Rumor: Wii 2 to be announced at E3

[+wood_jl]

One thing I'd like to see on the next gen of consoles - whoever makes them - is dual monitor support. This has been a piece of cake on computers since 2001 (????)

 

How about another HDMI port, so player 2 can have their own (full) screen. This would be the fun of the existing systems, minus another console and another copy of the game, and all the crap to set it up.

[+swlovinist]

I think that the timing will be right for Nintendo to announce a Wii 2 this year at E3. I feel that with all the crap that the Wii has recieved, after being on the market nearly 4.5 years the system has delivered on some games which make it unique. Make no mistake that the Wii 2 will probably be a minor upgrade, but with playing games in HD will be a major selling point to me. My approach to the Wii has been to collect the exclusive games, noteworthy 3rd party titles, and avoid the heaps shovelware. I have done this for the PS1, PS2, Xbox, GC, 360, and PS3. To me, the Wii is going to have a swan song with some final games, and I can look back and see that the system for me has some very playable titles. Heres to the next system fixing some of the glaring issues of the system. Love them or hate them, Nintendo is a smart company.

[Koopa64]

Watch this.

 

The Wii 2 will offer playback of Wii 1 games in high def. We all know Nintendo, they will do this. They will also be praised for this heroic act of kindness to their fanbase.

 

What I'm wondering, is if the Wii 2 will still play Gamecube games. Probably not, but it sure would be neat. It'd be like what Sony did with the PS3's light PS1 compatibility.

[gdement]

I still don't have a Wii, but at this point all I'd like to see is a WiiHD with 1920x1080 output, improved controls and backward compatibility to both the Wii and the Gamecube. Cost-effective graphics improvements are welcome but it doesn't need to compete with the high end MS/Sony consoles, they were right to abandon that market IMO. Anything on 360/PS3 I'd rather play on the PC anyway.

[godslabrat]

Watch this.

 

The Wii 2 will offer playback of Wii 1 games in high def. We all know Nintendo, they will do this. They will also be praised for this heroic act of kindness to their fanbase.

 

I've been sharing these thoughts as well. Nintendo's best move would be to introduce the Wii2 in such a way that provides no disadvantage to current Wii owners... much the same way that Sony introduced the PS2. I would also hope that maybe, just maybe, there would be a way to transfer your DLC to the Wii2, even if it were a one-way trip. Could it be THAT much harder than transferring DLC from one Xbox 360 hard drive to another? That's been feasible for years now.

 

I think there's at least a 40% chance that the Wii2 would use a BluRay drive, just to get the extra storage capacity, but the chance that the drive would be enabled for movie playback is sickeningly low. I'd personally like it, but I won't hold my breath.

[DracIsBack]

Do they really need to? I know the press is on this "Wii sales collapsing" and painting the situation as though Nintendo's sales have suddenly fallen from millions to zero overnight.

 

But reality is Nintendo is still selling a lot of Wii's and sales declines over the course of a product lifecycle are normal. There's a big difference between a hot product coming off of a really high peak and not moving at all. I could see it being something they roll out next year. Personally, i think they'd reignite the Wii with better Wii games.

[Atariboy]

DVD is still adequate for the most part for 720p (Often lower, in the case of games like Halo 3) game development. I'd be surprised to see them utilize something like Blu-Ray.

 

Unless they want to make their system as friendly to 3rd party projects as possible (I think DVD is increasingly viewed as too limited for upcoming standards like lossless audio, 1080p native projects, and so on for the Xbox 720 and Playstation 4).

 

I suspect if Nintendo feels like something like a DVD-9 disc with 8 gigs or so of capacity is enough for a 720p Super Mario Galaxy 3 and such, they will probably stick with it even if it won't please some 3rd parties will who will have to adapt their projects to the constraints of the WiiHD. They've never seemed to particularly cater to meeting the needs of 3rd parties, so I wouldn't bet on them doing so now.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Atariboy

[Animan]

I don't understand where people keep coming up about a WiiHD. I could not find the origin of the name, let alone from Nintendo, yet people seem so confident it will be released.

