Nintendo GOing Forward.

[Exophase]

They obviously don't NEED either 3D (because of the 3D effect slider which can be set to zero, and because of the 2DS as well now), and they obviously don't NEED resistive touch either. How the touch input is generated is irrelevant from a software standpoint, it could just as well be capacitive on a future handheld (we can be certain this will be the case), and a 3DS game running in emulation mode would be absolutely none the wiser...

They don't need 3D, but generally if you're pushing for BC you don't want to drop a main feature of what you're supporting. But they might not really have a choice. Neither way is really a great position.

But re-touch input, I don't think you really appreciate (or realize?) that there's a qualitative difference between what current resistive and capacitive solutions. Capacitive input is just less precise, moving to it will hurt some games. They could use a solution like the Note's with an active stylus, but that'll add to the cost. And I wouldn't be certain at all that future handhelds will be capacitive - I'm sure people were certain Wii U would use capacitive touch too. Actually, I think for game systems where you have dedicated buttons multi-touch barely matters and you're better off with resistive, unless you want Android compatibility or something like that.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But re-touch input, I don't think you really appreciate (or realize?) that there's a qualitative difference between what current resistive and capacitive solutions. Capacitive input is just less precise, moving to it will hurt some games.

This. DS's stylus is far more accurate than the rubber-tipped capacitive styluses.

They could use a solution like the Note's with an active stylus, but that'll add to the cost.

Expensive, although Nvidia were claiming a cheap stylus solution. DirectStylus. Looks impressive.

 

[Fourth Storm]

They don't need 3D, but generally if you're pushing for BC you don't want to drop a main feature of what you're supporting. But they might not really have a choice. Neither way is really a great position.

But re-touch input, I don't think you really appreciate (or realize?) that there's a qualitative difference between what current resistive and capacitive solutions. Capacitive input is just less precise, moving to it will hurt some games. They could use a solution like the Note's with an active stylus, but that'll add to the cost. And I wouldn't be certain at all that future handhelds will be capacitive - I'm sure people were certain Wii U would use capacitive touch too. Actually, I think for game systems where you have dedicated buttons multi-touch barely matters and you're better off with resistive, unless you want Android compatibility or something like that.

I think the 3D is easily dropable, and they can even emulate dual screens as they are doing with DS emulation on Wii U. The touch screen is a great point, though. They might opt to stick with resistive. Stupid question: is it possible to add both a resistive and capacitive layer onto an LCD, and allow software to dictate which one is active?

 

[Entropy]

So Nintendo should just accept their niche market and shrink to fit? Give up on home consoles altogether? Create a handheld, and then a 'home console' that basically just gets those handheld games on the TV?

Possibly, yes.
Iwata discussed Apple in competitive terms at least as early as 2009. Nintendo has known for a long time that they are up against a mobile computing juggernaut. (Speculation: This may be why they opted for a mobile 3D screen, because they figured it would provide them with another useful unique selling point vs. the smart phones.)

I know you maintain a very positive outlook for the console business, but it is not the only possible view to take.
All consoles launched since the rise of the smart phone has seen a good initial uptake that crashed within a few months. First it was the mobile platforms (But they're mobile!) (Nintendo managed to partially resurrect the 3DS with a massive price cut, and attractive titles.) Then it was the WiiU (too few FLOPS!), now it's the XBOXOne (It's too expensive!) and the only remaining hope for a different initial consumer behaviour is the PS4. The recent announcements in the ****TV scene pretty much constitutes a knife in the gut to those hoping that console sales will be sustained as platforms for general media consumption. Android/iOS TV price and integration with mobile pretty much ensures dominance as we move forward in time.

So Nintendo may be wise in recognizing that they need to hunker down, focus their development efforts and ensure that whatever they develop for the WiiU going forward can be taken advantage of for their upcoming mobile platform. Their recent statement of how they are joining mobile and stationary development is rather vaguely stated, so it is not clear if that mobile platform connects to the TV via an interface box/dongle after the WiiU or if it will have a two way relationship with a future stationary counterpart. It remains to be seen - the important part is that they ensure efficient use of resources.

It is clear that Nintendo is focusing on strategies to maintain health and profitability in the future consumer landscape without relying on the the console business growing. I think that may be a pretty good idea.

 

[Grall]

They don't need 3D, but generally if you're pushing for BC you don't want to drop a main feature of what you're supporting.

That is true if your main feature actually is a good one. 3DS' fake 3D is not; it's arguably detrimental to human health, it's expensive, it increases power draw and most people just don't seem to like it. It's a gimmick of the worst kind, and such can easily be dropped when product generation changes occur.

