Nintendo stategy with Wii

[kyleb]

They don't have to split their user base, they can simply contenue making Wii games and sell the Wii HD to those who want to play their games in HD.

 

[quest55720]

They don't have to split their user base, they can simply contenue making Wii games and sell the Wii HD to those who want to play their games in HD.

I guess I not sure what you are getting at? Are you talking about a scaler on the Wii? Or you talking a super wii with more pipelines and and clock speed to allow rendering at 720p? Would that not add a lot of work for developers to fine tune a game for each Wii to ensure stable frame rates.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

They don't have to split their user base, they can simply contenue making Wii games and sell the Wii HD to those who want to play their games in HD.

They have to split! thats the whole point. You cant maintain 2 consoles. Stores dont want to provide space for 2 consoles that basically are the same. Devs will have to chose between the consoles to dev on, consumers have to chose wich one they buy etc. In the end, one of them will die pretty quick. And we can look at sega to see what happens if you keep on launching consoles after each other.

Besides that, a Wii HD after 2 - 3 years would be dumb. Why? First off, nintendo decided not to go the gfx route, it would be very strange to change your mind after only 2 - 3 years. And if they make a Wii HD the gfx will still look alot less good than on the x360 or ps3 so whats the use? you split your userbase and launch a machine wich still is alot less powerfull than the competition, imo than you might as well stick with the old one.

 

[kyleb]

I guess I not sure what you are getting at? Are you talking about a scaler on the Wii? Or you talking a super wii with more pipelines and and clock speed to allow rendering at 720p? Would that not add a lot of work for developers to fine tune a game for each Wii to ensure stable frame rates.

Not a scaler, like I said, they can design a console to render thier games in HD. If such a console is designed to suit that purpose, then developers can simply contenue fine tuning their games with current Wii developer kits and then the HD version of the console will keep good framerate with those same games in HD.

They have to split! thats the whole point. You cant maintain 2 consoles. Stores dont want to provide space for 2 consoles that basically are the same. Devs will have to chose between the consoles to dev on, consumers have to chose wich one they buy etc. In the end, one of them will die pretty quick. And we can look at sega to see what happens if you keep on launching consoles after each other.

Besides that, a Wii HD after 2 - 3 years would be dumb. Why? First off, nintendo decided not to go the gfx route, it would be very strange to change your mind after only 2 - 3 years. And if they make a Wii HD the gfx will still look alot less good than on the x360 or ps3 so whats the use? you split your userbase and launch a machine wich still is alot less powerfull than the competition, imo than you might as well stick with the old one.

Wii games in HD would obviously be limited to less polygons and andvaced shader effects than well made PS3 or 360 games. However, matching the image fidelity of those HD games on other consoles would be a big step up from the current model's visuals, a difference which is going to become increasingly more obvious to the quickly expanding HD market and sitting in kiosks next to the best of third and forth gen PS3 and 360 games.

Besides, in a few years the current Wii will likely have a few price drops, and a shiny new premium model that renders all the Wii, GameCube, and virtual console games in HD could still likely be brought to market for resonably less than what Sony and MS will be charging for their offerings. I woud spend $400 for that today and I bet quite a few other people around here would as well, but suspect Nintendo is currently aiming for a larger market with their $250 ED console. However, in the next few years those figures will change, and if Nintendo can turn a profit on a $250 Wii HD while still keeping enough of the current models flowing to meet demand, then it would be dumb of them not to.

 

[Rolf N]

They have to split! thats the whole point.

No. The whole point was that they can do a revision without splitting the userbase.

 

[zed]

Wii-Hi rolls off the tongue more easily. Looks better in a logo too.

yeah perhaps thats a bettter name weee-heeee

Why? First off, nintendo decided not to go the gfx route, it would be very strange to change your mind after only 2 - 3 years.

part of the reason they gave was not many households have HD tvs, in a couple of years when this figure is much higher im sure the PR spin will say, 'now the market is ready for a HD games console'.

And if they make a Wii HD the gfx will still look alot less good than on the x360 or ps3 so whats the use? you split your userbase and launch a machine wich still is alot less powerfull than the competition, imo than you might as well stick with the old one.

true the games will still look worse, though the fillrate of the new graphics card would be greatly improved, that u could guarantee that every game will run at 720p 4xAA or even 1080p. which would be great for marketing 'other console promised u 4xAA in every game, the Wii-HD actually delivers)
also higher res will make the wii channels much more attrative to view, reading text at 480p sux

for newer wii games, i expect devs to do what the makers of god of war 2 are doing, IIRC with the ps2 it plays at 480p but with the ps3 u can play at 1080p

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

But whats the freaking use of a Wii2 if the only difference is that it now will output games made for 480p in 720/1080p? its still going to look crap. Nintendo isnt stupid, ofcourse they reachered the market before making the wii and apperantly they didnt thought HD would be important enough to support. It would be stupid to start supporting it after only 2 - 3 years. And whats even worse is that it will be supported in a fairly useless way.

