Topic: Zelda's Wii U-Turn to NX

At that price point I would go either PC only or PC + sony or xbox next gen. At that price point it wouldn't be better in any way to the Wii U. It would have less power, it would have worse graphics and on top of that it would be more expensive. The only ones that feels this is acceptable is those that would want to buy both.

But what is it you are really after? Why not only buy an handheld? Because they can be used at home... it isn't like they will have better graphics just because you blow them up on a big screen.

@Therad: So why at that price couldn't it be better than the Wii U? What I would like is a Nintendo console similar to how the PS4 and Vista work only that you can use the Vista as a controller similar to the Wii U gamepad plus also plays its own handheld games. I can't play handheld devices anymore, when I was young I had not problem playing pokemon for hours, but now i'm a little older I struggle to concentrate on a small screen for a long period of time.

@haigh1011: What you're asking for is a handheld that can stream to a TV. They don't need to sell both a handheld and a home console in one box to make that possible.

You seem to be talking about two different things here. Your first point is you want to use the handheld as a controller. This they could probably manage quite easily as long as they have the same control scheme. Which they historically hasn't managed, but they have on the other hand merged their hardware sections so they should be thinking more about things like this.

Your other point is a bit more fuzzy. Is it the ability to stream handheld games to a home unit you are after? Or do you want games to be able to upscale when you are at home, better assets and all? And if you struggle to use a small screen, why do you need an handheld unit at all?

I'm okay with them offering a bundled option, but imagine if you just want one or the other. Then it's an arbitrary 200 dollar upcharge.

No home console in the post-crash era has seen success when priced at $450 or more.

Right now, Nintendo may have competition on the horizon for their NX in the form of the PS 4.5 which Digital Foundry now believes to be official through numerous sources, but also likely what ever Microsoft plans to do with future Xbox hardware revisions, which seems likely to happen given what Phil Spencer has said and the fact Sony is keen to upgrade their existing hardware.

If Sony and Microsoft were to announce these hardware revisions at E3, it would certainly take from Nintendo's spotlight and I fear their hardware may fall further behind their competitors. So this NX needs to b something that is pretty damn impressive.

@Therad: I know its a bit confusing because I don't really word thing well lol, how about it this way, A updated (specs) Wii U but the gamepad is also a handheld, which you can play wherever you want and when your are home you can stream games such as pokemon to the big screen. I personally don't want to use it as a handheld, but I would still like the option incase my family or friends want to use it.

Not just that, Think instead of using a Wii U gamepad, you are using a 3DS as the controller and it works exactly the same as a gamepad and if you want you can stream 3DS games to your tv

@haigh1011: So, would the home console part work without the portable system?

@haigh1011:
Basically you want them to port Pokemon to a home console. Not only that but you'd be willing to pay $100s more for a feature you won't use in order to get it. Beyond that you haven't really thought it through. I'm not trying to be rude here but that's essentially what I'm getting out of your theory.

@skywake: look i know i'm no expert, thats why i'm asking the questions, This is why i'm asking the question I have a Wii U gamepad that never gets used I need it to turn my Wii U on thats all I know. All the games I own I use the pro controller which tell me That the gamepad screen does nothing for my game experience. So what the point of Nintendo making a new controller with a screen (if unless NX has some massive new feature) so it too be a waste again, all I was thinking that is you could play handheld games on so it wouldn't be a waste

Edit: It not just pokemon I want to port there would be other handheld games I would like to try, I just keep saying pokemon because it easy

@haigh1011:
The GamePad literally acts as a portable system when you're within range of the Wii U. That's one of the main things I like about the Wii U. Pretty much every game on the Wii U I've played in this way. What you're saying is that they should just "scale that idea up" in a sense, right?

Well it doesn't work like that. The GamePad isn't a console, it's a shell. It's basically just like the top half of the 3DS but wireless and with buttons. There's no "scaling up" from that to a portable system. You're essentially asking is whether or not it's a good idea to literally sell two game consoles at once. Two consoles that have no reason to be sold at once. And if you have no interest in the portable component? You're just asking to pay extra for something you won't use.

@DefHalan: If not capability of playing the same games, what did you take the hybrid to mean?

@skywake: Yes, it would be like putting those 2 things in a box. I ask you the same question as DefHalan.

The whole talk of why thy would be making a hybrid is the ability to buy a game and also play it on the go. Now, I'm sure they would do all fancy and convenient things with the hardware and softwares to make it seem like much more than a ps4 and vita in a box, like maybe make the portable the controller to the home console, etc. But it's suddenly like everyone is forgetting what the point of the hybrid would've been in the first place.

The HUGE, HUGE benefit to Nintendo in this? Their output it essentially doubled. No more "3ds good, Wii U drought .. Wii U good, 3ds draught".

Where along the line did we lose the connection that this is what the hybrid would solve, if it were indeed a hybrid?

What would the difference between "2 devices in 1 box" and "all one device" be to you?

Essentially all you seem to be hung up on between the 2 is that the portable would be a part of the home console in some way, such as a controller. Well, just like, as you said, the Vita is to the PS4, I'm sure it would be. That seems to be what is making "2 devices" into "1 device" in your mind, am I right?