But re-touch input, I don't think you really appreciate (or realize?) that there's a qualitative difference between what current resistive and capacitive solutions.

If you say so, however, unless Nintendo goes capacitive they will miss out on multitouch, and more and more mobile gameplay relies on that. Important games that people would like to play on their Nintendo console will be un-portable unless it features multitouch.

People are used to poking at touchscreens with their fat fingers, that resistive touch is more precise doesn't really matter in such a useage case. Styluses are quaint and awkward in comparison, and easily dropped, misplaced, lost with a mobile console.

 

[Globalisateur]

I think the 3D is easily dropable, and they can even emulate dual screens as they are doing with DS emulation on Wii U. The touch screen is a great point, though. They might opt to stick with resistive. Stupid question: is it possible to add both a resistive and capacitive layer onto an LCD, and allow software to dictate which one is active?

We are dangerously talking about some Vita hardware clone here. I am not sure it's that kind of handheld product the general public is waiting for.

They already have that with their expensive phones and their high resolution 1080p 2D shiny touchscreens. You'd need to bring some novelty if you want to attract those customers.

 

[Fourth Storm]

We are dangerously talking about some Vita hardware clone here. I am not sure it's that kind of handheld product the general public is waiting for.

They already have that with their expensive phones and their high resolution 1080p 2D shiny touchscreens. You'd need to bring some novelty if you want to attract those customers.

I think they'll definitely include some gimmick to differentiate themselves from smart phones, but I highly doubt it will be as costly as 3D. With the introduction of 2DS (which uses a single LCD only split by the plastic casing) and certain games like Pokemon reigning back on 3D usage, I see the writing on the wall.

I believe they'll keep dual screen gaming alive via console/handheld connectivity, but the time has come to move on to a different hook and form factor. Their next console definitely won't ship with anything like the Gamepad (unless they want to shoot themselves in the foot) and having a dual screened handheld serve that function would just be goofy. 3 Screens!

 

[orangpelupa]

in NDS theres app/game that use resisitive to detect pressure. If 3DS app/game also use that, changing to capacitive will make them not able to detect pressure with the screen.

but maybe pressure can be detected from pen?

They obviously don't NEED either 3D (because of the 3D effect slider which can be set to zero, and because of the 2DS as well now), and they obviously don't NEED resistive touch either. How the touch input is generated is irrelevant from a software standpoint, it could just as well be capacitive on a future handheld (we can be certain this will be the case), and a 3DS game running in emulation mode would be absolutely none the wiser...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I know you maintain a very positive outlook for the console business...

I don't long term. I've mentioned that mobile is a threat to gaming, although not a strong one at present because it doesn't offer comparable experience. I've also suggested mobile-target console gaming (my Grand Vision of the Future when discussing next-gen consoles a while back). I also expect that, eventually, everything will be streamed and games will be services. At the moment, for the next few years, next-gen console will be doing okay. Nintendo won't be competing in that space. They also don't appear to be competing in the streamed-game space. They also don't appear to have a good strategy to combat mobile's impact on their handheld business.

All consoles launched since the rise of the smart phone has seen a good initial uptake that crashed within a few months. First it was the mobile platforms (But they're mobile!) (Nintendo managed to partially resurrect the 3DS with a massive price cut, and attractive titles.) Then it was the WiiU (too few FLOPS!), now it's the XBOXOne (It's too expensive!)...

Your remarks in parentheses are legitimate reasons. It's not like mobile is trouncing the console space and those remarks are excuses. PS4 shows what happens when you give the core gaming market what it wants. If MS and/or Nintendo had done the same, they'd be reaping the rewards from that market.

The recent announcements in the ****TV scene pretty much constitutes a knife in the gut to those hoping that console sales will be sustained as platforms for general media consumption. Android/iOS TV price and integration with mobile pretty much ensures dominance as we move forward in time.

Except that they don't provide the console experience. Ergo, console gamers will still want their consoles, and still have them attached to the TV, and still potentially use them for media consumption of all sorts as long as the services are good.

So Nintendo may be wise in recognizing that they need to hunker down, focus their development efforts and ensure that whatever they develop for the WiiU going forward can be taken advantage of for their upcoming mobile platform.

You're saying mobile is taking over everything, eating into the handheld space and the console space and making these devices irrelevant, and you want that to be an argument that Nintendo shouldn't develop for mobile?!

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I don't long term. I've mentioned that mobile is a threat to gaming, although not a strong one at present because it doesn't offer comparable experience.

And it never will as lots of "real" games simply require real buttons.

I also expect that, eventually, everything will be streamed and games will be services.

