Fact: Nintendo to release HD console + controllers with built-in screen late 2012

[AlNom]

Let's not lose sight of the issue here though, which is selling the Wuu to core gamers. "Your game may not have working chat," isn't a good sell to a lot of Nintendo's intended market.
...
I'll be surprised if Joe Gamer buys into Wuu full of enthusiasm for developers no longer hampered by a set of requirements like "common friends list, party formation, clear chat, stable network structure" dictated by the console company. Whereas "we'll provide a clear network structure that ensures every game has access to a common friends list, easy party formation, stable network structure and voice chat" would be received very well.

Well, they're certainly not going to capture Call of Duty gamers without some sort of decent online structure. It may only be 20% at most, but these are the gamers who are known to be active throughout the years. These are the gamers who switch up the top 10 XBL played games list every now and then - they sustain the presence of mind that the platform is healthy and going strong instead of just being a hardware statistic for a platform that is stale and that is known to get shoved into a closet for months. If the online is going healthy, it becomes another revenue stream for developers selling DLC - a robust online ties into the social aspect.

Or unrelated to gaming, one might hear about the other online services offered by the console making it attractive to non-gamers of all sorts i.e. Netflix *shrug*

I question just who exactly Nintendo is trying to target. If the above negative comments on the online social aspect is to be believed, then it sounds like Nintendo is going to capture just the people who were already going to buy into Nintendo IP. Mission Accomplished /Bush

The market is fragmented enough when it comes to exclusive control schema, so that's a lot of faith to put into third party for focusing on the controller's unique devices that won't seem like gimmicks, particularly when the WiiU is touted as an easy system to port to/from. Did people rave about the Gameboy Advance connectivity in Splinter Cell GCN It seems rather dubious to me considering it rivals the original Duke controller in size and is even less ergonomic than dual shock, (IME @E3).

And now I'm done rambling. >_>

 

[ninzel]

The thing is that Facebook type social gamers have, well, Facebook. It is already there, on all computers, on cell phones et cetera. Nintendo doesn't need to make a specific Fakebook for WiiU customers. Those aspects of social interaction is already taken care of, far better than any stationary game console can achieve. Nintendo can tap into that by providing a capable browser.

Yes but I was thinking of being to able to more seamlessly transition between the game and Facebook or Twitter. Instead is them existing in silos like they do now.
For example you could get updates to Facebook while in game if you choose.Or you could pause a game,check Facebook or Tweet then be back in game without exiting the game,opening the browser then navigating to Facebook.
Another Idea I would like in terms browser integration would something like "Game Help".
So let's say you hit a tricky part in a game. Instead of exiting out of game and finding the help you need on the net,you would pause the game, and simple hit "Game Help".
Game Help would simply be a link you set up to your chosen website like YouTube for example. One click.
The idea could be taken further if the feature could actually read what game you are playing and what section you are playing. Then not only would you be directed to your website of choice,but to a more specific link matching where you are in game.
So for example "last Boss Zelda HD" would be the key words the program picks up on automatically searches Youtube for a video. All with one click.
Sometimes it's just about making common actions simply more seamless. Apple for example is making a living on this idea.

 

[Hardknock]

No, I insisted on some kind of acknowledgement from you just how small that group is in relation to the whole game console market.
The DS and the PSP have outsold the stationary consoles, so that is over half right there. The Wii has just under twice the sales of the PS3 and the 360, so mobile consoles and Wii is roughly 3/4s of the market. How large a percentage of PS3 users are social gamers? Of XBox360 players? Shall we say, (and here is where it gets shaky), one fifth of the PS3 players and one third of the XBox360? I believe I'm being generous here, but this should keep the error reasonable. This would mean that roughly one fifteenth, or 7 percent of the console purchases are used for social gaming.

Personally I think the number is smaller. And it doesn't say that the purchases of even this group was actually determined by these particular features. They may simply have liked the nicer graphics allowed by PS360 for instance, and other aspects came along as part of the package.

Again, those who feel they need for instance the specific features of Microsofts offering is going to choose that platform even if Nintendo does improve on their current offering, so with those out of the equation, just how many are left for Nintendo to compete for out of the total market? A few percent, at most. One, two, three even? Now this is a competitive business, and I'm sure that Nintendo wants as large a piece of the pie as they possibly can, so of course they will make some effort. I simply called for some kind of reality check on just how large an issue social gaming is for the success of the Wii U. Now I've provided it myself. With numbers.

