New Nintendo Console Debuting At E3 This June, Launching In 2012 Update: New Details

[smartpatrol]

I thought the biggest reason Nintendo stuck with cartridges was to keep loading times down.

Regardless, I think it's pretty obvious that gaming history would be drastically different had Nintendo went with CD-ROM for N64. N64 would've done to PSX what PS2 did to Dreamcast.

 

[alent1234]

you could be right, back in those days it was $500 or so for a cd burner and the discs were expensive

 

[Aikouka]

Optical discs were revolutionary not only for their size, but their cost of manufacturing. The majority of money now went to fund the development instead of the physical game. That alone completely changed game development.

I remember back in the days of the SNES and Genesis where a "larger than normal" game would also command a much larger than normal price tag. I think it was Phantasy Star IV for the Genesis that cost around $80 new. I recall that tag in Toys-R-Us (remember the tag system for getting games?) standing out like a sore thumb.

 

[purbeast0]

I remember back in the days of the SNES and Genesis where a "larger than normal" game would also command a much larger than normal price tag. I think it was Phantasy Star IV for the Genesis that cost around $80 new. I recall that tag in Toys-R-Us (remember the tag system for getting games?) standing out like a sore thumb.

yea I remember that as well.

i remember on some N64 games you could actually feel the physical weight on the games were heavier than the ones with less memory in them.

 

[BD2003]

I remember back in the days of the SNES and Genesis where a "larger than normal" game would also command a much larger than normal price tag. I think it was Phantasy Star IV for the Genesis that cost around $80 new. I recall that tag in Toys-R-Us (remember the tag system for getting games?) standing out like a sore thumb.

IIRC, strider for the genesis was $80, because it had the first 8 megabit cartridge (1 megabyte, less than a floppy). I think I paid $90 for street fighter 2 on the snes when it first came out, and that was only 2 megabytes.

N64 games early on were regularly $70 and above. With inflation that would probably be well over $100 in today's dollars. Ps1 games were often $40 and under new.

 

[akugami]

CD-ROM was the stated reason why Squaresoft jumped to PSX and didn't release a single game on N64 (prior to PSX they had supported Nintendo systems exclusively).

That alone is probably the SINGLE biggest mistake Nintendo has ever made. If N64 used CD-ROMs, they likely would've crushed the competition easily.

For Square, size was an issue, for most others, Nintendo being close to two years late and how much of a pain in the ass Nintendo was to deal with was the reason.

Are you serious? I own dozens of downloadable games for PS3 and 360, many of which exceed 512MB. Not to mention game demos, DLC, and full game downloads.

I consider that to be an enormous selling point, and it's only going to become more important with the next generation IMO.

Maybe it's my age. I find most of the games to be lackluster and shallow on my PS3 and Xbox 360. Granted I've been finding most games on all 3 consoles to be a bit on the lackluster side. The downloadable games almost universally have no appeal and it's mostly the retro games which don't take much space that has interested me.

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this one, it's just my opinion but I don't think I'm alone in that regards. I just don't see any games that pull me in as new and interesting. We're seeing the same recycled stuff regardless of whether it is sold as a download or on physical media. The use of downloading has not improved gaming in any meaningful way. It's mainly used as another delivery medium and a way to nickel and dime gamers.

It also still doesn't change the fact that the large internal storage has actually been a negative in certain respects. And it still doesn't change the fact that internal storage isn't exactly used differently from how it is being used on a PC.

360 and PS3 already do offer full, retail, disc-based games for purchase as downloads. Not to mention Steam on PC/Mac. Apparently millions of people disagree with your statement.

The USA ranks 25th in broadband speed. The overwhelming majority of users are on slower internet lines that are perfectly fine for browsing the web and downloading some content like purchased MP3's but a "full sized" game is not it. Maybe in certain smaller countries where it is easier to set up a fast internet to most homes but in large countries like Canada, USA, and China the internet speeds aren't that great to the majority of users. Furthermore, just because faster speeds are available does not mean the consumer will choose the faster plans which are usually pricier. So while I'm sure millions of Mac & PC users have fast internet connections, hundreds of millions of other people in the US have shitty connections (relatively speaking) that would make downloading large 5+ GB games a pain in the ass.

So I stand by my comment that just because MS & Sony wants to do so doesn't mean the majority of users can take advantage of it in a timely manner. And that's what my comment was about. Not whether MS or Sony wants to offer you large downloadable games but whether the majority of users would be able to download games in a timely manner. This was in direct response to the other person's comment that he thinks MS & Sony are ready to go on a major push selling full sized downloaded games alongside physical media.

 

[alent1234]

not a big deal, turn on console at night, start download, go to sleep. or let it run during the day while you're at work.

i'm on 15mbps or so but if i went back to 800kbps DSL i would do the above and wouldn't lose much except netflix

the slow internet people are on DSL because they have direct TV and don't want to pay for cable. in NYC Time Warner Cable's cheapest internet is 15mbps

either way i'm going to be buying disk games just for the resale value and trade value. i usually get rid of a game after playing and get another one

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Interesting if true.....but skeptical

"According to an unnamed source speaking to Develop, development kits for a new Microsoft console are in the offices of one of EA's studios. The source, which does not work for either EA or Microsoft, had no specific information about the hardware except that it came in a PC shell and was shipped to EA last month.