 

[borowki]

They have to split! thats the whole point. You cant maintain 2 consoles. Stores dont want to provide space for 2 consoles that basically are the same. Devs will have to chose between the consoles to dev on, consumers have to chose wich one they buy etc. In the end, one of them will die pretty quick. And we can look at sega to see what happens if you keep on launching consoles after each other.

Having two SKUs shouldn't be an issue as long as they are distinctive enough and their volumes are high. Sony's price structure is maddening for retailers because the $499 PS3 and the $599 PS3 essentially have the same audience. Suppose the Wii HD is released just prior to Xmas 2009 at $249, the standard should cost around $129 or so. The former would target the more affluent households with HDTV, the latter would target the cost-conscious crowd still hanging onto their SD sets. The scheme makes plenty of business sense.

 

[Rolf N]

Nintendo is in a unique position. They have the lowest-cost machine and they make money on every piece of hardware they sell. While other players of course want to build an install base, they have to balance that interest against their up-front losses. Nintendo can just sell sell sell units.

Hence an upgrade is more attractive for Nintendo than for the other players in the industry.

I believe nobody here claims that it will happen, just that it seems plausible, technically and economically feasible and I expect Nintendo to be aware of the opportunity.

For the retail/consumer side of things, really, just look at the DS phat. It is still on sale in big electronics chains in my area, I could pick one up tomorrow if I wanted to. It sells alongside the DS lite at a lower price. Everybody knows the DS lite is the better device, but if you're a cheap-skate, maybe can rationalize away the need for the lite's improvements (play only at home and short sessions, hence charging no issue for you, you play only in controlled lighting conditions, hence improved screens no issue for you etc blah) you get the DS phat.

Nintendo wasn't in a huge hurry to phase-out the DS phat in Europe. It's still a viable product at retail, and for as long as they have continued production, you bet that it cost them less (cheaper screens, cheaper battery). The lite is nicer, so a price difference is easy to justify. In the case of the proposed Super Wii, it would be justified by extra silicon area and/or higher clocks of the graphics part. The regular Wii should naturally cost less to produce, and sell at a lower price to consumers, again leading to a scenario where both can coexist at retail to please both "cost conscious" and "I want the definitive version"-type customers.

edited:
Just ask yourself one question: Can Nintendo hold out with the Wii hardware until 2011?

 

[Flux]

Nintendo is in a unique position. They have the lowest-cost machine and they make money on every piece of hardware they sell. While other players of course want to build an install base, they have to balance that interest against their up-front losses. Nintendo can just sell sell sell units.

Hence an upgrade is more attractive for Nintendo than for the other players in the industry.

I believe nobody here claims that it will happen, just that it seems plausible, technically and economically feasible and I expect Nintendo to be aware of the opportunity.

For the retail/consumer side of things, really, just look at the DS phat. It is still on sale in big electronics chains in my area, I could pick one up tomorrow if I wanted to. It sells alongside the DS lite at a lower price. Everybody knows the DS lite is the better device, but if you're a cheap-skate, maybe can rationalize away the need for the lite's improvements (play only at home and short sessions, hence charging no issue for you, you play only in controlled lighting conditions, hence improved screens no issue for you etc blah) you get the DS phat.

Nintendo wasn't in a huge hurry to phase-out the DS phat in Europe. It's still a viable product at retail, and for as long as they have continued production, you bet that it cost them less (cheaper screens, cheaper battery). The lite is nicer, so a price difference is easy to justify. In the case of the proposed Super Wii, it would be justified by extra silicon area and/or higher clocks of the graphics part. The regular Wii should naturally cost less to produce, and sell at a lower price to consumers, again leading to a scenario where both can coexist at retail to please both "cost conscious" and "I want the definitive version"-type customers.

edited:
Just ask yourself one question: Can Nintendo hold out with the Wii hardware until 2011?

Of course. I think the market will split. With the hardcore gamers getting a Wii+360 or just a 360 or PS3+Wii and HDTV/DVD/BD enthusiasts buying a PS3,fringe gamers/non gamers + Nintendo's base buying a Wii. Who will have the wider demographic? Nintendo. Thats why they will sell the most. They turning video games back into video games. Sony and Microsoft are trying to make simulation games. The market will decide. Better simulation or better gameplay?