 

Personally, if they do release the Wii successor as just the same thing as a Wii but with HD output, then I will lose all hope in Nintendo.

[tz101]

I think they should release Revolution, not Wii 2.

[ATARI7800fan]

I think it makes a lot of sense, strategically, for Nintendo to be the first out of the gate with next-gen hardware. If they can come out with something that is clearly on the next level, something obviously beyond the capabilities of the 360 and PS3, it would really put the screws to MS and Sony. The Wii has made money for Nintendo hand-over-fist, and consequently they have a huge war chest to fight the next round of console wars, while the 360 and PS3 have only recently turned profitable. I'm sure in their skunkworks MS and Sony are drawing up plans for the next generation, but both companies have stated that they expect their current hardware to be viable for at least another 4 years (10 year lifecycle), and I think it's pretty obvious that they desperately need it to. If Nintendo presses their advantage and boldly steps into the next-generation, they would own it, leaving MS and Sony in very uncomfortable positions.

 

Regardless of how it plays out, IMO, it's time for the next generation. 10 years for a console generation is unrealistic. By this time next year, I think it will be clear that gaming culture at large shares in this sentiment.

 

How is 10 years unrealistic. The Atari 2600 lasted 10 years and look what they were able to get out of that system or the PS2 for example. Consoles only lasting 5 years does not give developers time to get the most out of the hardware.

[Atariboy]

I don't understand where people keep coming up about a WiiHD. I could not find the origin of the name, let alone from Nintendo, yet people seem so confident it will be released.

 

Personally, if they do release the Wii successor as just the same thing as a Wii but with HD output, then I will lose all hope in Nintendo.

 

I can assure you Nintendo isn't leaving the console business. I can also assure you they don't intend to just keep the Wii on the market for decades. I'm surprised one would even think such a thing.

 

Also, no one is saying it's going to just be the Wii with a capability of outputting Wii software in HD. We're all talking about a brand new system and brand new software that takes full advantage of that hardware. We're not talking about a hardware revision that merely adds the option of HD output.

 

They've made references to an eventual successor and they've also referenced at least partial HD capabilities for it (Not to mention that HDTV's have penetrated so many households in 2011 that it's save to assume that HD capabilities are all but assured for it). And judging from the popularity of the Wii and motion control, I think many expect Wii to still be a component of its name.

 

Thus, it makes for a nice informal way to reference the Wii's eventual successor that we know is going to happen (and be able to output in HD) until we have an actual new name to use. It beats always calling it "Nintendo's next system" or the "Wii's replacement" in discussions such as this one.

 

I'll be sticking with it until we have something concrete to go on. It's nice, simple, and straight forward (As is just calling it the "Wii 2" like the topic title) just like calling the 360's successor the Xbox 720 or the PS3's successor the PS4. Everyone immediately knows exactly what you're talking about.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Atariboy

[+wood_jl]

Where do they go from here, though? The competition has caught up with the motion control business, and is doing HD already; a WiiHD would bring very little to the table. Nintendo needs another card to play. Having the first 3D console - to support the 3D televisions would be different. However, I have never seen the 3D televisions, and some store employee (now there's a reliable source; I haven't done any research myself) told me that only certain brands of TVs are compatible with 3D from certain studios - i.e. Sony TVs will show Columbia Pictures 3D movies (I just made that up as a for-example) and that sort of thing.

 

So is there no 3D TV standard? As well, with so many people having recently bought large flat panel TVs, I don't think we're going to see people throw them away like they are finally doing to their CRTs.....for a long time. So maybe 3D gaming is a long time in the future. I'd gladly take 2D over wearing some bozo glasses, anyday though.

