Is Nintendo following Atari's footsteps?

[Tanooki]

 

I was happy with getting a New 3DS, although I will admit that I likely would have never done it if I couldn't have traded in an original 3DS when Gamestop had a particularly good trade-in deal. The bigger screen and better 3D is worth it for me, and it allows me to play one of my favorite games, The Binding of Isaac, which is otherwise not possible on a non-New 3DS. As upgrades go, it is indeed fairly minimal, but still a logical one. And frankly, there's really not more much they could have done with it anyway at this point without releasing a whole new handheld platform (and we know that that's almost certainly not going to happen thanks to the Switch and other market conditions). I think the Switch will be much better positioned for relatively substantive upgrades in the vein of PS4 Pro and Xbox One S/Scorpio.

Felt the same way. I ditched my system and since I'm a OCD about packaging I kept it all like new box and contents. I was able to sell it for such a high value the New3DS cost me with tax $60, the price of one modern 3D game. Hell of a deal given you got finally correctly working 3D due to that head tracking tech. System moved faster, booted stuff up faster, if you ever browsed at all eshop or the web those were better off too, and the nub works fine adding that missing 2nd stick you had to buy a clunky strap on for your normal 3DS systems. The only burn was Xenoblade...and then?? Yeah nothing physical which was garbage more or less given the Hyrule Warriors title is supposedly fairly unenjoyable on a standard system.

 

 

Hey I want to throw this out here since you brought up upgrades, but it's a different type...I'm thinking SKUs. I brought this up on another site earlier. Nintendo with the WiiU had more than 1 SKU when it came out. Nintendo is trying to keep the 3DS alive too for the time being. I can see them wanting that aorund through 2017 into 18. But as they on the inside really push this like a handheld with a dock, outside (to us) the exterior consumer is being told it's a console you can carry. Why? Not to blur the imagery and kill off 3DS sales early. But let's think future, maybe Christmas 2018? Nintendo does a new marketing angle to really blow out the Switch sales. Option #1 - the launch device as is. Option #2 - $50 off, no dock and no HDMI cable, you get the system otherwise as is in the box. Option #3 (may replace #1) - Same price, pack in a downloaded to hardware game (Zelda or Mario let's say) and then a larger microSD card (64 or 128GB) as they would otherwise chomp up much space.

 

I don't see them going the PS4/One route of throwing more ram or a better ARM chip in there very soon. But as it is really a portable device and they also do like backwards compatibility in their portables, I see no reason to not think a future (GBC, DSi, N3DS) system with a double clocked ARM chip, double the RAM, double the storage, and something else perked up happens as well with specially branded games that only work for it (like Xenoblade) or others saying 'Best on...' but works on both.

[Flojomojo]

Oh yeah, I totally forgot about Super Stable 3D -- it's way more usable than the 3D on the other 3DS machines ...even though many of the newest games such as Pokemon Sun/Moon and Dragon Quest VIII don't use it at all, nor does Virtual Console. It's nasty-looking on Xenoblade. 3D is a gimmick that never really impressed me, I don't need, and won't miss on the Switch.

[adamchevy]

I had a new new 3DS XL for a few months. Honestly didn't impress me at all, except for the 3d picture taking ability. I'm looking forward to finally having the Wii U as it should have been.

[DracIsBack]

Wii may have but it was a fad.

 

 

You don't sell 100 million consoles and nearly a billion games over six years if it's a 'fad'. 'Fads' die out quickly, typically in months.

[DracIsBack]

One of the big reasons why the Nintendo 64 outsold the GameCube was because the GameCube was in a much tougher competitive environment, being outsold by the best selling console of all time in the PS2, and being outpaced by the Xbox, despite the Xbox not selling much in Japan. Sure, the Nintendo 64 had the PS1, Saturn, and Dreamcast to contend with, but only the PS1 proved to be significant competition during its run.

 

The PS2 basically obliterated everything. The original XBox seemed "bigger" than it actually was, mostly because Microsoft was bleeding billions literally to make it look like a giant. In the end, the XBox sold 24 million units to the GameCube's 22 million. Neither were remotely close to the 140 million the PS2 moved.

[DracIsBack]

On the topic at hand, I echo many of the posters here. Atari imploded because of a whole bunch of business issues, a market crash, growth issues etc. It takes a lot to 'kill' a company really. Unless they are horrifically managed across so many levels, they don't suddenly 'close shop' typically. They usually downsize, change strategies, get bought etc long before this ever happens.

 

Nintendo has a good balance sheet with lots of cash and no real long term debt. They're also actually relatively small compared to the revenue they generate. I think maybe 3,000 headcount total. They're also a seriously popular software developer. I mean frig - there are games on the Wii U that sold millions of copies even though it only had a base of 14M users. They have tremendously popular IP.

 

I think the chances that of them having an "ability to continue is a going concern" warning is so unbelievably minute, it's not even worth thinking of.

[carlsson]

Also where is Namco on the list? I did notice you included Bandai, but Namco is the more famous of the two for creating Pacman. You should include arcade companies as well, and game developers, and any pre merger subsidiaries if both parents were producing game machines or software before the merger.

 

For instance, I would consider Namco/Bandai, Hudson/Konami, Square/Enix, etc separate companies when used in a historical context.

I based my list on companies producing or manufacturing some sort of hardware for a video gaming console experience at home. Bandai has released a few such systems, Namco seems to be more about software and perhaps arcade hardware not intended for your livingroom. Hudson and Konami would fall in the same category.

 

(I also excluded strictly computer manufacturers like Sinclair, Tandy, Digital/Compaq/HP, Sun, IBM, Apple which was mentioned later etc)

 

But since you asked:

 

Namco: June 1955

Konami: March 1969

Hudson Soft: May 1973

Enix: September 1975

Square: September 1983 (the two merged in April 2003)

 

There may be more video game software companies you want to add to the list, but very few that have been around since 1975, even less 1889 which is a date both Nintendo and the fanbois tend to be proud to point out even if there was no such thing as video games in the late 19th century.