Incidentally, if you look at the big sellers for Wii, there is plenty of social games that are big sellers, but tends to be with people in the same room, that you meet and talk to, play a game with, grab something to eat... Then of course there are titles like Wii Fit, Super Mario Galaxy, Zelda, and so on that don't really lend themselves to online community gaming. Honestly, I don't think Nintendo customers pine for online features much. Some will appreciate them if provided of course.

The fact that the majority of hardcore gamers own more than one console and the majority of handheld gamers own a home console of some sort makes this entire post moot.

 

[lilbroK]

The fact that the majority of hardcore gamers own more than one console and the majority of handheld gamers own a home console of some sort makes this entire post moot.

I couldn't have put it better myself. Its like the people in this thread are obsessed with FPS and think that Nintendo should tailor the console to suit there desires for playing that one genre of game.

I've said it before, people who want Sony or Microsoft features should stick to their consoles. Why do we need 3 consoles that do the exact same thing?

I'm way more interested in what the Wii U can do with single player games.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Nintendo are the ones that have claimed that they intend to lure back 'core' gamers. People are just pointing out that this isn't likely to occur from just releasing HD quality hardware. So don't try to put this on people in the forum, it's Nintendo's claim.

 

[lilbroK]

Nintendo are the ones that have claimed that they intend to lure back 'core' gamers. People are just pointing out that this isn't likely to occur from just releasing HD quality hardware. So don't try to put this on people in the forum, it's Nintendo's claim.

What, what and what? I don't know what you are talking about. The only claim made by Nintendo that I said something about was them stating clearly that they are not going to have a unified online. Don't put words in my mouth. Project your fallacies elsewhere.

 

[AlphaWolf]

What, what and what? I don't know what you are talking about. The only claim made by Nintendo that I said something about was them stating clearly that they are not going to have a unified online. Don't put words in my mouth. Project your fallacies elsewhere.

try to read my post more slowly or something

Nintendo has claimed they want to lure back core gamers, the ongoing discussion is that an online infrastructure will be necessary to do so. Whether you want something else from Nintendo is immaterial, Nintendo claimed they want a piece of the 'core' gamer crowd.

<edit> If the WiiU ships with the same or better visual fidelity for the next COD will matter not one iota without a good online infrastructure. Crossing your fingers and hoping that activision and ea do a bang up job of it probably won't cut it and they will end up with 10% or less of the split of that kind of title and developers will be back chanting the mantra of Nintendo can't sell 3rd party titles and Nintendo will be scratching their heads wondering where it all went wrong. Myself and others are telling them right now, if they want to get this crowd on their hardware, online infrastructure is now required and you don't just will into existence by allowing the developers freedom. Nintendo are going to need to put effort into making it happen, or it won't.

 

[pc999]

<edit> If the WiiU ships with the same or better visual fidelity for the next COD will matter not one iota without a good online infrastructure. Crossing your fingers and hoping that activision and ea do a bang up job of it probably won't cut it and they will end up with 10% or less of the split of that kind of title and developers will be back chanting the mantra of Nintendo can't sell 3rd party titles and Nintendo will be scratching their heads wondering where it all went wrong. Myself and others are telling them right now, if they want to get this crowd on their hardware, online infrastructure is now required and you don't just will into existence by allowing the developers freedom. Nintendo are going to need to put effort into making it happen, or it won't.

I remember quite well a high production SP campaign in CoD...




Anyway I think that Nintendo will allow (if they want to) do a even better experience for CoD and if it is of such importance for CoD the online they will do it at least as good.


But they will not be forcing anyone to use xyz online features if they dont want to, if you want to do a SP campaign game with only a few MP features then do it, dont waste resources doing what we want you to do.

At least this time, more than ever, third party success is only dependent on third partys.


Probably you will not have as many games with the full XBL quality, but you may have a few that are better and resources better used by the developers.

We will see who do it better overall.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I remember quite well a high production SP campaign in CoD...

Do you know lots of people shelling out $60 for 5 hour campaigns? They are decent quality, but more like a long demo while you wait for your friends to get home from work with their copy.