 

I don't see why Nintendo would be rushing to market anytime soon with a "Wii2" or "Wii HD" until they have something unique to offer. Price-cutting the Wii to $99 should be their next move, and the PS2s will all be clearanced at $49.

Edited March 30, 2011 by wood_jl

[raskar42]

I think they should release Revolution, not Wii 2.

 

banned in the middle east

[DracIsBack]

a WiiHD would bring very little to the table. Nintendo needs another card to play.

 

Totally agree and that's kind of their MO of late. They said themselves that GameCube sales were disappointing and they believed because it wasn't differentiated enough. I think HD is probably going to be a feature, but it will likely offer something more than better graphics and improved horsepower.

 

I'd gladly take 2D over wearing some bozo glasses, anyday though.

 

I was having a discussion with a technocrat at work the other day on 3D tv. I viewed it as kind of the 'laser disc' of tvs. Some technophiles are into it, but I doubt it will have any longterm mainstream acceptance. for me, the biggest problem is the glasses. They're expensive and at risk of being lost or broken. Would a family with kids get a tv and glasses for everyone at $200/pop or whatever they cost? Could you have a bunch of buddies over to watch a 3D movie or game and outfit them all with glasses?

 

Maybe if rich. for me, it seems to be more 'cool' than practical at the moment. And judging from anemic 3D tv sales, I think consumers generally agree.

 

Now if they good a good, working, no-glasses required variant at a nice price point that the whole family can easily watch in any living room ... that's different. :-)

 

Price-cutting the Wii to $99 should be their next move, and the PS2s will all be clearanced at $49.

 

To be honest, I think that's more likely. The Wii can't be that expensive to make and price cuts are normal in this stage of the lifecycle. A $99 Wii would probably have a nice ressurgence.

[Atariboy]

Nintendo themselves have came out and all but squashed any thoughts of 3D being the major selling point of the WiiHD.

 

"Glasses-free is a big deal," Fils-Aime said. "We've not said publicly what the next thing for us will be in the home console space, but based on what we've learned on 3D, likely, that won't be it."

 

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6306378.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop%3Btitle%3B19

[Mendon]

I still don't think Nintendo will announce a new console at this years E3. I still think they will concentrate on the 3DS and games for the Wii.

 

Maybe early 2012 will see the announcement of a new console but damn if I can figure out what the "hook" will be for it. I mean, the hook for the DS was duel screens; the hook for the Wii was motion control; the hook for the 3DS is 3D. I don't think that just releasing another Wii with HD, Blu-ray, and more memory will do it for Nintendo.... nor do I think that a 3D console will be offered as that includes a purchase of a 3D TV.

 

There has to be a hook to draw people towards a new Nintendo console release but what will it be??

 

 

Mendon

[Atariboy]

I'm not sure I understand your logic that it absolutely requires something revolutionary to sell it just because of touch screens, motion control, and 3D.

 

That isn't a mandate that they change how we play games every generation. We very well might just be getting a system that is more evolutionary than revolutionary, such as what the Super Nintendo was for Nintendo.

 

They're in a strong position, they don't necessarily need something that's initially viewed as a gimmick to hook people like they did after the GameCube. I could see a more powerful HD console with more accurate motion controls, better online integration, increased storage space, and perhaps a traditonal controller packed in as standard rather than a seperate accessory (For the ease of bringing multiplatform projects to a Nintendo console) as a viable option.

[in the dark]

I predict that Nintendo will,

1. Ride the wave of the 3DS this year and into 2012. The Holidays will be filled with a big 3DS push with a possible system shortage. This will be their main focus at the moment. The goal will be to establish this portable as the next big money maker.

2. Lower the price of the Wii and the seperate controller purchase. Offer more colors of Wii consoles, along with some special packages. Maybe even with the lower price, some packages would include extra contollers. This will revive the Wii sales and sell a boat load more consoles.