Edited January 26, 2017 by carlsson

[Schizophretard]

I'm not thinking anything nearly as clever as that. I just wonder how many people there are like us, because the plural of anecdote is not data.

 

Each time they've redone a handheld, they've fixed a problem or added enough new functionality to make it a worthwhile upgrade for me. Color, backlighting/internal battery, nicer external shell/screen, faster CPU.

 

Except for the DSi, that early eShop screwed the pooch compared to what was later available on the 3DS. It makes you wonder what a 2019 Switch hardware bump could be? Better battery life, increased specs, bigger screen?

 

Other than things like new bundles, new Joy-Cons, new colors including the console itself and dock, etc. I doubt there would be a Switch 2 in only two years. I think it would be timed closer to somewhere around when the PS5 and XBOX ONE TWO comes out and/or after the average phone specs are of that of the Switch's so that a new Switch would still be at least in the middle between home consoles and cell phones just as it is positioning itself now. I think 2019 would be closer to when the New 3DS would be entirely discontinued and right before it is discontinued the last variant on the market would be another budget 2DS targeting young children with New 3DS specs called the New 2DS. After that is discontinued the budget entry level/young children's version of Nintendo gaming wouldn't be Nintendo hardware at all but Nintendo's mobile games. In other words, near the end of life for the 3DS line there would be the Nintendo mobile games and the New 2DS for the budget and children under 7 methods for Nintendo gaming but then it will eventually be just Nintendo mobile games for both of those and the Switch. So, eventually there will only be mobile for young children and to give a budget taste of what you could get from a Switch or Switch 2.

 

Anyway, I would suspect that a Switch 2 would have a better customized Tegra chip(maybe even announced soon after Nvidia reveals its non-customized version so that it can ride the hype train and show that the Switch is running on state-of-the-art technology), more RAM, bigger battery, more internal storage and/or already come with a micro SD card, full backwards compatibility with all games and Joy-Cons, a higher resolution screen for handheld mode, a higher resolution for TV mode, and the introduction of a new mode to give it more differentiation from the original Switch than just higher specs(VR mode with the console being docked in a headset and using Joy-Cons with HD Rumble for controls).

[Andromeda Stardust]

oldest company may mean a lot with traditional goods and services, in high tech you want to look for the younger ones shaking up the scene

As a video gaming company, Nintendo didn't really come on the scene until the late 70s when it transitioned from electromechanical games to video...

 

 

Oh there totally is, it was a launch game.

http://www.nintendolife.com/reviews/2011/03/ridge_racer_3d_3ds

 

I just wish it were in the eShop, so I don't have to handle a cartridge, like an ape.

I actually like to hold onto my games. After the servers go dark, a data error or a fart in the wind and all your precious "digital" games are lost forever.

 

 

 

You don't sell 100 million consoles and nearly a billion games over six years if it's a 'fad'. 'Fads' die out quickly, typically in months.

I think the motion controls were very much a fad, which is why I'm somewhat surprised Nintendo is putting as much emphasis on gimmicky motion controls as they are with Switch. Sony pretty much dropped PS Move (although it has limited use with the VR gear) and MS basically abandoned the Kinect 2 add on.

 

I based my list on companies producing or manufacturing some sort of hardware for a video gaming console experience at home. Bandai has released a few such systems, Namco seems to be more about software and perhaps arcade hardware not intended for your livingroom. Hudson and Konami would fall in the same category.

 

(I also excluded strictly computer manufacturers like Sinclair, Tandy, Digital/Compaq/HP, Sun, IBM, Apple which was mentioned later etc)

 

But since you asked:

 

Namco: June 1955

Konami: March 1969

Hudson Soft: May 1973

Enix: September 1975

Square: September 1983 (the two merged in April 2003)

 

There may be more video game software companies you want to add to the list, but very few that have been around since 1975, even less 1889 which is a date both Nintendo and the fanbois tend to be proud to point out even if there was no such thing as video games in the late 19th century.

Okay thanks for sharing. Sometimes partnerships were important as well, like with Hudson partnering with NEC to produce the Turbografx/PC Engine. In reality, the machine was an outlet for Hudsonsoft games, much as Nintendo platforms are an outlet for Nintendo games. Irregardless of actual founded date, Nintendo has been doing home console games longer than anyone still in the business. Atari is dead but Namco and Sega still live on in software as well as Japanese arcades, since the arcade culture is still very much alive despite being on life support in the United States.

 

There are basically three categories of arcade games: pinball, video, and redemption machines. The former two categories, I am very much interested in. The latter, I couldn't give too poops about. Sadly most arcades that survived the late 90s crash are glorified ticket dispensers.

[Schizophretard]

schizo well said on that big ass post. I was thinking along those lines as well. You can't alienate who is there, and even more who you wish were there in the future. The insiders who make things for it (or can) know it to be the successor of both, that it's a dockable handheld. It would be suicide to sell it as that currently. It would decimate the 3DS space they have developed which has probably a good 2 years left in it, perhaps more depending how they want it to play out (perhaps as the 'budget' handheld eventually.) They do want the WiiU a forgotten rotten nightmare of a memory and to do that, kill it off, kill the support since it bombed hard, and be all about Switch Switch Switch being the new system that you can pick up and carry if you like (like WiiU off TV play mode, but far less stupidly handled.)

