Hardware What will happen with nintendo (?)

[Dear Leader]

Except the Wii U is good hardware.

I am laughing very hard at your statement. Do you think the Wii U is good hardware? Let's see there. The system itself is very weak, just like South Korean army. It's only slightly more powerful that PS3, which came out 7 years ago. It's less than a quarter as powerful as the PS4. That's is absolutely useless. I have budget gaming computer from 2008 that runs circles across the Wii U.

Taking took at gamepad, no game has really used it well. I see no point. It breaks immersion by forcing people to look down at gamepad. Battery life also terrible. How is good hardware when it stops working after small amount of usage.

 

[calmwaters]

Bullshit on a stick, that's no strategy. Nobody "plans" to lose money and release underwhelming products.

...too close to Christmas? The Christmas season is the best season to release a game aimed at younger audiences - kids love Christmas presents y'see.

Nobody plans to lose money, but it should be in your financial projections for profit. You will lose money: the amount of money lost depends on your financial projection. If I would release a big budget game, I would prepare to lose at least a quarter of my projected profits. So on a basis of a million, I would prepare to lose 250K. Sure, it sounds dismal, but you can't plan to earn a million and expect to make just that.

So if the only thing you can blame Nintendo for is releasing a game too close to Christmas, then I guess you'll be hard pressed to blame Nintendo for anything, since this is a bunch of bull, as you pointed out.

 

[Foxi4]

Nobody plans to lose money, but it should be in your financial projections for profit. You will lose money: the amount of money lost depends on your financial projection. If I would release a big budget game, I would prepare to lose at least a quarter of my projected profits. So on a basis of a million, I would prepare to lose 250K. Sure, it sounds dismal, but you can't plan to earn a million and expect to make just that.

Obviously you have to make an investment before you make a profit - that's not what I was disagreeing with. I was disagreeing with the implication that Nintendo intends to release "unsuccessful" titles in-between of "successful" titles - every title is supposed to be more or less successful. They are prepared for difficulties in the event of a product failing to meet expected sales figures but they do not expressly release products that are supposed to fail - that's a ludicrous assumption.

 

[calmwaters]

Obviously you have to make an investment before you make a profit - that's not what I was disagreeing with. I was disagreeing with the implication that Nintendo intends to release "unsuccessful" titles in-between of "successful" titles - every title is supposed to be more or less successful. They are prepared for difficulties in the event of a product failing to meet expected sales figures but they do not expressly release products that are supposed to fail - that's a ludicrous assumption.

Oh yeah: I can just see them, "We're gonna release this game and see how much money we can lose." Not: that is so stupid. I could shake from laughter.

 

[tbgtbg]

Wii U will probably end up being second GameCube. It is profitable but nothing to brag about.

So Nintendo 64 3?

 

[Foxi4]

So Nintendo 64 3?

For all intents and purposes, the Nintendo 64 was a complete embarrasment outside of North America. The Gamecube was a step in the right direction.

 

[trumpet-205]

For all intents and purposes, the Nintendo 64 was a complete embarrasment outside of North America. The Gamecube was a step in the right direction.

Nintendo reluctance to use optical media on top of complicated hardware N64 were using turned away many thrid-party developers, which is the reason why PS1 succeeded.

 

[Dork]

I am laughing very hard at your statement. Do you think the Wii U is good hardware? Let's see there. The system itself is very weak, just like South Korean army. It's only slightly more powerful that PS3, which came out 7 years ago. It's less than a quarter as powerful as the PS4. That's is absolutely useless. I have budget gaming computer from 2008 that runs circles across the Wii U.

You're right, it is the least powerful this gen, but that doesn't inherently make it bad hardware.

It can still produce some pretty good looking games for it's low end hardware, and it's the cheapest console this gen. Besides it's raw computational power, it's a power-saving system, has plenty of first party titles and some third-party support, is a very sleek and good looking device, and has the lowest hardware failure rate. If you really want to bring up PC hardware, just remember that every "next-gen" console is already underpowered. The era of huge graphical leaps are over, why should companies invest in expensive hardware when they can invest in older cheaper hardware and get similar graphical results? No company is going to want to try and mass produce a home console with the power of modern day PC tech, it's far too expensive.

Taking took at gamepad, no game has really used it well. I see no point. Battery life also terrible. How is good hardware when it stops working after small amount of usage.

Except for, you know, Nintendo Land, Wind Waker HD, ZombiU, Game & Wario, and Pikmin 3. Not to mention nearly every game can played on the gamepad alone. If you see no need in the Gamepad's touchscreen features, that's fine because you still have your traditional controller layout. Battery life is about 4-5 hours, which is low, but not as game breaking either, and you'll probably be having it charging while it's not in use anyway. If it really is a huge deal, Nintendo has a high-capacity battery available for those interested.

It breaks immersion by forcing people to look down at gamepad.

You'll grasp that straw eventually.

 

[Foxi4]

Nintendo reluctance to use optical media on top of complicated hardware N64 were using turned away many thrid-party developers, which is the reason why PS1 succeeded.