3. You will probably see another game, or two, released of something of the usual Nintendo brand character franchise. I still have my hopes of an updated Star Fox for the Wii along the lines of the N64 game. It seems that it so fits the motion control system and would so rock. I don't need that game remade with updated graphics, the 3DS has that.

 

I know the focus is on the 3DS, but I still expect a few nuggets thrown to the Wii console. I expect the Wii successor to be more likely in 2013 with the annoucement at the 2012 E3. And that would depend on, if Nintendo has exhausted all of their big guns for the Wii and see an undate is needed. I am sure that the next big thing is there at Nintendo under a hush hush, don't tell, top sercret place. Ready to go. Nintendo will play their cards right. I don't think they will place themselves again in the "N64 position." They have learned their lesson. Lets hope they did. (I am a N64 fan myself and still have one hooked up beside the Wii.) Even though I think that some developers have avoided the Wii in the same way.

[Mendon]

I'm not sure I understand your logic that it absolutely requires something revolutionary to sell it just because of touch screens, motion control, and 3D.

 

That isn't a mandate that they change how we play games every generation. We very well might just be getting a system that is more evolutionary than revolutionary, such as what the Super Nintendo was for Nintendo.

 

They're in a strong position, they don't necessarily need something that's initially viewed as a gimmick to hook people like they did after the GameCube. I could see a more powerful HD console with more accurate motion controls, better online integration, increased storage space, and perhaps a traditonal controller packed in as standard rather than a seperate accessory (For the ease of bringing multiplatform projects to a Nintendo console) as a viable option.

 

I guess I shouldn't have used the word "hook" as I didn't mean to imply that Nintendo has to have a "gimmick" to sell a system.

 

What I was attempting to say was that Nintendo's last three system launches all were unique, innovative, and just plain different than anything before them. Not because these systems had to be but because Nintendo wanted them to be. And I believe that this trend will continue with their next console release.

 

I just don't think Nintendo will sit back and say HD graphic's, more memory, DVD and CD functionality, better online capabilities, etc etc is enough. I think they will try something different with their next console that current consoles aren't doing, but I haven't figured out what that "something different" will be.

 

 

Mendon

Edited April 2, 2011 by Mendon

[Christophero Sly]

Regardless of how it plays out, IMO, it's time for the next generation. 10 years for a console generation is unrealistic. By this time next year, I think it will be clear that gaming culture at large shares in this sentiment.

 

How is 10 years unrealistic. The Atari 2600 lasted 10 years and look what they were able to get out of that system or the PS2 for example. Consoles only lasting 5 years does not give developers time to get the most out of the hardware.

The 2600 and the PS2 generations didn't last 10 years. The 5200 was released in 1982. The PS3 was released in 2006. In point of fact, the 2600 and PS2 only lasted about 5 years.

 

Sure, the 2600 and PS2 were supported for several years after their hardware had been superseded. Every major console sees support continue for at least a couple of years after a new generation of hardware arrives. That's not at all what I'm talking about. I'm saying this generation lasting 10 years without any new hardware is stretching things too far.

[ATARI7800fan]

Regardless of how it plays out, IMO, it's time for the next generation. 10 years for a console generation is unrealistic. By this time next year, I think it will be clear that gaming culture at large shares in this sentiment.

 

How is 10 years unrealistic. The Atari 2600 lasted 10 years and look what they were able to get out of that system or the PS2 for example. Consoles only lasting 5 years does not give developers time to get the most out of the hardware.

The 2600 and the PS2 generations didn't last 10 years. The 5200 was released in 1982. The PS3 was released in 2006. In point of fact, the 2600 and PS2 only lasted about 5 years.

 

Sure, the 2600 and PS2 were supported for several years after their hardware had been superseded. Every major console sees support continue for at least a couple of years after a new generation of hardware arrives. That's not at all what I'm talking about. I'm saying this generation lasting 10 years without any new hardware is stretching things too far.

Still disagree.