 

Once the WiiU is dead and a memory, Switch moves into that 10M and up sold number, then I could see them change message casually so it's less noticed by people already in, but more by those who sat on the fence as 3DS gets long in the tooth. They can go, well we pitched it as a console, but it really is a thing you can carry everywhere. Maybe not in a pocket, but it's a tablet gamers wet dream of a gaming system would be the direction to go with it. This could suck in those Nintendo handheld followers like myself who haven't caught on what they're up to already (or those who wait on price drops hoping they happen which WiiU never did.) From there it grows more as you get the handheld types in. The pricing structure is already present with the physical game library as the prices go as low as $30-40 and up to the console level of $60, so the variety is there. Stuff like SF2 or even Binding of Isaac would be your pick up and play, Bomberman R would fall in the middle, then your console shtick would be your Zelda, Mario, Skyrim types we know of that suck you in big time.

 

I don't think they would have to change much in marketing to make it obvious that it is also a 3DS successor. On Nintendo's sites it is already marketed with things like:

 

"Switch & Play"

 

"Nintendo Switch is a home video game console. You connect it to your television to play games. But what sets it apart is when you want to play away from your TV you can remove it from the dock, get up, and go."

 

"TV Mode..., Tabletop Mode..., Handheld Mode... Local Multiplayer..."

 

"Freedom to have fun. Wherever. Whenever."

 

"Nintendo Switch is designed to go wherever you do, transforming from home console to portable system in a snap. So you get more time to play the games you love, however you like."

 

"Dock your Nintendo Switch and play in HD. Heading out? Take your game with you in handheld mode."

 

"Stay. Go. Your way. Highway. Face off. Team up."

 

So, I think the hybrid message is clear that it is a Wii U and 3DS successor. I just think the message in interviews and the official message will change like it did with the Game Boy Advance and the DS by going from,"The Switch and 3DS can coexist. The 3DS has a long life ahead of it." to the actual truth,"Of course the Switch is a 3DS successor. That was always the case."

 

I also think that since most people either didn't know the Wii U even existed or thought it was an upgraded accessory for the Wii that Nintendo will gloss over and hide under the rug the Wii U by making the Switch seem to be to the general public a direct Wii successor with better HD Rumble motion controls, or that the Wii U actually was an upgraded Wii accessory, and/or the Switch is a Wii U replacement that is now the Wii successor instead of the Wii U for those who do know what the Wii U is so that no one really notices that there was a flop in the middle. To use another Nintendo flop as an example, where in the line of Game Boy predecessors and successors does the Virtual Boy fit in?

 

I will add I don't agree on Nintendo lying about sales numbers using the up to 8 users per Switch as a model to push people to say 'this many play' or 'make games for us we have X users' (when it it a lower Y.) They've never done that crap, they actually have historically published their numbers as not even shipped but sold (at least sold to retail outlets who then sell to consumers since they don't sell direct.) Sony was the masters of the bs'n the figures about calling stuff sold when sold was shipped and got caught over it years ago yet still do it because most people don't catch on.

I wasn't saying for Nintendo to lie by ignoring actual console sales and replacing them with the number of user accounts but use the information together. For an example, maybe Nintendo could show a developer that on average a Switch has 4 user accounts mixed between parents and their children to encourage them to make their game have up to four players instead of two because the game looks like a perfect one for parents to play with their kids. Or that there are a lot of Americans with an extra user account set for Japan because they are buying Japanese games from their e-shop and therefore the developer should localize their game for an American version.

[D.Daniels]

I wasn't saying for Nintendo to lie by ignoring actual console sales and replacing them with the number of user accounts but use the information together. For an example, maybe Nintendo could show a developer that on average a Switch has 4 user accounts mixed between parents and their children to encourage them to make their game have up to four players instead of two because the game looks like a perfect one for parents to play with their kids. Or that there are a lot of Americans with an extra user account set for Japan because they are buying Japanese games from their e-shop and therefore the developer should localize their game for an American version.

 

That is good idea. As I don't ever get the feeling games developers ever get time to consider that kind of thing and that their only aware of their development. Even to the point of complete ignorance in my childhood with Double Dragon being 1 player on the Nes and Final Fight being 1 player on the Snes. (bad example, sorry)

Edited January 26, 2017 by D.Daniels

[Schizophretard]

Good analysis, although I obviously don't agree with all of your points. I particularly don't think there will be a PS5 or Xbox Two within the next decade. I think what we're seeing now is what the new normal is, and it's what Nintendo will follow with the Switch should it prove to have a viable market, i.e., incremental, backwards-compatible upgrades that don't make the previous version of the system obsolete for those not ready to upgrade.

 

I doubt that. I don't see different versions of the PS4 all the way up to 2027. That is the SEGA Genesis's upgrade history to the extreme. With the PS2 things were starting to transition from flat screen CRT's to flat panel HDTV's and by the end of life just upgrading from composite cables to component cables was all the upgrading needed. When the PS3 was released people buying HDTV's were in high gear a the video format was switching over to Blu-ray from DVD. So, it released at the right time with the right tech. But with the PS4 before it could finish its life cycle people were already upgrading to 4K, set top boxes were getting 4K, UHD Blu-ray is becoming the new format, VR is becoming a thing, etc. So, this time around Sony and Microsoft didn't have the convenience of all this stuff happening at the end of their life cycles to therefore release next gen consoles and therefore had to race to offer mid-cycle upgrades without screwing over their customers that feel like they already just upgraded to the PS4 and XBOX ONE. So, I think it is more likely for them to learn from these mistakes and when releasing the PS5 and XBOX ONE TWO to make them more future proof for what kinds of trends, formats, technology, etc. would be most likely to be there for an entire console generation instead of doing these mistakes over and over again because eventually their customers are going to get frustrated by wanting true successors to get hyped up about or their customers would just go to PC's and/or Steam Machines if that is what they are already being offered anyway.