It had bigger problems than just the storage medium, most notably the SDK and texture buffers size, but yes - cartridges contributed to its downfall.

I also wouldn't blame it on Nintendo's reluctance to use optical media - Nintendo was simply pressed for time at that point and couldn't implement a disc drive. They've shown great interest in CD-ROM even before the N64 was conceived.

 

[squablo]

Seriously, I never get tired of watching this discussion, year after year!!! You guys do realize that hardware specs mean NOTHING!! Every generation, what do we see? We see the "weakest" hardware rise to the top! Don't believe me? Ok let's break it down, shall we?

N64>PSOne - Playstation was 32 bit, while N64 was 64 bit, but Playstation kicked the crap out of N64

Xbox>GameCube>PS2 - is anyone going to argue that the PS2 wasn't the dominate console of that generation? It was also the weakest....

PSP>Nintendo DS - not even a competition. DS blew the PSP away, and was also the weaker of the 2.

Xbox 360>PS3>Wii - again, it was the Wii that dominated that generation for a long time. Definitely the weakest of that generation

PSVita>3DS - Vita has MUCH more horsepower, but again, 3DS is dominating!

Oh, here's another one! Anyone remember the Atari Jaguar? That was 64 bit, way ahead of the competition, and also a total failure!! How about Gameboy vs GameGear? GameGear had a COLOR screen and much better graphical capabilities. Dominated by Gameboy!! Or, let's put PCs up against any comparable console or their respected generations. Not even close.......

So, my friends, carry on this silly argument about giga-flops and terra-giggles. You all sound rediculous, and history proves it. It's about GAMES, not particle effects and poly counts. Nintendo will continue to do what they always do. They make great games. Have fun with your PS4s and Xbox Ones over the course of the next year. All of your super awesome hardware will be even more awesome when your playing crappy games for the first year, while waiting for something substantial to play. I don't care who makes the hardware, the good games don't roll out until after year one. Just so you guys know, I'm a 10 year Xbox Live veteran, and also a gamer that is not impressed with Microsoft and Sony's current offerings. After all, as "bad ass" as their hardware is, it's already out-classed by current market PCs.

 

[calmwaters]

Seriously, I never get tired of watching this discussion, year after year!!! You guys do realize that hardware specs mean NOTHING!! Every generation, what do we see? We see the "weakest" hardware rise to the top! Don't believe me? Ok let's break it down, shall we?

N64>PSOne - Playstation was 32 bit, while N64 was 64 bit, but Playstation kicked the crap out of N64

Xbox>GameCube>PS2 - is anyone going to argue that the PS2 wasn't the dominate console of that generation? It was also the weakest....

PSP>Nintendo DS - not even a competition. DS blew the PSP away, and was also the weaker of the 2.

Xbox 360>PS3>Wii - again, it was the Wii that dominated that generation for a long time. Definitely the weakest of that generation

PSVita>3DS - Vita has MUCH more horsepower, but again, 3DS is dominating!

Oh, here's another one! Anyone remember the Atari Jaguar? That was 64 bit, way ahead of the competition, and also a total failure!! How about Gameboy vs GameGear? GameGear had a COLOR screen and much better graphical capabilities. Dominated by Gameboy!! Or, let's put PCs up against any comparable console or their respected generations. Not even close.......

So, my friends, carry on this silly argument about giga-flops and terra-giggles. You all sound rediculous, and history proves it. It's about GAMES, not particle effects and poly counts. Nintendo will continue to do what they always do. They make great games. Have fun with your PS4s and Xbox Ones over the course of the next year. All of your super awesome hardware will be even more awesome when your playing crappy games for the first year, while waiting for something substantial to play. I don't care who makes the hardware, the good games don't roll out until after year one. Just so you guys know, I'm a 10 year Xbox Live veteran, and also a gamer that is not impressed with Microsoft and Sony's current offerings. After all, as "bad ass" as their hardware is, it's already out-classed by current market PCs.

Squablo? What kind of name is that?

But yeah, check out my signature. It's somewhat of a reply to this comment. I am ashamed to add that I am one of the few persons who feel this way, too.

 

[Foxi4]

This isn't so much about hardware as it is about developer support, and you gain developer support by striking a balance between specs and feasibility of coding. There are other factors that come to play when analyzing the results of each of the forementioned cases - you're making it look as if releasing the weakest system is a recipie for success.

Saying that specs mean "nothing" is pure demagogy as well - if that was the case, we'd be playing on Atari 860000's by now. Computing power is supposed to increase over time to accomodate the increasing needs of developers and there's nothing you can do about it.

As for comparing PC market share to console market share... surely you jest? Of course gaming was, is and will be popular on PC, comparably if not more so than on consoles, especially with services like Steam going strong.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

I think the obvious thing people avoid about the N64 is that it had a horrible library.

It had maybe ten good games and anything past that you're just grasping at straws. For every good N64 game there's like 3 good PSX ones that are probably better anyway.