[gdement]

The 2600 wouldn't have lasted 10 years if it didn't support color. The Wii was released in the last days of when standard-def was good enough. It was a reasonable decision at the time, but not one that lent itself to a long console lifetime.

A few years have gone by, motion control isn't unique anymore, HD televisions are now completely common, and more people are hesitant to buy a new family room entertainment device that only outputs in 480p, especially if they plan to use Netflix. I don't think Nintendo has that much momentum left before they start to rapidly lose share in today's market. It's fundamentally a good system but SD isn't good enough anymore. Next Christmas will be pretty bad for Nintendo's console business if they don't have a downward compatible HD Wii on the shelf (and I don't think they will). A price drop to $99 may reduce the damage though, especially given the economy.

Edited April 7, 2011 by gdement

[+wood_jl]

Regardless of how it plays out, IMO, it's time for the next generation. 10 years for a console generation is unrealistic. By this time next year, I think it will be clear that gaming culture at large shares in this sentiment.

 

How is 10 years unrealistic. The Atari 2600 lasted 10 years and look what they were able to get out of that system or the PS2 for example. Consoles only lasting 5 years does not give developers time to get the most out of the hardware.

The 2600 and the PS2 generations didn't last 10 years. The 5200 was released in 1982. The PS3 was released in 2006. In point of fact, the 2600 and PS2 only lasted about 5 years.

 

Sure, the 2600 and PS2 were supported for several years after their hardware had been superseded. Every major console sees support continue for at least a couple of years after a new generation of hardware arrives. That's not at all what I'm talking about. I'm saying this generation lasting 10 years without any new hardware is stretching things too far.

Still disagree.

 

As do I. How anybody could possibly argue with the fact that the 2600 was released in 1977 and made it past 1987 is beyond me. It would have to be the same type of person who would argue with the fact that the PS2 was launched in 2000 (U.S.) and the last time I was in Walmart (April 2011) they are still for sale.

[Mord]

As do I. How anybody could possibly argue with the fact that the 2600 was released in 1977 and made it past 1987 is beyond me. It would have to be the same type of person who would argue with the fact that the PS2 was launched in 2000 (U.S.) and the last time I was in Walmart (April 2011) they are still for sale.

 

Indeed. In fact I noticed the Walmart near me just got a new supply in the other day. I really need to pick one up so I have a "spare" of sorts. Although I'm more likely to pick up a used phat model for half that price.

 

With both of those examples however, it's important to note that the company involved had launched other consoles later on and were just keeping that one around since it continued to sell. (And the newer offerings weren't really picking up as fast as they wanted. - so why kill the cash cow that's still delivering.)

[+wood_jl]

As do I. How anybody could possibly argue with the fact that the 2600 was released in 1977 and made it past 1987 is beyond me. It would have to be the same type of person who would argue with the fact that the PS2 was launched in 2000 (U.S.) and the last time I was in Walmart (April 2011) they are still for sale.

 

Indeed. In fact I noticed the Walmart near me just got a new supply in the other day. I really need to pick one up so I have a "spare" of sorts. Although I'm more likely to pick up a used phat model for half that price.

 

With both of those examples however, it's important to note that the company involved had launched other consoles later on and were just keeping that one around since it continued to sell. (And the newer offerings weren't really picking up as fast as they wanted. - so why kill the cash cow that's still delivering.)

 

Very-well stated. It wouldn't be for sale if it wasn't still delivering. The fact that they came out with another console is not relevant to discussion that the old cash cow is still delivering. I don't get this tendency to want to "stop counting" a product that's selling, simply because another product came out. If that's the desired business model, we need to urgently notify the captains of industry that they're screwing up. Each manufacturer of automobile may be permitted one model, and must cease sale immediately of any existing models when the new one comes out. If they don't, we're "not going to count" the old model as still selling, even though it is. It would probably be difficult to convince Proctor & Gamble, who have 40 different brands of soap for sale at a given time.