 

Nintendo already kind of does that with their handhelds but instead of doing something like requiring Game Boy Color games to work on the Game Boy fans are satisfied enough with them being clear successors with just full backwards compatibility. Because with backwards compatibility there is less of a sense of being screwed and actually more incentive to upgrade sooner rather than later anyway because you can take your whole library forward with you. This results in all the consoles in the Game Boy line being a clear line of successors while also each being an upgrade on a platform because Game Boy Advance can play everything back to the original Game Boy. The same with the whole DS/3DS line. So, I think it is likely that Nintendo will keep with this tradition of clear Switch successors with full backwards compatibility but nothing like the new games have to work on all the previous models.

 

I also think that Switch successors won't have to come out at the same pace that phones are upgraded. With phones developers have to develop games to reach the most phones which means they have to develop them at mid-range or lower specs. So, they can't push the games to high end specs. The Switch doesn't have that problem. Developers can push the specs right away and they also only have to deal with the bugs of one piece of hardware and optimize for one piece of hardware instead of many. So, by the time that the low-range to mid-range specs of the average phone is of that of the Switch's the Switch could have been out for a few phone upgrade cycles. Then Nintendo releases a Switch 2 with another high end Tegra chip that phones have to spend years to catch up to again.

 

 

Also, although Nintendo said the Switch (or NX as it was known at the time) was not intended as a replacement for the Wii U or 3DS, everyone, except perhaps the most delusional fan, thought otherwise. Of course it was a replacement for the Wii U, which was clearly never going to regain any momentum, and it's ultimately going to be a replacement for the 3DS. We'll no doubt continue to see fewer and fewer releases for the 3DS until sales for the actual hardware slow to a trickle (following more of a Wii lifecycle wind-down than a Wii U abrupt ending). I think the Switch will be one of many causes of that. So yes, I agree that although Nintendo is saying what they have to now (and what any company says so as not to sabotage sales of existing products), it's clear that the plan all along was to replace the aging 3DS as well. You simply don't have two products existing in (prime market) parallel for very long that serve many of the same functions/target consumers.

Agreed.

 

And again, one of Nintendo's weaknesses has always been delivering software on a reliable schedule, which is particularly important when third party support is weak. The best way to eliminate that weakness is to focus on a single platform, rather than multiple platforms. That's one of the easier potential ways for Nintendo to ultimately find success with the Switch, which is to finally eliminate the type of software droughts they've suffered for generations now. That was almost certainly a major factor in developing the Switch the way they did.

Agreed again. With only one console to support they could potentially not just make games of their most popular franchises but every one of their franchises, multiple games for each franchise, a lot more HD remakes of past games in the franchises, and many brand new franchises. They could cover all the bases so well to cater to every Nintendo game fan that many of them don't even notice rather or not it is getting good third party support. It could become the most Nintendoed Nintendo that Nintendo has ever Nintendoed.

[BillLoguidice]

 

I doubt that. I don't see different versions of the PS4 all the way up to 2027. That is the SEGA Genesis's upgrade history to the extreme. With the PS2 things were starting to transition from flat screen CRT's to flat panel HDTV's and by the end of life just upgrading from composite cables to component cables was all the upgrading needed. When the PS3 was released people buying HDTV's were in high gear a the video format was switching over to Blu-ray from DVD. So, it released at the right time with the right tech. But with the PS4 before it could finish its life cycle people were already upgrading to 4K, set top boxes were getting 4K, UHD Blu-ray is becoming the new format, VR is becoming a thing, etc. So, this time around Sony and Microsoft didn't have the convenience of all this stuff happening at the end of their life cycles to therefore release next gen consoles and therefore had to race to offer mid-cycle upgrades without screwing over their customers that feel like they already just upgraded to the PS4 and XBOX ONE. So, I think it is more likely for them to learn from these mistakes and when releasing the PS5 and XBOX ONE TWO to make them more future proof for what kinds of trends, formats, technology, etc. would be most likely to be there for an entire console generation instead of doing these mistakes over and over again because eventually their customers are going to get frustrated by wanting true successors to get hyped up about or their customers would just go to PC's and/or Steam Machines if that is what they are already being offered anyway.

 

Nintendo already kind of does that with their handhelds but instead of doing something like requiring Game Boy Color games to work on the Game Boy fans are satisfied enough with them being clear successors with just full backwards compatibility. Because with backwards compatibility there is less of a sense of being screwed and actually more incentive to upgrade sooner rather than later anyway because you can take your whole library forward with you. This results in all the consoles in the Game Boy line being a clear line of successors while also each being an upgrade on a platform because Game Boy Advance can play everything back to the original Game Boy. The same with the whole DS/3DS line. So, I think it is likely that Nintendo will keep with this tradition of clear Switch successors with full backwards compatibility but nothing like the new games have to work on all the previous models.

 

I also think that Switch successors won't have to come out at the same pace that phones are upgraded. With phones developers have to develop games to reach the most phones which means they have to develop them at mid-range or lower specs. So, they can't push the games to high end specs. The Switch doesn't have that problem. Developers can push the specs right away and they also only have to deal with the bugs of one piece of hardware and optimize for one piece of hardware instead of many. So, by the time that the low-range to mid-range specs of the average phone is of that of the Switch's the Switch could have been out for a few phone upgrade cycles. Then Nintendo releases a Switch 2 with another high end Tegra chip that phones have to spend years to catch up to again.

 

I disagree. There's no reason to think that both Sony and Microsoft can't continue to update the PS4 and Xbox One lines for even the next decade. Even the classically volatile PC market has stabilized dramatically over the last few generations, meaning a decent PC bought five years ago can still run most games. There's no real need for a radical architecture shift anymore, which is why consoles are now employing in-generation upgrades.

 

So, given what Sony and Microsoft are doing, what's already happened in the PC world, what the norm is in mobile, what Nintendo has classically done with their handhelds, and the specific architecture of the Switch, in my opinion there's every reason to believe there will be a Switch Pro, Switch Plus, or whatever you want to call it within a few years. There would be no reason not to. All the same software would still work the same on the 2017 model, it would just perform better on the newer model. That's no different than docked and undocked modes now.

