Are Sony and Microsoft vulnerable to being royally thrashed by Nintendo?

No I don't think they will do a hardcore loss leader, but I don't think the GameCube was a hardcore loss leader to begin with - probably a minor spread if anything. I think 'good' hardware can be put out for cheap, so long as the timing is right and cost-conscious decisions are made on the back end. That's not to say that I expect them to go this route necessarily, but just like Sony and MS have identified motion as a gap of theirs, as everything in the world of electronics moves to HD and even phones are putting up higher res' than the Wii, I think Nintendo probably views fidelity as a their next area to improve.

 

Nintendo won't sell at a loss, but they could lower their margins a bit.

 

Don't be surprise if Nintendo drastically reduces the visual gap between its next console and Sony's and MS's next gen offering.

The Wii like the GC was designed to be profitable even with less than stellar sales and more aggressive price reduction than we've seen this generation. Giving that Nintendo will have a leg up on the competition because the Wii was the dominant console this generation and that MS and Sony lost billions providing the hardware in the 360 and PS3, we will probably see a more competitive Nintendo console in terms of graphics.

MS and Sony will probably provide more economical hardware in their console given that a hardware advantage has failed to provide a market advantage for the several generations. And given that the market has shown a willingness to adopt consoles liberally at much higher ASP that come down at much slower rates than previous gens, Nintendo might be more liberal on hardware costs.

I think one thing Nintendo will do is let Sony and MS market 1080p/3D HD while providing 3D at a lower standard resolution (sub 720p) that will alleviate required hardware performance and benefit from the fact that the general public is not that discerning with it comes to differentiating HD resolutions.

 

I believe Nintendo will step up the game a bit with their next console and will put something out that's more powerful than the 360 or PS3 but maybe not as powerful as next gen offerings from those two. I don't see how Nintendo can discount the HD market in the next iteration of consoles especially considering the millions of households in them will be looking for systems to take advantage of that, along with motion controls if they remain a non fad.

Regardless, the gaming media will do its job as well if and when Nintendo unveils new hardware, especially if they are first, and the prospect of an HD Zelda or Mario game I think quite a few people will get really enthusiastic.

To me this generation doesn't feel as long in the tooth as previous ones so why rush a new system?

 

How could the wii2 not have more power than the ps3/x360? 2 or 3 years from now even the cheapest off the shelve hardware will be more powerfull than x360/ps3 and so cheap it could easily fit in a 250 euro box and still make tons of money on the hardware.

Also I dont understand why people keep saying nintendo will never do a high end console again etc. The wii was a very consious choise by nintendo. The GC wasnt worse than the ps2 but nintendo felt releasing another console focussed on gfx would not get them anywhere. So they decided to do thing different but because of the motion controller they didnt want to build a 400 euro box around it because of the risk of failure. So they went for hardware that was cheap to produce so they could lower the price if needed and cheap and easy to develop for. That is why the wii is what it is.

I'm sure nintendo wont mind doing another high end console if they feel the economics will work. Next round nintendo will be in a stronger position again and I'm pretty sure this time they will be a bit more brave on the hardware.

 

Most important point here is that Nintendo is unlikely to

a) release a console that starts with an RRP outside of 300. Their MO has been 249 for a while now and they have ample reason to stick with that.
b) release a console that doesn't break even day one on the hardware, or even make a profit from it. This way, you are much less likely to have a big financial risk
c) make huge investments in hardware development that make b) more problematic
d) bring out a console ever again who's primary form of distinction isn't a combination of hardware and software innovation that affects gameplay, again for good reason.
e) bring out something that comes in the shape of a big, hot, noisy box

This strategy works, because it is the most effective way of battling giants like Sony and Microsoft, and I don't see very good reasons for Nintendo to leave this strategy just yet.

The only, but notable!, exception is when Nintendo's gameplay innovation is graphics related, like the 3D in the 3DS. I have a hard time finding any other possible example outside of 3D though, and for 3D to work on the console level without glasses affordably, we'll either be waiting a loooong time before Nintendo considers 3D a mass-market solution. Let Sony sell the TVs first, then in 10 years time, who knows.

There is one way to sidestep this however, and that is if they design an affordable console that comes with a display. I'm thinking here of an iPad style version of the 3DS that can play console games with separate wii-mote style controllers and has a sizeable integrated 3D screen, and perhaps a(n optional) TV-out for hooking it up to living room 3D tvs as well as regular 2D TVs, but allows maybe one or two players to play together on its integrated display.

I'm not sure if I see this working, but then I thought of this option just now for the first time, and who knows how far you can get with the hardware of next year, clever designers and more time.

Now if you meet the above criteria and look at the power draw of modern GPUs, I think it may still be quite a challenge to create something with a budget of 70 watt total for GPU, CPU and all other components that is considerably more powerful than the current gen consoles.

 

The point is untapped by MS and Sony. Anything they gain in that area, will mostly be a loss to Nintendo and a gain for them.

Price point isn't the only way to push a product. Apple has had no problems selling overpriced hardware.

It's not Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo's problem. They aren't going to target themselves at fixing it. It's certainly not a given that a game will perform poorly.