 

[the_randomizer]

Nintendo reluctance to use optical media on top of complicated hardware N64 were using turned away many thrid-party developers, which is the reason why PS1 succeeded.

That and the RDRAM has terribly latency, the limited texture cache made many games look blurry and yes, the decision to use carts instead of discs killed the console and scared many potential developers away and go with Sony. Their logic to use 64 MB carts was to "prevent piracy" but look where that got them.

 

[Dear Leader]

I think the obvious thing people avoid about the N64 is that it had a horrible library.

It had maybe ten good games and anything past that you're just grasping at straws. For every good N64 game there's like 3 good PSX ones that are probably better anyway.

It had few good game like Ocarina, but doesn't have many good games total. Still, I think of other system with worse game library. Like Virtual Boy or PS Vita.

 

[calmwaters]

This isn't so much about hardware as it is about developer support, and you gain developer support by striking a balance between specs and feasibility of coding. There are other factors that come to play when analyzing the results of each of the forementioned cases - you're making it look as if releasing the weakest system is a recipie for success.

Saying that specs mean "nothing" is pure demagogy as well - if that was the case, we'd be playing on Atari 860000's by now. Computing power is supposed to increase over time to accomodate the increasing needs of developers and there's nothing you can do about it.

As for comparing PC market share to console market share... surely you jest? Of course gaming was, is and will be popular on PC, comparably if not more so than on consoles, especially with services like Steam going strong.

I remember when Nintendo dominated the game industry, more so than even the computers. Well obviously specs do mean "something". I believe games like Tetris are more fun to play than a text based game. You've got something to see. But even though you can render Tetris using the graphical capabilities given to you by the Xbox One, the game should function the same while still remaining fun.

 

[Foxi4]

It had few good game like Ocarina, but doesn't have many good games total. Still, I think of other system with worse game library. Like Virtual Boy or PS Vita.

The Virtual Boy failed because technology wasn't there - nobody bought a pseudo-portable, oversized pair of heavy goggles that blasted you with a red LED until you either got a seizure or became violently sick. Hmph, I wonder why developers didn't release games for it...

As for the PSVita, it has plenty-fancy games as of today, the "PSVita has no gaems" joke has long since lost its funny factor.

I remember when Nintendo dominated the game industry, more so than even the computers. Well obviously specs do mean "something". I believe games like Tetris are more fun to play than a text based game. You've got something to see. But even though you can render Tetris using the graphical capabilities given to you by the Xbox One, the game should function the same while still remaining fun.

There's a good reason why we're not playing games at poor resolutions with a small colour palette - we no longer have to, we have the specs to go beyond that and render something that's more pleasing to the eye.

Again, striking a balance between specs and development convenience as well as an approachable price point for the system and good marketing so that you build up a substantial install base and you should be golden.

 

[squablo]

The very simple point I was trying to make is this: good hardware doesn't make good games, but good games make hardware great. I never see people judging hardware based on the games available for it, especially at console launches. I see them comparing RAM, resolution, frames per second, etc. I'm sorry, but adding bloom lighting and particle effects at 60frames per second in full 1080p doesn't make a game like Tetris any better. Tetris is fun even on a graphing calculator!

If people want to say a console is better than another based on specs, than shouldn't we be discussing PC as well? And comparing to that? Just a simple point. If we compare available games for WiiU, Xbox One, and PS4 right now, would you not lean toward WiiU? I've got 12 games for WiiU, but I can't think of more than 3 games that I'd want to play on either Xbox One or PS4 right now. Once you take away the Call of Duty and Assassins Creed, you're not left with much......

 

[Dear Leader]

I remember when Nintendo dominated the game industry, more so than even the computers. Well obviously specs do mean "something". I believe games like Tetris are more fun to play than a text based game. You've got something to see. But even though you can render Tetris using the graphical capabilities given to you by the Xbox One, the game should function the same while still remaining fun.

I raise my objection. Specification matter, but I find text-based games more fun than Tetris. Have you play "Zork"? Very fun. Get's party's official recommendation.

 

[Gahars]

*Snap*

Some important things to keep in mind.
1) The weakest console hasn't always won. Take the PS2 example; if the weakest console of a generation always came out on top, then the Dreamcast would've been the top of the litter. Or, to use another example, the Genesis would've come out on top against the SNES. Not to mention that you're leaving out quite a lot of other systems in your rundown.
2) Consoles don't win because they were win; they win because of a variety of other factors (price, marketing, games selection, etc.). The power of a console, strong or weak, can certainly play a role, but it's hardly the sole factor.
3) Just because there is a loose pattern doesn't mean it cannot be broken, and just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't.

Pure specs-wanking can be annoying, but I think it's ignorant to say that power is completely inconsequential. The more power a console has, the more developers have to work with, and that means we get a wider variety of games. Take the RAM in the Xbox One and the PS4; we're moving from 512 mb at most to 8 gb each. That's a huge leap forward, and it gives developers a lot of wiggle room. Plus, the more powerful the standard console, the less PC developers have to worry about restraining their titles for the console crowd.