 

Sure, at some point, there may indeed be a need for a line-in-the-sand for a PS5, Xbox Next, or Switch NG, but I think the "new" business model leaves a lot of flexibility before that needs to happen. And such systems may not even need a new name, it may just be as simple as releasing software that is clearly labeled of what model it works on and/or what features are supported. So, indeed, we could have a PS4, Xbox One, or Switch model that stands alone from the ones before it. Arguably, the only real reason to call it something new is if there's a need due to brand fatigue, much like what happened with the Wii/Wii U, which is more of a marketing issue than a technical one.

[adamchevy]

 

The PS2 basically obliterated everything. The original XBox seemed "bigger" than it actually was, mostly because Microsoft was bleeding billions literally to make it look like a giant. In the end, the XBox sold 24 million units to the GameCube's 22 million. Neither were remotely close to the 140 million the PS2 moved.

Just goes to prove that money can always help it look "Bigger".

[BillLoguidice]

Just goes to prove that money can always help it look "Bigger".

 

It still sold what it sold and, more importantly, positioned Microsoft for the future, and much greater success with the Xbox 360. Plenty of other companies pumped tons of money into a console (or something equivalent) and had to pull out because there ended up being no future path. And again, to be fair to Microsoft, they not only started from zero in terms of IP, but didn't do much in Japan. Nintendo didn't have that same type of liability, so credit where credit is due.

[D.Daniels]

 

I disagree. There's no reason to think that both Sony and Microsoft can't continue to update the PS4 and Xbox One lines for even the next decade. Even the classically volatile PC market has stabilized dramatically over the last few generations, meaning a decent PC bought five years ago can still run most games. There's no real need for a radical architecture shift anymore, which is why consoles are now employing in-generation upgrades.

 

So, given what Sony and Microsoft are doing, what's already happened in the PC world, what the norm is in mobile, what Nintendo has classically done with their handhelds, and the specific architecture of the Switch, in my opinion there's every reason to believe there will be a Switch Pro, Switch Plus, or whatever you want to call it within a few years. There would be no reason not to. All the same software would still work the same on the 2017 model, it would just perform better on the newer model. That's no different than docked and undocked modes now.

 

Sure, at some point, there may indeed be a need for a line-in-the-sand for a PS5, Xbox Next, or Switch NG, but I think the "new" business model leaves a lot of flexibility before that needs to happen. And such systems may not even need a new name, it may just be as simple as releasing software that is clearly labeled of what model it works on and/or what features are supported. So, indeed, we could have a PS4, Xbox One, or Switch model that stands alone from the ones before it. Arguably, the only real reason to call it something new is if there's a need due to brand fatigue, much like what happened with the Wii/Wii U, which is more of a marketing issue than a technical one.

 

I think that's the mistake if the industry goes this way as the beauty of both was a choice, back in the late 90's/ early to mid 00's PC's were constantly needing upgrading but it allowed PC gamers to have regularly updated hardware, where as the benefit of consoles was one box you can use for 4 to 5 years, without upgrading or worrying about performance issues. The idea that console games can have a higher spec version and lower spec is not a good idea, I just want a console as a all in one box until the proper next generation. Plus Nintendo have proven with a Zelda 3DS title that if you have the older DS the performance is not as solid. That's a headache considering console prices are still high for the current gen, the PS4 is now only about £220 in the UK. If the prices could be dropped then I wouldn't mind so much.

Just goes to prove that money can always help it look "Bigger".

 

but I guess the loss worked as it set up the 360, like a stepping stone....just an expensive one

Edited January 26, 2017 by D.Daniels

[Flojomojo]

Just goes to prove that money can always help it look "Bigger".

There's an economics thesis, or at least an interesting think piece in that idea. How much, exactly, did Microsoft spend per user, or per console, to become the major player in the living room video game scene that they are now? It's totally quantifiable, just like how they spent $15 per user when they bought Skype for $8 billion.

 

There's a point in the lifespan of the Xbox 360 when they finally made a profit, and I presume they're still in the black now. They stuck with it for a LONG time and ate a LOT of losses to get there.

 

This is a tough business.

[Austin]

Even the New 3DS? I feel that was a real slap to anyone who had already purchased a 3DS. A bigger screen is one thing; exclusive games (granted, only a few... but then that's a dick move in it's own way) and SNES compatibility is another. Still annoyed about that one.

 

The 3D on the *new* 3DS is way better than on the original.

[DracIsBack]

 

It still sold what it sold and, more importantly, positioned Microsoft for the future, and much greater success with the Xbox 360. Plenty of other companies pumped tons of money into a console (or something equivalent) and had to pull out because there ended up being no future path. And again, to be fair to Microsoft, they not only started from zero in terms of IP, but didn't do much in Japan. Nintendo didn't have that same type of liability, so credit where credit is due.

 

For sure. i think many people don't realize that the Xbox was very much a longterm strategy to break into something they'd never done. They spent billions more than they ever earned to set the stage for the future.

 

But the by-product, I think, is that some remember the original XBox as being far bigger than it actually was. through the years, I've seen many references to GameCube being a "distant third" while the "PS2 and XBox were neck and neck".

 

Reality was not that. The PS2 obliterated everything sales wise. The Xbox and GameCube were neck and neck for that far far far far distant second place spot.

[Tanooki]

I also think that since most people either didn't know the Wii U even existed or thought it was an upgraded accessory for the Wii that Nintendo will gloss over and hide under the rug the Wii U by making the Switch seem to be to the general public a direct Wii successor with better HD Rumble motion controls, or that the Wii U actually was an upgraded Wii accessory, and/or the Switch is a Wii U replacement that is now the Wii successor instead of the Wii U for those who do know what the Wii U is so that no one really notices that there was a flop in the middle. To use another Nintendo flop as an example, where in the line of Game Boy predecessors and successors does the Virtual Boy fit in?