 

[patsu]

There are always workarounds, and the touch screen could be useful. Let's not lose sight of the issue here though, which is selling the Wuu to core gamers. "Your game may not have working chat," isn't a good sell to a lot of Nintendo's intended market. "Playing on you console isolates you from your online friends," isn't a good sales pitch for sociable people. "We offer cross-game chat so you can talk with your friends no matter what your playing, and can coordinate teamwork for a cooperative online experience," is a good checklist feature to help expand interest, and I don't see the logic in abandoning that. Either Nintendo are extremely optimistic about 3rd parties ability to create online experiences - an optimism that flies in the face of historic examples - or they are just wimping out. The 'freedom' card doesn't work for me in any way on this one. I'll be surprised if Joe Gamer buys into Wuu full of enthusiasm for developers no longer hampered by a set of requirements like "common friends list, party formation, clear chat, stable network structure" dictated by the console company. Whereas "we'll provide a clear network structure that ensures every game has access to a common friends list, easy party formation, stable network structure and voice chat" would be received very well.

PSN set the precedence for free online gaming with optional in-game voice chat. The real problem is no one knows what Nintendo wants to do exactly yet.

*If* they want to court PS360 core gamers on their playing field, then Nintendo need to perform at least as well as PSN. But they can also do other stuff (like better/stable framerate, IQ, WiiU controller advantages). They also have Nintendo first party titles. The big games will have proper in-game voice chat to support their players.

At this point, I don't think Nintendo will mix up voice chat as a social communication tool vs in-game coordination/co-op feature. The latter should be doable without voice chat (and it would be a great WiiU feature).

I am very interested in Iwata's notion of social graph. In PSN, the social gaming element usually have the notion of a shared (persistent) "place". e.g., In Playstation Home, we have the Home Spaces where we can launch games from. In XMB, we have a persistent chatroom for people to "harvest" friends together (No need to maintain friends list). In Vita, every game can create a LiveArea lobby for players to hang out. Near groups players based on geographical location.

In WiiU, Iwata may create Nintendo's own social gaming experience.

 

[lilbroK]

PSN set the precedence for free online gaming with optional in-game voice chat. The real problem is no one knows what Nintendo wants to do exactly yet.

*If* they want to court PS360 core gamers on their playing field, then Nintendo need to perform at least as well as PSN. But they can also do on other stuff (like better/stable framerate, IQ, WiiU controller advantages). They also have Nintendo first party titles. The big games will have proper in-game voice chat to support their players.

At this point, I don't think Nintendo will mix up voice chat as a social communication tool vs in-game coordination/co-op feature. The latter should/can be doable without voice chat (and it would be a great WiiU feature).

I am very interested in Iwata's notion of social graph. In PSN, the social gaming element usually have the notion of a (persistent) "place". e.g., In Playstation Home, we have the Home Spaces which we can launch games from. In XMB, we have a persistent chatroom for people to "harvest" friends together (No need to maintain friends list). In Vita, every game can create a LiveArea lobby for players to hang out. Near groups players based on geographical location.

In WiiU, Iwata may create Nintendo's own social gaming experience.

What do you mean no one knows? They said what they intend to do. Nintendo is not a company that likes to practice copying.

Why do so many people keep begging this question? They are not going to do online like Sony or Microsoft. There is no if, and or but about it. It's going to be done mostly the same way it was on the Wii expect that they are giving more freedom to the developers in how they won't to do it.

 

[patsu]

What do you mean no one knows? They said what they intend to do. Nintendo is not a company that likes to practice copying.

As in we have no info on Nintendo's online experience (Look & feel, UI flow, etc.). For example, this is 3DS's online system:

StreetPass, Tag Mode are another aspect of the 3DS network experience.

Why do so many people keep begging this question? They are not going to do online like Sony or Microsoft. There is no if, and or but about it. It's going to be done mostly the same way it was on the Wii expect that they are giving more freedom to the developers in how they won't to do it.

... because it's an important area ? Iwata also acknowledged that social gaming is important to video game consoles today.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

No, I insisted on some kind of acknowledgement from you just how small that group is in relation to the whole game console market.