I don't think so. Certainly not on mobile. Even when latency, bandwidth etc get solved there is still the issue of reception. I live in Japan and generally the networks here are pretty good but there are a lot of mountains and tunnels here so as soon as you get on the train/car and go outside town (aka the time you'd actually want to play games) often there is no reception.

Maybe inside homes, on tv's, maybe. I don't see this happening on pc. Hardware with reasonable performance is pretty cheap these days, cheap to the point that I doubt a streaming game service is going to offer better IQ than what you can get on your pc. Sure the initial investment on pc will be higher but you'll need a pc anyway, so that's 500 bucks. Trow in another 300 and you got a pretty decent gaming machine. Why would you go for a streaming game service when you can have your games run on your own machine with no lag, no shitty IQ etc.

I only see streaming gaming gaining any real traction if there is no way to run your games on a local machine anymore.

 

[tuna]

Regarding 3D, Nintendo could sell 3D glasses for those who want ;-)

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And it never will as lots of "real" games simply require real buttons.

Real buttons are coming to mobile platforms. My upcoming game supports controllers and DS3 controllers work straight on Android via a suitable USB cable. The right combo gives you a mobile game that you can also plug into your TV. It's not going to be next-gen awesomeness (although a docking-based system could facility a considerable closing of that gap. There's nothing preventing an iOS or Android box with loads of performance grunt), but it is going to be download-game quality. It will be PS3 and XB360 £5 download title quality.

I don't think so. Certainly not on mobile. Even when latency, bandwidth etc get solved there is still the issue of reception. I live in Japan and generally the networks here are pretty good but there are a lot of mountains and tunnels here so as soon as you get on the train/car and go outside town (aka the time you'd actually want to play games) often there is no reception.

That's a fair point, but I'm mostly talking long, long, long term. But the move towards that starts now.

 

[orangpelupa]

wait.. the train in Japan did not have WiFi?
i though because Japan have stupidly super fast Internet, they have WiFi everywhere. Due to in Indonesia, we have stupidly slow internet, but more and more public transport have WiFi (its still in progress).

so i though in japan, WiFi already everywhere
so i though thats why sony pushing streaming service

EDIT:
i just remembered, local multiplayer is popular in Japan. so no need for internet access. Some of nintendo game even able to send multiplayer client through local wifi.

 

[Entropy]

I don't long term. I've mentioned that mobile is a threat to gaming, although not a strong one at present because it doesn't offer comparable experience. I've also suggested mobile-target console gaming (my Grand Vision of the Future when discussing next-gen consoles a while back). I also expect that, eventually, everything will be streamed and games will be services. At the moment, for the next few years, next-gen console will be doing okay. Nintendo won't be competing in that space. They also don't appear to be competing in the streamed-game space. They also don't appear to have a good strategy to combat mobile's impact on their handheld business.

The parts I can see of their strategy forward makes some sense. Yes, it is defining yourself as a niche, but niches can be both sustainable and profitable. The problem lies in predicting and extending the size of your niche. Making devices focused on gaming, ensuring a low threshold of entry, making money on accessories and game sales is not a recipe for growth, but it may still be a viable business model. (Remember iPods? Used to be a hot thing a decade ago. A prime example of a market killed by the rise of the smart phone. No longer merits even a mention at Apples conference calls. But Apple still sold 25 million of them in 2013. At higher ASPs than the mobile consoles.)

PS4 shows what happens when you give the core gaming market what it wants. If MS and/or Nintendo had done the same, they'd be reaping the rewards from that market.

No they wouldn't. If three PS4 equivalents had been launched, the size of the customer base would have been exactly the same, the target demographic wouldn't grow just because they had three of the same to choose from. Actually, I'd say that only by making the offerings substantially different do you have any chance of reaching other demographics. Nintendo gets criticized for doing that, partly because it's a bad fit for multi platform development but I think that is taking a too narrow view. They offer something else, and by doing so, they can potentially reach new customers as opposed for competing for the same.

Except that they don't provide the console experience. Ergo, console gamers will still want their consoles, and still have them attached to the TV, and still potentially use them for media consumption of all sorts as long as the services are good.

No argument there. But as you point out, that presupposes that the console was bought for gaming, and the fringe benefits piggybacks on that. However, those who primarily was interesting in media consumption, and has gaming as a fringe benefit will arguably have better options, options that didn't exist for most of the lifetime of the previous generation.
Furthermore, Google were pretty damn clear about gaming being a part of their TV platform, as was Amazon. Apple is reputed to join them, and not only do these devices support physical controllers, they now even have low level graphics APIs for optimal efficiency! Does this sound like consoles to you? It does to me. The traditional gaming consoles will be challenged not only in media consumption, but in gaming as well. Only these devices leverage the software eco systems and hardware R&D of a market that sells a billion units per year.