 

I wasn't saying for Nintendo to lie by ignoring actual console sales and replacing them with the number of user accounts but use the information together. For an example, maybe Nintendo could show a developer that on average a Switch has 4 user accounts mixed between parents and their children to encourage them to make their game have up to four players instead of two because the game looks like a perfect one for parents to play with their kids. Or that there are a lot of Americans with an extra user account set for Japan because they are buying Japanese games from their e-shop and therefore the developer should localize their game for an American version.

 

I think we're on the same page, just needed to hash out the details. The WiiU you're on the nose with it. My experience at multiple store locations, rambling people at retail or flea markets, many seem to think WiiU was a Wii acceossory to play Wii off the TV and the blue games were made for it using the panel. I ran into moron retail teens/adults who for a good 2 years into the device would tell someone asking 'what is that' that it was a Wii accessory and they'd say stuff like cooo, wow that's expensive for an accessory, etc stuff like that. Nintendo has no bloody clue how to message stuff well to those who need to make it clear the most. They did it with alienating gamers on Wii with targeting grandma and non-gamers around, and on WiiU making it look like a beefed up Wii with a tablet that ran in HD instead of a new system. The Virtual Boy according to them I think it's supposedly a console. I think they wanted to market it as a portable, but they never did get around to making a neck strap and found it was too heavy to do that anyway with the 90s tech period. I'd almost think they'd wish it was forgotten but then they dig it up in some game every few years apart as a display piece or something.

 

I read you wrong on the other, it makes sense this way you're explaining it now. The other way just seemed like a devious way to puff up sales numbers to get people on board, while this wording here makes it clear it's to show you get 1 system sold perhaps, but you get 4 people on it and 3 of them would want your game. The Japanese bit probably is a given since they finally got over their cowardly streak brought on by the scary internet and the DSi, region locking is removed finally after like 10 years. I intend to exploit that too if something shows up we get hosed out of just as I used to do so heavily with Super Famicom in the 90s, Famicom these days a bit, and over time the whole handheld line too.

[Schizophretard]

I disagree. There's no reason to think that both Sony and Microsoft can't continue to update the PS4 and Xbox One lines for even the next decade. Even the classically volatile PC market has stabilized dramatically over the last few generations, meaning a decent PC bought five years ago can still run most games. There's no real need for a radical architecture shift anymore, which is why consoles are now employing in-generation upgrades.

 

I'm not saying they can't. I'm just saying that I think it was things like 4K, UHD Blu-ray, VR, etc. that made it necessary for them to release brand new consoles mid-cycle but since it would have made the generation too short it also made it necessary to market them as just upgrades to the current consoles while also requiring the new games to work on the old consoles. But I also think it will go the other way around where the generation will start to seem too long with gamers not tolerating PS4 still being a modern console in 2027 and developers of new games in 2027 not tolerating being forced to make their games work on the 2027 model of the PS4 all the way down to the 2013 model.

 

Once it gets to something like 3 or 4 models of the PS4 near 2027 after the base model and a game on the last model has to work from the most recent model all the way down to the base model then it isn't a business model that is allowing gamers with the base model to upgrade at their own pace anymore. It is more like developers that want to create games that push the specs of a 2027 PlayStation being forced to make the same game on the same disc or discs work on a console that is becoming retro.

 

Imagine that by 2027 there are 8K TV's and a format for it higher than UHD Blu-ray. Let's just call it Super UHD Blu-ray. Rockstar creates another GTA with a world map many times bigger than the current GTA5. Now without these unending incremental updates that require games to work all the way back to the base model PS4 there could be a PS5 that uses these Super UHD Blu-rays that could fit this game on it. But the base model PS4 doesn't use those discs. So, with the incrementally updated PS4 of 2027 to get the game to run on it and the base model PS4 may require many discs. If there were a PS5 they could make loading screens at reasonable times like going across a bridge from one of these massive islands to another. But since the incrementally updated PS4 of 2027 games have to work on the base model PS4 instead of loading screens at reasonable times between islands it could be loading times within sections of these massive islands because the base model PS4 can't handle these massive islands.

 

There could be all kinds of complicated development issues like that which would limit what the developers could do on the most current console because it has to also work on a console that normally would be considered a generation or more behind. The same for designing the modern console itself because it has to have a design that is kind of like backwards compatibility but in reverse because it doesn't have to just run past games but the present games have to run on the past consoles.

 

So, given what Sony and Microsoft are doing, what's already happened in the PC world, what the norm is in mobile, what Nintendo has classically done with their handhelds, and the specific architecture of the Switch, in my opinion there's every reason to believe there will be a Switch Pro, Switch Plus, or whatever you want to call it within a few years. There would be no reason not to. All the same software would still work the same on the 2017 model, it would just perform better on the newer model. That's no different than docked and undocked modes now.

 

I agree what Sony and Microsoft are doing are incremental updates but I doubt they are intended to go indefinitely or even as long as they can stretch them for. I think they are just requiring developers to support the base models so that the owners of the base models won't feel screwed by feeling like a console generation was too short but would release a next generation console when it has been long enough. For an example, I could see something like this becoming a norm: PS4, PS4 Pro, PS5, PS5 Pro, PS6, PS6 Pro, etc. where the Pro models happen within the middle of a generation and developers have to support the base model of each generation but not the developers for the PS6 Pro having to support the base model PS4.

 

In the PC world developers aren't required to make their games work on the earliest PC's.

 

Mobile developers aren't required to make their games work on the earliest of smart phones.

 

Nintendo hasn't classically done this with their handhelds. Game Boy Color games don't work on the Game Boy and Game Boy Advance games don't work on both. The same with the DS/3DS line. They just offer backwards compatibility while the developers only had to make games for the current model.