No, you asked for numbers - "How many". But this new question of how much in relation is both unanswerable because I don't have numbers (as neither do you, so you can't present numbers to support the contrary view) and also a misleading argument. If we say every DS and PSP gamer isn't using social services on their devices, does that prove these people don't want such features? Or does it just prove people can't use these features if the devices don't have them? If we look at the consoles that do support online network services, we have 70 million PS3 accounts and 30 million XBLive! accounts, so clearly significant numbers of people are wanting such features. Then there's the observations from internet chatter people wanting social features added to games, whether it's decent party systems or voice chat. There's also the empirical evidence of PCs becoming more and more social-orientated with socialising websites and socialising apps like Messenger and Skype. I don't see how anyone can look at all that and consider it unimportant - even Nintendo acknowledge the importance of the social aspect in contemporary entertainment! What they aren't doing is providing assurance that the social needs will be suitably catered to, and people are left guessing.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Why do so many people keep begging this question? They are not going to do online like Sony or Microsoft. There is no if, and or but about it. It's going to be done mostly the same way it was on the Wii expect that they are giving more freedom to the developers in how they won't to do it.

If you don't want to actually discuss points, why are you in a discussion forum?

 

[function]

What do you mean no one knows? They said what they intend to do. Nintendo is not a company that likes to practice copying.

You mean they don't like copying with things like:

- Console <-> handheld connectivity
- Analogue thumbsticks
- Analogue triggers
- Joypad layout
- Motion controllers
- "Virtual consoles"
- 3D
- And other stuff, like networked consoles
[Edit] - And really should mention the current hot topic, touch screen gaming [/Edit]

If Nintendo sees a good idea they'll hop on board just like everyone else. Not doing something good just because someone else did it first is stupidity, and that's not something that Nintendo have demonstrated.

If Nintendo go with a messy patchwork quilt (with holes) of an online strategy it'll be because they aren't confident they can pull off what MS has or because publishers have forced their hand (as they keep trying to do with MS).

 

[Entropy]

No, you asked for numbers - "How many". But this new question of how much in relation is both unanswerable because I don't have numbers (as neither do you, so you can't present numbers to support the contrary view) and also a misleading argument. If we say every DS and PSP gamer isn't using social services on their devices, does that prove these people don't want such features? Or does it just prove people can't use these features if the devices don't have them?

It proves that particular social internet services weren't required for the devices to sell.
I worked out a ball-park percentage. Feel free to calculate your own and present it.

If we look at the consoles that do support online network services, we have 70 million PS3 accounts and 30 million XBLive! accounts, so clearly significant numbers of people are wanting such features.

It clearly shows no such thing. I have a Steam account and have bought some ten or so titles via Steam. I have never used any of Steams forums or various other services, nor even played multiplayer with any of those titles! Just because you're auto-connected to a bunch of services doesn't mean you're using them.

Then there's the observations from internet chatter people wanting social features added to games, whether it's decent party systems or voice chat.

Well, this is a pretty self-referencing group, per definition.

There's also the empirical evidence of PCs becoming more and more social-orientated with socialising websites and socialising apps like Messenger and Skype. I don't see how anyone can look at all that and consider it unimportant - even Nintendo acknowledge the importance of the social aspect in contemporary entertainment! What they aren't doing is providing assurance that the social needs will be suitably catered to, and people are left guessing.

Nintendo probably aren't quite clear themselves exactly what features they will offer, and in particular, the timeline over which they can be brought out.

Don't be to offended, but you sound a lot like the guys arguing World Champion football at my job who take for granted that everyone has seen the match and know the score - when available statistics show that only 5% of the population watch the matches, including disgruntled spouses and bored friends who only stay for the beer. But that the overwhelming part of the population just don't give a damn about something which is so important to them is a reality they prefer to avoid.

 

[lilbroK]

If you don't want to actually discuss points, why are you in a discussion forum?

Woah, way to distort my words clear out of its obvious objective. Where did I state in anyway that I did not want to discuss points? In fact I am certain that at the end of each of my post I bring up points of discussion.

I simply 'asked" why do people keep discussing that ONE aspect of ONE point. I simply asked why do people keep suggesting that Nintendo make an online system similar to Sony and Microsoft "where there are things to be discussed that haven't already been answered ad nauseam. I'm sure I said that clearly more than once.

