tech product in the last twenty years that wasn't simply a clever use of existing tech. The Wii when you think about it was nothing more than a clever way to use accelerometers and an IR camera. The Kinect is largely the same deal just refined. The iPod was basically the first product in an already existing market to gain mass appeal. Largely because Apple tied it to a more palatable version of what was done with Napster. What none of them have been is somehow magically well ahead of what was technically possible at the time.
I just don't think it's as impossible as you say it is. I can think of a few pre-existing ideas that sort of mirror what I'm thinking of as a hybrid system, the most obvious of which being stuff like Chromecast or just plain old HDMI cables that can stream what's on the main system onto a better screen. I also imagine something similar to the power saving features most modern day electronics utilize would be in place, playing games at much lower specs when not connected to a power source or a screen that can actually do those graphics. The specs of the system itself would be that of a console, but it'd lower how it runs when unplugged to preserve battery power. I suppose the option to run at a higher rate would exist, but you'd be draining battery for relatively no actual gain.
The other part of this idea is that developers would have the option to develop for one, the other, or both. Game Freak would basically just make their usual Pokemon entry, and players could put it on a bigger screen, but it'd just be the same game on a bigger screen. Essentially, it'd be a system where all the extra features are inactive when you want to conserve battery, and are in use when not inactive.
Alternatively, though this has a few obvious setbacks, I don't see what's stopping the console portion from being essentially a console that's controlled by the handheld. Considering what Nintendo told us about the DeNA partnership, that doesn't seem too far-fetched. Mind you, though, I'm not tech wizard. I'm just throwing out vague ideas, trying to show that it's not as impossible as you seem to think it is. Like you said, the biggest products seem to always be a clever use of existing technology, and I don't see why it's impossible for existing technology to make a system that can play games in handheld style or in console style and leave the decision up to developers as to which style they want to develop for.
Project Reality - N64
August 1993
September 1996
3 yrs 1 month
Here is far back on the announcements of the new systems to when they were actually released. So even if we take the latest time frame, if they announce it at E3 2016 then that would mean it would be announced June 2016, and released 19 months later in Jan 2018, however I will give it Dec 2017 to be nice.
To be fair the N64 and GCN were originally intended to come out Summer 1995, and Autumn/Winter 2000 respectively, but lack of games caused their releases to be delayed. They would have been like the Wii U with 2 games at launch, and not another game until 9 months later.
I just don't think it's as impossible as you say it is. I can think of a few pre-existing ideas that sort of mirror what I'm thinking of as a hybrid system, the most obvious of which being stuff like Chromecast or just plain old HDMI cables that can stream what's on the main system onto a better screen. I also imagine something similar to the power saving features most modern day electronics utilize would be in place, playing games at much lower specs when not connected to a power source or a screen that can actually do those graphics. The specs of the system itself would be that of a console, but it'd lower how it runs when unplugged to preserve battery power. I suppose the option to run at a higher rate would exist, but you'd be draining battery for relatively no actual gain.
I don't for a second doubt the fact that a portable console could plug into or even stream video to a TV wirelessly. This is definitely doable and is indeed being done. What I'm questioning is how a portable device such as that would fare against things like the PS4 and PS5. And it's more than just the battery life that makes me doubt the theory. A good portable system has to be light, ideally passively cooled and run cool. It's not as simple as just running it at a higher clock speed when it's got mains power. Modern consoles aren't shaped like god-damn VCRs because they like that style of design.
A system build with those limitations released late next year is going to struggle to outperform even the Wii U. They could make a damn good portable system for sure and they could also build an impressive home console. A device that straddles the line? Could potentially be a good portable.... but it'll be a joke of a home console. We're talking "this looks like a 360 game" in 2018 here.
Unless, of course, whatever is hooked up to the tv is something with lots of processing power. Then it becomes quality stuff again. How good would a 3ds game look on my hd tv now? Not good, of course. But if the 3ds talked to the wiiU, which would have that game installed with the hd assets and processing power, how good would that look? Far better of course.
But wait... how is this any different to a two-platform model? You basically just described cross-buy and cross-play.....
Unless, of course, whatever is hooked up to the tv is something with lots of processing power. Then it becomes quality stuff again. How good would a 3ds game look on my hd tv now? Not good, of course. But if the 3ds talked to the wiiU, which would have that game installed with the hd assets and processing power, how good would that look? Far better of course.
But wait... how is this any different to a two-platform model? You basically just described cross-buy and cross-play.....
And that's why a hybrid console wouldn't work. They're better off releasing two different consoles that communicate a little better, it's way more convenient as it gives the consumer more options.
When people want a hybrid console, they just expect a ''Wii U 2'', which allows you to take the GamePad with you and magically plays games without a CPU.
We bumped into each other talking and speculating about nintendo stuff, and all of a sudden nintendo creates vr brainplugs that fry out brains when they crash.
I just think you're trapped in a specific idea of how a hybrid would work. That's what research and development is for. If it doesn't work, oh well, but for the sake of making the game library more populated, it's worth considering at the least.