You're saying mobile is taking over everything, eating into the handheld space and the console space and making these devices irrelevant, and you want that to be an argument that Nintendo shouldn't develop for mobile?!

Lets be brutally honest here, consoles, handheld and stationary, is already a very small niche in comparison to the mobile market. Mobile consoles is challenged by phones and tablets, stationary consoles is challenged by phones, tablets and (soon) TV boxes. As I implied above, consoles may be a sustainable niche, but I can't see it growing in the face of this new competition that is already so pervasive, and which generates staggering revenues and investments.

Nintendo seems to feel that their best bet is to stake out a profitable hardware/software niche that focuses on gaming, dodging going in direct competition with the really strong opponents. I don't know if they are right, and for the really long term I (like you) doubt that this is the most profitable path for them. But on the other hand, they are the ones who have been overall the most profitable in the console business, and for the longest time. I give them the benefit of doubt. They may know what they are doing.

 

[steveOrino]

On a personal level I dont care for mobile gaming at all.

But I will say one bright spot left for Nintendo is that the Android/IOS market is filled with garbage tier shovel-ware. The popular stuff in that space are F2P and/or old game ideas sold as new (look at King's wonderful software lineup). Not to mention countless blatant ripoffs and games that have actual content stolen from other games. And even if you have something that is marginally successful you will have some big developer copy your idea with far more UA money. There is zero quality control... we are talking Atari 2600 video game crash game quality here only on a far massive scale. Consumer confidence on these platforms for premium quality gaming are low and free to play is expected among consumers.

Even if future endeavors from Nintendo are less popular they don't have to worry about the software side of things at least.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

wait.. the train in Japan did not have WiFi?
i though because Japan have stupidly super fast Internet, they have WiFi everywhere. Due to in Indonesia, we have stupidly slow internet, but more and more public transport have WiFi (its still in progress).

so i though in japan, WiFi already everywhere
so i though thats why sony pushing streaming service

Well there is wifi on the Shinkansen buy you might as well use the 4G connection on your phone. Most restaurants have wifi available from one of the three big providers but you can only use those if you are actually 1) a customer of that provider and 2) you are paying extra to have access to those wifi boxes. Again, most people just use the 4G connection on their phone as that is available pretty much everywhere.

I'm not sure about the country side but in the cities 1Gpbs connections are available pretty much everywhere though the actually speed usually is not even close to 1Gbps. The fastest my connection every did was 400Mbps, usually it's more like 10 ~ 20Mbps though I suspect my provider is throttling http traffic quite a bit because downloading over a ssl connection is much faster.

Real buttons are coming to mobile platforms. My upcoming game supports controllers and DS3 controllers work straight on Android via a suitable USB cable. The right combo gives you a mobile game that you can also plug into your TV.

The whole argument of mobile gaming being a threat to handhelds is that you always have your phone with you. If you have to carry a controller around that is kind of defeating the purpose. Not to mention there is no way you can play that way in the car/bus/train/airplane. Yes you can at home, but who is really going to do that?

I think the amount of people who want to use such a set up is very very small.

That's a fair point, but I'm mostly talking long, long, long term. But the move towards that starts now

But the latency of capacity issue is never really going to be solved. Streaming gaming is never going to have the same level of fidelity as game that runs on a local machine simply because it won't work financially. So you are going to be stuck with some mid range level gfx if you are lucky, in addition to all the other downsides. Might as well shell out 250 euro's for a half decent gfx card and enjoy better gfx and not of the other downsides. Anybody remotely enthusiastic about gaming will do that.

 

[Cjail]

Actually, I'd say that only by making the offerings substantially different do you have any chance of reaching other demographics. Nintendo gets criticized for doing that, partly because it's a bad fit for multi platform development but I think that is taking a too narrow view. They offer something else, and by doing so, they can potentially reach new customers as opposed for competing for the same.

Nintedo on WiiU it's courting the usual demographic (Ninty fans) and they do so by offering the usual beloved franchises (Mario, Zelda).
MS and Sony are also courting fans offering their beloved IPs but they also offer more (better hardware, better online service, new IPs, multiplatform, F2P, MMO, etc...) which is attracting several other demographic.
Presently MS and Sony are considering "new ways" to game (VR and cloud gaming) while Nity thinks that using a tablet to game it's new.

 

[Entropy]

On a personal level I dont care for mobile gaming at all.