Where did you get this notion that I'm don't want to discuss things? I guess your preferred immediate sub topic of discussion must to be what the entire forum is about. I apparently never brought up anything about Nintendo proactively seeking third part games support, the amount of titles they will have a launch, the single player applications of the Wii U or the "other" aspects of online matters that no one is discussing. Apparently asking questions about a topic means your not discussing it now.

Please tell me how to properly discuss "Nintendo's new HD console" properly since I'm not doing it right with the topics of discussion I keep bringing or my comments on the immediate subject. Apparently I missed the part where the entire thread is about multiplayer in first person shooters only.

You mean they don't like copying with things like:

- Console <-> handheld connectivity
- Analogue thumbsticks
- Analogue triggers
- Joypad layout
- Motion controllers
- "Virtual consoles"
- 3D
- And other stuff, like networked consoles
[Edit] - And really should mention the current hot topic, touch screen gaming [/Edit]

If Nintendo sees a good idea they'll hop on board just like everyone else. Not doing something good just because someone else did it first is stupidity, and that's not something that Nintendo have demonstrated.

If Nintendo go with a messy patchwork quilt (with holes) of an online strategy it'll be because they aren't confident they can pull off what MS has or because publishers have forced their hand (as they keep trying to do with MS).

Most of those things Nintendo pioneered in gaming and they said they were working on the touch screen controller before the boom occurred. It was in the interview with Myamoto if I'm not mistaken.

"GS: At the last E3, you talked a little bit about the iPad, and we were wondering if that influenced the direction that things are going in now, such as the shape of the controller?

SM: Actually it was coincidental, because even at this point last year at E3, we had done a lot of work on this, and it was pretty far along, and we had been working on the concept for several years. And so we felt it was kind of a funny coincidence that, while we had been working on this, all of a sudden right as we're getting ready to bring it to the public, there's this tablet boom.

On the one hand we felt that if we were to show it off at E3 last year, then people would look at it and say, "Oh, it's like a tablet." But on the other hand, it may have actually helped us because it made it easier for people to understand the concept. Where I think the two are different is that the tablet is designed to function as its own independent device, whereas the new controller is connected to the console and also simultaneously connected to the TV. And so then what you have is this unique interaction between those three pieces, and there's, I think, a lot of different and unique ways that you can use the new controller in conjunction with the TV. It's a great way to search for things, whether it's photos or videos, and then share them with people by putting them up on the TV screen, as well as just the various different kind of gameplay concepts that we're showing.

From a kind of a visual point and an initial kind of conceptual starting point, the two seem similar, [but] because of the unique structure of the console and the new controller and the TV, that when people start playing with it and interacting with it, especially in the living room, they're going to find that it opens up a great deal more possibilities. "

Also, just because they weren't the first person in the universe ever to do it doesn't mean they were copying someone else. Most of the things they did were natural through progression of development. Nintendo actually had a motion controller in the hands of developers before the launch of the Gamecube but they scrapped the idea.

This is also the point I have been repeatedly making about the online. Nintendo made it clear that they are doing online in their own way. They have no intention to copy Sony or Microsofts methods.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It proves that particular social internet services weren't required for the devices to sell.

No-one said otherwise! Only that if you want to appeal to particular demographic, you need to provide the features and services that demographic wants. Nintendo have said they want to bag the core gamer this time around, and they've also said they are leaving online to 3rd parties, to which some of us are saying those two don't work well together.

Woah, way to distort my words clear out of its obvious objective. Where did I state in anyway that I did not want to discuss points?

When you twice said you didn't understand why people were talking about this, suggesting they stop talking and just accept what Nintendo are doing.

I simply 'asked" why do people keep discussing that ONE aspect of ONE point...

Because it's the current point at hand that has been raised and hasn't reached a consensus, as people try to explain their POV, often with a general misunderstanding of where one's coming from.

Where did you get this notion that I'm don't want to discuss things? I guess your preferred immediate sub topic of discussion must to be what the entire forum is about.

Says the guy who labeled me an FPS obsessive...

I apparently never brought up anything about Nintendo proactively seeking third part games support, the amount of titles they will have a launch, the single player applications of the Wii U or the "other" aspects of online matters that no one is discussing. Apparently asking questions about a topic means your not discussing it now.

No, and you and everyone else is free to raise them in this thread. No-one's stopping you from asking/walking about what else Nintendo are doing with Wuu. It's just that the current (sub)thread is about how Nintendo are not taking a strong position with their online and how we think that'll affect their sales. That's not the be-all-and-end-all of this debate.