Not happening. Nintendo has never released an upgraded home console. They were close to with N64 but didn't. (I don't think Sony or Microsoft have either?) Best you can hope for is a budget Wii U console like Wii Mini.
I just think you're trapped in a specific idea of how a hybrid would work. That's what research and development is for. If it doesn't work, oh well, but for the sake of making the game library more populated, it's worth considering at the least.
Well you guys have thrown out two or three difference ways that it would "work" in this thread alone. None of them seem to make much sense technically and one would effectively be the same as what we have now. I don't disagree that they need to make each release count for more than one platform, this is a thing. But having both platforms be the piece of hardware isn't the only way to do that. You think I'm stuck on the idea that a hybrid console couldn't work, I think you guys are stuck on the idea that it's a thing that should be solved in hardware
In a nutshell what I'm trying to say when I trash the hybrid idea is this
When people want a hybrid console, they just expect a ''Wii U 2'', which allows you to take the GamePad with you and magically plays games without a CPU.
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"
I've thought the idea of a New Wii U made sense in the past, but of course that was predicated on the idea of a long-term commitment to the platform which probably isn't the case given it's less-than-stellar performance. I don't think it's safe to say it's making no money for them: software sales are clearly good, it just might be that Nintendo is having to accept the reality of both Microsoft and Sony that having the hardware be profitable right away is no longer possible.
As far as hybrids go I think what is more likely is that you'll see a portable and console built on the same architecture with the ability to run the same software via some scaling tweaks, like running the same app on iPhone and iPad.
As far as hybrids go I think what is more likely is that you'll see a portable and console built on the same architecture with the ability to run the same software via some scaling tweaks, like running the same app on iPhone and iPad.
Yes! This here. This is what I've been trying to say in a few of these threads. It only makes sense. I mean this thing here:
That's a full PC running Windows. You can put Steam on it and you could probably play a few of the more basic indie titles. You could pretty easily turn that into a portable console if you really wanted to especially if it was built as a more gaming focused device. Plus because it's based on x86 a Sony or Microsoft could easily build it in such a way that porting too or from it would be easy. But it's not going to run Project Cars, GTA 5 or The Witcher 3. It's not going to be competitive with a proper home console.
Some of the more heavier "console grade" architectures are getting more efficient. To the point where it would be feasible to use them for a portable machine. Which would make porting easier so, theoretically, games could launch on both at once regularly. They wouldn't literally have hardware that would somehow be both they'd instead have MORE games that ran on both.
I just think you're trapped in a specific idea of how a hybrid would work. That's what research and development is for. If it doesn't work, oh well, but for the sake of making the game library more populated, it's worth considering at the least.
Well you guys have thrown out two or three difference ways that it would "work" in this thread alone. None of them seem to make much sense technically and one would effectively be the same as what we have now. I don't disagree that they need to make each release count for more than one platform, this is a thing. But having both platforms be the piece of hardware isn't the only way to do that. You think I'm stuck on the idea that a hybrid console couldn't work, I think you guys are stuck on the idea that it's a thing that should be solved in hardware
In a nutshell what I'm trying to say when I trash the hybrid idea is this
When people want a hybrid console, they just expect a ''Wii U 2'', which allows you to take the GamePad with you and magically plays games without a CPU.
I'm stuck on the idea that it's a logical move to try and pool Nintendo's resources to make something that works for both sides of their product line. I never said I wanted one product that does both. I'm just pointing out that it may not be as impossible as you think. I'm not a hardware developer. I'd be rather impressed if you were. I'm just saying "don't count it out."
Mind you, I'm not even going to try and argue that two systems with cross-buy and cross-play wouldn't also handle the issue just fine. All your handheld games would also be console games, and if the console can upscale those games, then that's a good bonus. Just as long as Nintendo finds a way to either support their system(s) more fully throughout the year or bring the 3rd parties running to hop on the bandwagon. Either will work, but I think we know which one's more likely.
I never said I wanted one product that does both. I'm just pointing out that it may not be as impossible as you think. I'm not a hardware developer. I'd be rather impressed if you were. I'm just saying "don't count it out."
Well I'm not a hardware developer I'm more of just an enthusiast when it comes to hardware. When I say I don't think a portable device that's also powerful enough to be a decent home console is not feasible I'm saying it just as someone who's into tech. That said I am a Software Engineer so, does that count for something? Or does it just mean that when I say "it can be solved in software" I'm doing the old "when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail"?
Mind you, I'm not even going to try and argue that two systems with cross-buy and cross-play wouldn't also handle the issue just fine. All your handheld games would also be console games, and if the console can upscale those games, then that's a good bonus. [...] Either will work, but I think we know which one's more likely.