But I will say one bright spot left for Nintendo is that the Android/IOS market is filled with garbage tier shovel-ware. The popular stuff in that space are F2P and/or old game ideas sold as new (look at King's wonderful software lineup). Not to mention countless blatant ripoffs and games that have actual content stolen from other games. And even if you have something that is marginally successful you will have some big developer copy your idea with far more UA money. There is zero quality control... we are talking Atari 2600 video game crash game quality here only on a far massive scale. Consumer confidence on these platforms for premium quality gaming are low and free to play is expected among consumers.

Even if future endeavors from Nintendo are less popular they don't have to worry about the software side of things at least.

While I don't fully agree with your assassment of mobile gaming (I see it more as a Wild West situation right now), I think this is the core of their strategy. A curated gaming environment, with inexpensive hardware that offers dedicated controls and probably a couple of unique wrinkles. Low barrier of entry, guaranteed decent to good software offerings. The major part of their profit generated by platform unique software and sales of accessories. They restructure internally to ensure better utilization of their software production resources. Not a gamble for maximum potential pay off, but for (hopefully/probably) sustainable profitability.

It seems as if they intend for their new handheld platform to be able to benefit from assets produced for the WiiU, which seems like a good move as it allows them to keep supporting their stationary platform while ensuring that their efforts aren't wasted if it doesn't rebound in terms of sales. It also ensures that they have development teams up to speed on development for their upcoming mobile platform. Wins all around, for both their present and future. Plus, it implies that their future handheld will actually have at least reasonable hardware capabilities.

 

[ShyGuy]

I think the only thing left for Nintendo to try in the home console market is to go with an incredibly cheap Nintendo only system which plays their new games @1080p/60fps while offering every single past game on the virtual console for $199. The system would be backwards compatible with Wii/WiiU software aswell as Wii peripherals and the WiiU Gamepad for off screen play.

Releasing an on par or much more powerful home console than PS4/Xbone in late 2016 for even $249 would have disastrous consequences for Nintendo imo. They would already be 30+ million behind either PS4/Xbone or both so tempting people to switch at that stage of the generation would be near impossible esp with Nintendo's poor track record of third party support / decent online infrastructure.

Now we know their next console and handheld will share similar hardware so once we see the handheld specs we should have a very good idea of what will be inside the next home console.

In terms of software I think they should follow the Smash Bros formula by essentially releasing the same game for both platforms with minor differences to encourage people to double dip. This will also significantly help out software development times with first part teams no longer forced to makes two different versions of Mario, Zelda and Kart. In investor meetings Iwata has also been talking about deals to encourage people to buy more software like the 3DS / MK8 deals so I could see the games being $50 for console / $30 for handheld or $60 if you buy both at the same time.

Overall Nintendo need to realise that they are not in the position they were in going into the WiiU/3DS systems and act accordingly. Two systems available for $300 combined ($199 for the console, $99 for the handheld) along with competitively priced software, improved online / virtual console and much improved marketing will do extremely well for them. Really go after the family / child / older fan with much nostalgia "play every Nintendo game since 1985, only on Wii3" ect (don't call it Wii anything lol !).

They have already distanced themselves from Sony and MS in the last ten years by releasing much weaker hardware, going after more casual consumers and not having E3 press conferences so I think it's time they completely broke away from them altogether including maybe doing their very own version of E3 once per year considering how successful the Digital Event / Treehouse events were.

 

[Goodtwin]

Some of you guys would bankrupt Nintendo is very short order. As well as the PS4 is selling, we don't know yet if Sony is making money or not. If the PS4 is selling at a loss, and it could be, coupled with a large marketing expense, Sony could post huge losses while the gaming community praises them for their success.

Nintendo's long term strategy is more sound that either Sony or Microsoft. Nintendo could choose to drop out of the hardware market anytime it wants, lose the headache of trying to make money on hardware, something that is becoming very tough to do, and be very profitable for the foreseeable future. Nintendo wont let the hardware side of their business bleed them dry, but at the same time they know its more profitable to sell software on their own hardware.

In a few years I do believe Nintendo could offer a portable platform that also offers a solid console experience. I do believe mobile/tablet hardware will progress to the point where people wont need or want to purchase dedicated gaming hardware. I think before this generation ends for the PS4 and X1, tablets and phones will be capable of running the majority of games. You buy a wireless controller, hook up your phone/tablet to an hdmi chord, and download the newest COD, AC, Batman and so on. Nintendo can be ahead of the curve on this one by offering a mobile platform that does this. Its not a long term sustainable business since tablets and phones will eventually take over, but its a business model that could keep them in the hardware market for at least one more gen. After that, I doubt there is any way for Nintendo to create hardware and have it be profitable, and that's when they can become software only. If they wanted to, they could still offer propriety controllers for their games.