@LetsGoRetro: Hybrid normally means the two systems are combined into one. Most people refer to the controller being a portable system that connects to the home system in some way. The portable would then be required to use the home console because they are both 1 machine in a way.

If both systems played all the same games, then why would someone buy both? Also that would mean software would have to build around the lowest common denominator, the portable system, which would mean big 3rd Parties would probably stay away. The portable would not be able to run big budget AAA games such as The Division. (the game everyone seems to be hyped on currently)

@DefHalan:

As to your first point, we're saying the same exact thing, worded differently. I'm saying "a portable device that acts as a controller" and you're saying "the controller can detatch and become a portable system"

As to your second point, I again show my technical illiteracy, but rumors I saw (or if not going by rumors, let's just say "what I believe to be possible) is the same game can essentially be "scaled down" on the handheld by activating/not activating certain processors or something along those lines. So, you essentially get a "scaled down" version of The Division on the portable, I'm guessing?

As to why someone would buy both, well 2 reasons: 1) A home console and a portable console are 2 very different experiences, even when playing the same game. 2) The whole idea that it is a hybrid would be the whole selling point of the console (Let's make it 3 reasons) 3) They're in the same box and you'd have no choice?

EDIT: As to whether the portable would be required to run the home console, I don't know, but I would guess not, as I would think they'd like to allow to use multiple controllers like always, and would know some people are going to lose their portable and freak out they cannot play their home system.

@LetsGoRetro: I'm sorry I never fully understood how scaling down big triple A games onto a handheld would work without a lot of work on the developers side. It's not going to be as simple as "activating/not activating certain processors" etc. All games would need reworking which is just too much effort and resources for big publishers to want to deal with.

That isn't what I was saying, but I think you cleared up your point later on. You want two separate devices, so the Home Console would be its own device with its own controller and using the portable system would just be an option.

The developer would then basically have to make two versions of the game. There is no easy scaling button that could be made. Certain games will prioritize certain processes more than others. This would not be something easy to develop for because every game would need to have a version that works on the portable. That requires more development time and more testing time. Also lessens your sales potential since you buy the game once and have it on both systems.

1) It may be a different experience but it won't be a different game. It is the same game on both system. Majority of people will be ok with owning the game once, including myself. If a portable can do everything the home console can, then why would I even use the Home Conosle? I can play the portable whenever and where ever, while the Home Console I can only play at home.
2) But the Hybrid system idea doesn't work. Plenty of people, smarter than me, have explained why it does not work and how it would be a commercial failure.
3) People were upset when the Xbox One "required" you to purchase it with your system. How are people looking to buy either a Home Console or a Portable think about this? Also the price tag would have to be really high for such a product. Would you rather buy the Hybrid Console at $500 or you could get a PS4 for $300 and a Vita, later when you have the money, at $200. It doesn't make sense to have such a high price tag on the product, especially when you said they aren't dependent on each other. People don't want to pay for a product they think they well never use.

Then why sell them in 1 package? Why not offer the consumer the choice to buy the separately? Using your example, if someone lost their portable, they would have to buy the Home Console again just to get a portable? That doesn't seem to fix any of the problems.

@DefHalan:

I'm not sure if it will be a hybrid. I just know (or believe) it will atleast be a home console and releasing in 2016. To answer this question of yours:

If a portable can do everything the home console can, then why would I even use the Home Conosle? I can play the portable whenever and where ever, while the Home Console I can only play at home.

I can tell you that some people, my friends and I included, much MUCH prefer a home console. I hate looking at a small screen. I need a TV. I want the experience of sitting on a couch with my friends and us all looking at the large tv screen. I have little interest in looking at a little screen to game. I'm not alone in that, either. But, I'd sure like the option that I can game on the TV with my buddies like I like and give the portable to my son to take it on the go with him. We all have different gaming tastes, and just because the portable would render the home console useless to you, doesn't mean it would to someone else.

As for the scaling, I'm just going by what I've been told: That it's possible. I don't know how hard it'd be, but some seem to think it's a plausible scenario.

I have said multiple times that maybe they would be sold separately. Who knows.

I don't even recall how I got this deep into talking about hybrid possibilities. I have zero interest in the portable end if it is hybrid, ha...

The only way I'd have any interest in a portable element is if the machine itself is a portable, but putting it next to a TV allowed it to wireless send a signal to the TV so that the portable would become the home console itself and have separate, regular wireless controllers to use when you're gaming on the TV.

@LetsGoRetro: At this point I feel like you just don't know what you want.

You talk about the advantages of having a portable that can play home console games but say you have no interest in a portable at all.

You say things are possible because someone told you it is, while people have researched it and know about Game Development tell you it isn't possible.

We ask you questions about how this type of device would attract consumers to both sides (portable and console) and you only describe how one side will be attracted to their side.

It is all a bit too confusing to try to discuss this with you when you aren't willing to put in the effort for a discussion. Not trying to be rude, just trying to say what is going on.

So at this point I don't know if there is anything else to discuss. It feels like a very one sided discussion. Sorry.