This is also the point I have been repeatedly making about the online. Nintendo made it clear that they are doing online in their own way. They have no intention to copy Sony or Microsofts methods.

They've said they're leaving it for 3rd parties rather than doing it their own way. Hence some of us are very mistrusting. If they were offering some alternative social networked gaming experience, this discussion would be going very differently.

 

[function]

Most of those things Nintendo pioneered in gaming and they said they were working on the touch screen controller before the boom occurred.

Nintendo pioneered none of them, that's why I mentioned them. They were all proven concepts used by others in the gaming market before Nintendo copied them.

I was touch-screen gaming before the DS came out.

Also, just because they weren't the first person in the universe ever to do it doesn't mean they were copying someone else. Most of the things they did were natural through progression of development. Nintendo actually had a motion controller in the hands of developers before the launch of the Gamecube but they scrapped the idea.

So other people did it first, publicly, and met with a degree of success, but then when Nintendo see this and come along later and do it they're somehow not copying? Everything's a "natural progression" after you see someone else show the potential of doing it.

Sega had motion controllers in the hands of actual gamers years before the release of Gamecube. They also had a motion controller for the Saturn that was scrapped. Microsoft had a motion controller before the GC too. There was at least one motion controller for the Amiga in the early nineties, and Sega's abysmal "full body" Activator controller for the Megadrive around the same time (with the tagline: "You Are the Controller").

Nintendo are really good at seeing the potential for making money out of stuff, and understand the benefits of offering something distinct. They are very good at refining products. They also have the balls to take risks. But if copying an idea can make them lots of money they'll do it and are no different than anyone else.

 

[lilbroK]

When you twice said you didn't understand why people were talking about this, suggesting they stop talking and just accept what Nintendo are doing.

Saying I don't understand and asking a question does not infer a suggestion, it infers that I am confused and would like clarifaction which was the point of asking a question.

Says the guy who labeled me an FPS obsessive...

Where did I say that?

No, and you and everyone else is free to raise them in this thread. No-one's stopping you from asking/walking about what else Nintendo are doing with Wuu. It's just that the current (sub)thread is about how Nintendo are not taking a strong position with their online and how we think that'll affect their sales. That's not the be-all-and-end-all of this debate.

They've said they're leaving it for 3rd parties rather than doing it their own way. Hence some of us are very mistrusting. If they were offering some alternative social networked gaming experience, this discussion would be going very differently.

What reason is there to be mistrusting? I've not known Nintendo to go back on their word often.I say often because I can't be certain that they never have but I personally have never seen them do so.

As far as online goes I'm more interested in the new things that Nitendo intends to do, like with the Wii channels. I'm interested in how the controller can be used in conjunction with such things in order to add something that previously did not exist.

Nintendo pioneered none of them, that's why I mentioned them. They were all proven concepts used by others in the gaming market before Nintendo copied them.

I was touch-screen gaming before the DS came out.



So other people did it first, publicly, and met with a degree of success, but then when Nintendo see this and come along later and do it they're somehow not copying? Everything's a "natural progression" after you see someone else show the potential of doing it.

Sega had motion controllers in the hands of actual gamers years before the release of Gamecube. They also had a motion controller for the Saturn that was scrapped. Microsoft had a motion controller before the GC too. There was at least one motion controller for the Amiga in the early nineties, and Sega's abysmal "full body" Activator controller for the Megadrive around the same time (with the tagline: "You Are the Controller").

Nintendo are really good at seeing the potential for making money out of stuff, and understand the benefits of offering something distinct. They are very good at refining products. They also have the balls to take risks. But if copying an idea can make them lots of money they'll do it and are no different than anyone else.

They pioneered the analog stick as a standard feature with the N64. They pioneered the 4 button with shoulder buttons controller layout. Motion controls, ever heard of the power glove? Iwata and Myamoto themselves said that they had worked on 3D titles back with the regular NES long before Iwata became president.

Most of the things you are naming were not standards at all. You are making broad points that are devoid of detail. If I continued on the path your going we would end up back a comic book for 3D and paper airplanes for motion controls. I already stated that just because they weren't the first people in the universe to do it, that doesn't mean they were copying someone else.