Well it wouldn't even have to be all of the games. Imagine if the Wii U in its first year instead of having a thin library could have had Luigi's Mansion 2 and Kid Icarus Uprising. Or maybe when the 3DS launched it could have been out on day 1 with Donkey Kong Country Returns and New SMB instead of having us just sit and wait for 6 months. Hell, even now the only real reason to own a New 3DS is for Xenoblade. I would have grabbed that trivial upgrade if there were another one or two Wii/Wii U ports on it.
And I know people's eye's glaze over when I talk of having more ports. But that launch period with new hardware is brutal, why not have some new titles appear on both at once? I do still think there's value having portable games being built for portables and home console games that push the visuals a bit more. That's why I really, really hate the idea of doing this in hardware. But there are some games which could and do work on both. So put more of them on both!
Here is far back on the announcements of the new systems to when they were actually released. So even if we take the latest time frame, if they announce it at E3 2016 then that would mean it would be announced June 2016, and released 19 months later in Jan 2018, however I will give it Dec 2017 to be nice.
NX was announced officially in March of this year. So a September 2016 date would put the launch 1.5 years after the announcement. And really, Miyamoto was already talking about the next console back in January 2015 (referencing the need for a new controller on the next platform in order to do something new with F-zero).
NX was announced officially in March of this year. So a September 2016 date would put the launch 1.5 years after the announcement. And really, Miyamoto was already talking about the next console back in January 2015 (referencing the need for a new controller on the next platform in order to do something new with F-zero).
I don't think you'd call that an "announcement", we know absolutely nothing about what it is. And there's a good chance that they were honest when they were saying they were only talking about it to shut down speculation. Because if they hadn't brought up NX people would have concluded that they were going third party. At least by announcing NX at worst it's made people think they're retiring the Wii U early.
When @Quinnsdaddy11 said "about 18months from announcement"... it was 18months from this
Watch that video and tell me we know as much about the NX as we knew about the Wii back then. What we've had for the NX I wouldn't call an "announcement"
NX was announced officially in March of this year. So a September 2016 date would put the launch 1.5 years after the announcement. And really, Miyamoto was already talking about the next console back in January 2015 (referencing the need for a new controller on the next platform in order to do something new with F-zero).
I don't think you'd call that an "announcement", we know absolutely nothing about what it is. And there's a good chance that they were honest when they were saying they were only talking about it to shut down speculation. Because if they hadn't brought up NX people would have concluded that they were going third party. At least by announcing NX at worst it's made people think they're retiring the Wii U early.
When @Quinnsdaddy11 said "about 18months from announcement"... it was 18months from this
Watch that video and tell me we know as much about the NX as we knew about the Wii back then. What we've had for the NX I wouldn't call an "announcement"
The Wii was shown in full for the first time at E3 in the same year that it launched. Nintendo gave practically nothing on the Wii at E3 2005 (which is what we'll likely get on NX at E3 2015). I think they should give a graphics demo and confirm it won't have backwards compatibility at this E3 but they should keep the interface secret until the complete unveiling next year.
The Wii was shown in full for the first time at E3 in the same year that it launched. Nintendo gave practically nothing on the Wii at E3 2005 (which is what we'll likely get on NX at E3 2015). I think they should give a graphics demo and confirm it won't have backwards compatibility at this E3 but they should keep the interface secret until the complete unveiling next year.
Well they haven't done as much as they did at E3 2005 yet and they've said they won't say anymore about it this year. So what I'm saying is that E3 2016 for the NX will be the equivalent of what we got in E3 2005 for the Wii U. You seem to think they'll do that this year.... there's no reason to believe that.
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"
The Wii was shown in full for the first time at E3 in the same year that it launched. Nintendo gave practically nothing on the Wii at E3 2005 (which is what we'll likely get on NX at E3 2015). I think they should give a graphics demo and confirm it won't have backwards compatibility at this E3 but they should keep the interface secret until the complete unveiling next year.
Well they haven't done as much as they did at E3 2005 yet and they've said they won't say anymore about it this year. So what I'm saying is that E3 2016 for the NX will be the equivalent of what we got in E3 2005 for the Wii U. You seem to think they'll do that this year.... there's no reason to believe that.
In fact, there's reason to believe they won't do that, being that they've explicitly stated they won't be talking about the NX at E3, this year and have also said they won't be ready to talk about it at all until 2016. Unless they plan on revealing the console in February and rushing it out the door by November, it's not gonna happen, and if it did, you could expect large scale backlash, third party developers to almost universally condemn the system for not giving them time to develop games for it, and a really bad day for Nintendo share holders.
Does anyone realize that Nintendo just reached profits? Or that the Wii U is still increasing in sales, thus making this a horrible time to announce that it's a dying console? Does anyone realize how much money Nintendo would lose by switching to another console, right now? Even 18 months from now, it'll be too soon to outright replace the system. Nintendo needs to ride this train as long as they can manage to maintain consumer confidence and to make money back on their investment, otherwise the cost of manufacturing will put Nintendo's next console in a SEGA situation.
Forums
Topic: The New Nintendo Wii U
Posts 41 to 60 of 92
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.