 

I see a big different with docked and undocked modes now. There is a big difference between going from a high to low mode than having the Switch with handheld mode and TV mode, Switch Pro with handheld mode and TV mode, Switch Plus with handheld mode and TV mode, and then the games coming out for the Switch Plus having to support all 6 of those modes from Switch Plus TV mode all the way down to Switch handheld mode. Think of it this way, there is already concerns about potentially not being enough power to get third party support. So, pretend that Switch Plus has caught up to the power of what Sony and Microsoft are offering but to put a game on Switch Plus requires supporting all of these 6 modes down to Switch handheld mode. Did they really catch up to what Sony and Microsoft are offering? I would say no because the developers aren't being asked to just port to the new Switch Plus but are also still being asked to port to the old and outdated original Switch instead of just pushing the hardware of the most recent Switch Plus.

 

Sure, at some point, there may indeed be a need for a line-in-the-sand for a PS5, Xbox Next, or Switch NG, but I think the "new" business model leaves a lot of flexibility before that needs to happen. And such systems may not even need a new name, it may just be as simple as releasing software that is clearly labeled of what model it works on and/or what features are supported. So, indeed, we could have a PS4, Xbox One, or Switch model that stands alone from the ones before it. Arguably, the only real reason to call it something new is if there's a need due to brand fatigue, much like what happened with the Wii/Wii U, which is more of a marketing issue than a technical one.

I can agree to some flexibility. But I think developers don't have a lot of flexibility because if they were willing to design games to run on the most resent model's specs and the outdated specs of a model 2 or 3 steps back then power should have never been an issue for Nintendo losing third party support.

 

I think if there is still a PS4 in 2027 with no PS5 in sight only because there are some people that need over a decade before upgrading to a next generation then there would be a lot of brand fatigue for the majority of gamers that are just ready for a PS5 where developers are allowed to push the specs without having to limit their games by having to also design their games around also running on the base model PS4.

[zzip]

 

 

You don't sell 100 million consoles and nearly a billion games over six years if it's a 'fad'. 'Fads' die out quickly, typically in months.

 

It did die out fairly quickly. The later years of the Wiis life were rather bleak compared to the early excitement.

[Gentlegamer]

 

I ran into moron retail teens/adults who for a good 2 years into the device would tell someone asking 'what is that' that it was a Wii accessory and they'd say stuff like cooo, wow that's expensive for an accessory, etc stuff like that. Nintendo has no bloody clue how to message stuff well to those who need to make it clear the most.

 

[adamchevy]

 

I'm not saying they can't. I'm just saying that I think it was things like 4K, UHD Blu-ray, VR, etc. that made it necessary for them to release brand new consoles mid-cycle but since it would have made the generation too short it also made it necessary to market them as just upgrades to the current consoles while also requiring the new games to work on the old consoles. But I also think it will go the other way around where the generation will start to seem too long with gamers not tolerating PS4 still being a modern console in 2027 and developers of new games in 2027 not tolerating being forced to make their games work on the 2027 model of the PS4 all the way down to the 2013 model.

 

Once it gets to something like 3 or 4 models of the PS4 near 2027 after the base model and a game on the last model has to work from the most recent model all the way down to the base model then it isn't a business model that is allowing gamers with the base model to upgrade at their own pace anymore. It is more like developers that want to create games that push the specs of a 2027 PlayStation being forced to make the same game on the same disc or discs work on a console that is becoming retro.

 

Imagine that by 2027 there are 8K TV's and a format for it higher than UHD Blu-ray. Let's just call it Super UHD Blu-ray. Rockstar creates another GTA with a world map many times bigger than the current GTA5. Now without these unending incremental updates that require games to work all the way back to the base model PS4 there could be a PS5 that uses these Super UHD Blu-rays that could fit this game on it. But the base model PS4 doesn't use those discs. So, with the incrementally updated PS4 of 2027 to get the game to run on it and the base model PS4 may require many discs. If there were a PS5 they could make loading screens at reasonable times like going across a bridge from one of these massive islands to another. But since the incrementally updated PS4 of 2027 games have to work on the base model PS4 instead of loading screens at reasonable times between islands it could be loading times within sections of these massive islands because the base model PS4 can't handle these massive islands.

 

There could be all kinds of complicated development issues like that which would limit what the developers could do on the most current console because it has to also work on a console that normally would be considered a generation or more behind. The same for designing the modern console itself because it has to have a design that is kind of like backwards compatibility but in reverse because it doesn't have to just run past games but the present games have to run on the past consoles.

 

 

I agree what Sony and Microsoft are doing are incremental updates but I doubt they are intended to go indefinitely or even as long as they can stretch them for. I think they are just requiring developers to support the base models so that the owners of the base models won't feel screwed by feeling like a console generation was too short but would release a next generation console when it has been long enough. For an example, I could see something like this becoming a norm: PS4, PS4 Pro, PS5, PS5 Pro, PS6, PS6 Pro, etc. where the Pro models happen within the middle of a generation and developers have to support the base model of each generation but not the developers for the PS6 Pro having to support the base model PS4.

 

In the PC world developers aren't required to make their games work on the earliest PC's.

 

Mobile developers aren't required to make their games work on the earliest of smart phones.

 

Nintendo hasn't classically done this with their handhelds. Game Boy Color games don't work on the Game Boy and Game Boy Advance games don't work on both. The same with the DS/3DS line. They just offer backwards compatibility while the developers only had to make games for the current model.