Sony and MS aren't going to give the other a competitive edge out of the gate. While it might be more profitable to take a smaller approach, they would be abandoning a large part of their base audience to their major competitor. IF all the hardcore audience was PS3 or Xbox360 people wouldn't be talking about the wii having a huge lead in install base.

It's not about just doing all the things it does today. It's about doing them better so that customers will actually buy your product. They will need to entice people to upgrade, being more like the wii alone won't work for a lot of people (you can check the polls shifty posted about the motion controllers for confirmation of that).

You're free to interpret the forum nonsense and marketing speak however you like. By delaying the reboot Sony and Microsoft can lessen the red ink on their next boxes, but I don't see any reason to expect they won't be powerful upgrades. Both companies still have plenty of resources to make it happen and they've proven they can make money at it. You've yet to come up with any argument against other than "the wii did well, and stringer was smitten with it".

 

I doubt it. The screen size needed to differentiate the console from the portable 3ds would probably still be too cost prohibitive in a couple of years. Otherwise it would be looked at as a big a$$ non portable 3ds that lacks a battery.

 

How about VR glasses? The cost of LCOS modules is expected to drop through the floor in the near future ...

 

They certainly wouldn't need cutting edge hardware for streaming, downloading and online.

 

Depends if you just want to keep offering the same experience or if you actually want to improve on it, or at least make a claim that you are doing so.

 

If i was Nintendo i would be more worried about how to follow the Wii. They can´t sell a Wii HD to the same customers, many of those that bought the Wii will see no reason or even consider upgrading it for a long time.

I expect them to hit us with a console that enhances the Wii controller, brings 3D into the mix and give us hardware that is more powerfull than we would expect ( )

And sell it with software updates of the classic Wii titles, especially Wii sports.

 

But how could they use that kind of power to improve those kind of features? You improve those kind of features with idea's not endless upgrades in power (once you've reached the kind of power offered by something a few times more powerful then PS3 anyway).

 

This is a very big question going into next-gen - what's the future application of technology and attraction going to be? The obvious one at the moment is 3D, which will be a power consumer. For interfaces, if we want progress, something that hasn't happened yet but which has been on the cards as an option is emotional reading of the player. We don't have games that react to how the player is feeling, only ever how they are moving or pressing buttons. i expect lots of processing power could be taken up creating intricate monitoring and AI response, although whether any actual, worthwhile games would appear as a result is questionable.

 

Games will always be able to make use of more power, whether its graphics, physics or AI. What I'm talking about is media and online functions. A couple of people in this thread have mentioned how Sony and MS want their systems to be more then games platforms and for that they need cutting edge hardware, I just don't see why that would be the case. If I put a media center together I'd use low to mid range PC parts, simply because cutting edge hardware is overkill for these kind of features.

 

Sony, MS have different strategic goals. Nintendo if they fail they're gone. That's where Sonys problems were this gen. Nintendo i suspect watched Sony very closely. SCE until NOW have had all kinds of demands from Sony electronics. Next gen it wont happen. MS wont jump jump start the next gen!.

 

Nintendo could give away their hardware for two entire generations and still have money left in the bank. They have 10 billion dollars in cash reserves. They will not be "gone" any time soon, no matter what happens.

 

If Nintendo gave away over 70 million Wii2's they'll be bankrupt within a single generation (unless the Wii2 is really a fun toy made from plastic and paper mache)...

Be realistic... 10 billion dollars can be lost very very quickly in the console HW business... how much did Sony lose on the PS3... or even worse how much did M$ lose on the first Xbox?!?

All it takes is some shoddy decisions from the higher ups, a suicidal licensing deal on super-expensive HW and your done within 5 yrs...

 

The point, I think, is that Nintendo, particularly with their current business model, can afford to try out new game innovations without each and every one of them having to be a success for quite a long time. So while their relevance may go up and down in the markets they're in, I think it is accurate to suggest that they'll be around for a long time.

However, the kind of investment that Sony did for the PS3 is something very few companies can afford to fail. Which is, imho, why Nintendo is happy with their current model and likely to stick to it basically forever. 10 Billion is a lot of money - it afaik still means that Nintendo could afford the kind of loss Microsoft made on Xbox1 twice before they'll have to start borrowing.

 

Regarding the 2nd point, emotional reading, I don't think we will be anywhere near there in terms of AI and processing power for many, many years yet. More importantly, I don't think it's a direction that any of the 3 console manufacturers, who's whole aim is to be 'inclusive', would feel comfortable going in.

Notwidthstanding all of the different face shapes, eye shapes, etc. within a single racial group, different racial groups also have different ways in which they facially (and/or bodily) express themselves.

Added on to that, you have millions of people out there with facial ticks, facial deformity, conditions such as aspergers and other autistic spectrum disorders, etc. It is, I believe, an area fraught with not just technical difficulties, but for entertainment purveyors also moral issues and those of inclusiveness.

Reading "voice" for emotional involvement, on the other hand, is something I can see being furthered in experiences that warrant it. Firstly, because voice patterns will be more easily tailored during localisation. Secondly because, when one is speaking to a machine it is very similar to how one speaks to a child (or a dog), with exaggerated tones to indicate happiness, sadness, displeasure, etc. And, of course, there are also the words being said which can help with processing the correct emotional response.

But again, as you said, how useful something like that will be in games is questionable.