 

I see a big different with docked and undocked modes now. There is a big difference between going from a high to low mode than having the Switch with handheld mode and TV mode, Switch Pro with handheld mode and TV mode, Switch Plus with handheld mode and TV mode, and then the games coming out for the Switch Plus having to support all 6 of those modes from Switch Plus TV mode all the way down to Switch handheld mode. Think of it this way, there is already concerns about potentially not being enough power to get third party support. So, pretend that Switch Plus has caught up to the power of what Sony and Microsoft are offering but to put a game on Switch Plus requires supporting all of these 6 modes down to Switch handheld mode. Did they really catch up to what Sony and Microsoft are offering? I would say no because the developers aren't being asked to just port to the new Switch Plus but are also still being asked to port to the old and outdated original Switch instead of just pushing the hardware of the most recent Switch Plus.

 

I can agree to some flexibility. But I think developers don't have a lot of flexibility because if they were willing to design games to run on the most resent model's specs and the outdated specs of a model 2 or 3 steps back then power should have never been an issue for Nintendo losing third party support.

 

I think if there is still a PS4 in 2027 with no PS5 in sight only because there are some people that need over a decade before upgrading to a next generation then there would be a lot of brand fatigue for the majority of gamers that are just ready for a PS5 where developers are allowed to push the specs without having to limit their games by having to also design their games around also running on the base model PS4.

Current Indie developers do this all the time. Thinking of indie, maybe Tanglewood will show up on the switch. That would be great.

Edited January 27, 2017 by adamchevy

[Flojomojo]

Reformatted for emphasis

I'm not saying they can't. I'm just saying that I think it was things like 4K, UHD Blu-ray, VR, etc. that made it necessary for them to release brand new consoles mid-cycle but since it would have made the generation too short it also made it necessary to market them as just upgrades to the current consoles while also requiring the new games to work on the old consoles. But I also think it will go the other way around where the generation will start to seem too long with gamers not tolerating PS4 still being a modern console in 2027 and developers of new games in 2027 not tolerating being forced to make their games work on the 2027 model of the PS4 all the way down to the 2013 model.

Once it gets to something like 3 or 4 models of the PS4 near 2027 after the base model and a game on the last model has to work from the most recent model all the way down to the base model then it isn't a business model that is allowing gamers with the base model to upgrade at their own pace anymore. It is more like developers that want to create games that push the specs of a 2027 PlayStation being forced to make the same game on the same disc or discs work on a console that is becoming retro.

Imagine that by 2027 there are 8K TV's and a format for it higher than UHD Blu-ray. Let's just call it Super UHD Blu-ray. Rockstar creates another GTA with a world map many times bigger than the current GTA5. Now without these unending incremental updates that require games to work all the way back to the base model PS4 there could be a PS5 that uses these Super UHD Blu-rays that could fit this game on it. But the base model PS4 doesn't use those discs. So, with the incrementally updated PS4 of 2027 to get the game to run on it and the base model PS4 may require many discs. If there were a PS5 they could make loading screens at reasonable times like going across a bridge from one of these massive islands to another. But since the incrementally updated PS4 of 2027 games have to work on the base model PS4 instead of loading screens at reasonable times between islands it could be loading times within sections of these massive islands because the base model PS4 can't handle these massive islands.

There could be all kinds of complicated development issues like that which would limit what the developers could do on the most current console because it has to also work on a console that normally would be considered a generation or more behind. The same for designing the modern console itself because it has to have a design that is kind of like backwards compatibility but in reverse because it doesn't have to just run past games but the present games have to run on the past consoles.

I agree what Sony and Microsoft are doing are incremental updates but I doubt they are intended to go indefinitely or even as long as they can stretch them for. I think they are just requiring developers to support the base models so that the owners of the base models won't feel screwed by feeling like a console generation was too short but would release a next generation console when it has been long enough. For an example, I could see something like this becoming a norm: PS4, PS4 Pro, PS5, PS5 Pro, PS6, PS6 Pro, etc. where the Pro models happen within the middle of a generation and developers have to support the base model of each generation but not the developers for the PS6 Pro having to support the base model PS4.

In the PC world developers aren't required to make their games work on the earliest PC's.

Mobile developers aren't required to make their games work on the earliest of smart phones.

Nintendo hasn't classically done this with their handhelds. Game Boy Color games don't work on the Game Boy and Game Boy Advance games don't work on both. The same with the DS/3DS line. They just offer backwards compatibility while the developers only had to make games for the current model.

I see a big different with docked and undocked modes now. There is a big difference between going from a high to low mode than having the Switch with handheld mode and TV mode, Switch Pro with handheld mode and TV mode, Switch Plus with handheld mode and TV mode, and then the games coming out for the Switch Plus having to support all 6 of those modes from Switch Plus TV mode all the way down to Switch handheld mode. Think of it this way, there is already concerns about potentially not being enough power to get third party support. So, pretend that Switch Plus has caught up to the power of what Sony and Microsoft are offering but to put a game on Switch Plus requires supporting all of these 6 modes down to Switch handheld mode. Did they really catch up to what Sony and Microsoft are offering? I would say no because the developers aren't being asked to just port to the new Switch Plus but are also still being asked to port to the old and outdated original Switch instead of just pushing the hardware of the most recent Switch Plus.

I can agree to some flexibility. But I think developers don't have a lot of flexibility because if they were willing to design games to run on the most resent model's specs and the outdated specs of a model 2 or 3 steps back then power should have never been an issue for Nintendo losing third party support.

 

I think if there is still a PS4 in 2027 with no PS5 in sight only because there are some people that need over a decade before upgrading to a next generation then there would be a lot of brand fatigue for the majority of gamers that are just ready for a PS5 where developers are allowed to push the specs without having to limit their games by having to also design their games around also running on the base model PS4.

That's an awful lot of words for a completely hypothetical situation ... or did I miss the place where Sony stated that their current console generation is expected to last for fifteen years?

 

Did Nintendo promise that the Nintendo Switch would be their last platform ever? I think I missed that, too.

 

Then again, with the end of Moore's Law coming soonish, maybe we should get used to the idea of the end of computing progress as we know it. I thought this was a good long read on the subject: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/26/vanishing-point-rise-invisible-computer