That little information is actually enough to rule out the updated Xbox 360 dev kits revealed last month, since those come in Xbox-shaped cases. The source believes ("but did not have certain information," Develop disclaims) the new console will launch at the end of 2012, which would put it in direct competition with the Wii successor, and, if true, would make an E3 reveal seem likely (again, to compete with the new Nintendo console)."

joystiq.com

 

[BD2003]

Interesting if true.....but skeptical

"According to an unnamed source speaking to Develop, development kits for a new Microsoft console are in the offices of one of EA's studios. The source, which does not work for either EA or Microsoft, had no specific information about the hardware except that it came in a PC shell and was shipped to EA last month.

That little information is actually enough to rule out the updated Xbox 360 dev kits revealed last month, since those come in Xbox-shaped cases. The source believes ("but did not have certain information," Develop disclaims) the new console will launch at the end of 2012, which would put it in direct competition with the Wii successor, and, if true, would make an E3 reveal seem likely (again, to compete with the new Nintendo console)."

joystiq.com

I don't think they're going to let nintendo just steal the show. They're going to mention they got something cooking, even if it won't see the light of day anytime soon.

 

[alent1234]

Not like you can just build a console in a year or two. The dev kits and launch games will take 2-3 years. Ms and sony probably had something in the pipeline for the last year or two at the minimum

 

[BD2003]

They could make it happen if they wanted to. I remember playing 360 games at e3 2005 - they ran like garbage, because even 4-6 months out, they weren't running on final hardware, but preliminary dev kits. They didn't even settle on 512mb of ram until very late in development. Oblivion was developed for years without knowing the final specs of the 360. A lot of work can be done and code written between now and launch without final hardware. They could easily launch next holiday just starting from scratch, and they're definitely NOT starting from scratch.

Neither Sony or MS want to see nintendo get a foothold. You think it was a mere coincidence the ps3 and the wii launched the same weekend? Problem was those systems were priced so radically different they were hardly comparable. But two systems near in price but highly divergent in power because MS may be willing to subsidize it a bit...that would be a different story.

This is definitely shaping up to be a crazy e3. Anything could happen.

 

[smartpatrol]

Wouldn't it be crazy for Nintendo to announce a new system that's slightly more powerful than the 360, with easy cross-platform development with the 360 as a selling point. . . and then MS immediately announces their next gen system that's an order of magnitude more powerful 🙂

It'll be an interesting E3, that's for sure. If MS have dev kits out there, some idea of the final specs, and a pretty plastic case to show off, then I wouldn't be surprised to see something about their next-gen system at E3. Regardless, I'm sure Sony and MS will both announce a new system prior to the launch of Nintendo's console, just to try and take the wind out of Nintendo's sails.

 

[Sureshot324]

Wouldn't it be crazy for Nintendo to announce a new system that's slightly more powerful than the 360, with easy cross-platform development with the 360 as a selling point. . . and then MS immediately announces their next gen system that's an order of magnitude more powerful 🙂

That's probably what will happen but I don't think it's really going to hurt Nintendo. The Wii 2 isn't going to be as powerful as xbox 720/ps4 whether they release it now or at the same time as ms/sony. It's better to release ~2 years early and enjoy being the most powerful console for 2 years than to wait and have better but still inferior hardware.

It should be much easier to port games from xbox720/ps4 to Wii2 than it was to port from xbox360/ps3 to Wii, because the Wii was basically gamecube hardware, but the Wii2 will be current gen.

 

[HeXen]

then again they may do something completely radical....onlive anyone?
hey its possible and would allow cheaper hardware and use whatever server power they wanted or could even upgrade server hardware for better looking games in the future without the need to have people upgrade their personal systems.
Onlive hardware costs only $99...i'm sure nintendo could do $199 with some advanced wii like remotes, still profit and theoretically may never have to make a whole new console ever again.

They say onlive works decently well, the lack of true HD isnt of any immediate concerns considering and theoretically could be something that's future proof from a consumers standpoint. Braudband is well adapted and despite the many that don't, shouldnt hurt Nintendo but could actually push it into more homes because of...kinda like how Apple can push new trends with a single product.

granted most gamers probably don't like the idea of cloud gaming, but time will solve that and if done right, could actually be pretty decent. its different enough, small enough and cheap enough to become a new trend. no discs, no downloads, no fancy hardware...i like that idea

 

[reallyscrued]

then again they may do something completely radical....onlive anyone?
hey its possible and would allow cheaper hardware and use whatever server power they wanted or could even upgrade server hardware for better looking games in the future without the need to have people upgrade their personal systems.
Onlive hardware costs only $99...i'm sure nintendo could do $199 with some advanced wii like remotes, still profit and theoretically may never have to make a whole new console ever again.

They say onlive works decently well, the lack of true HD isnt of any immediate concerns considering and theoretically could be something that's future proof from a consumers standpoint. Braudband is well adapted and despite the many that don't, shouldnt hurt Nintendo but could actually push it into more homes because of...kinda like how Apple can push new trends with a single product.

granted most gamers probably don't like the idea of cloud gaming, but time will solve that and if done right, could actually be pretty decent. its different enough, small enough and cheap enough to become a new trend. no discs, no downloads, no fancy hardware...i like that idea

Very interesting concept but I'm dead opposed to the idea. I want to be able to game without an internet connection, or be able to download something while gaming and not have to deal with ping spikes, or game when my net connection drops suddenly, etc. Plus people who deal with bandwidth caps are going to have concerns.

I hope Nintendo doesn't go this route or this will be a console of theirs I will not buy.

 

[tommo123]

plus a lot of people look for other entertainment when there's no net connection/tv. with onlive if your cables down you're SOL.

anyways, it'll work for some games to a point but not at all for the COD fans, twitch fps players. it'll be too laggy.

the only reason companies are even looking at onlive is the promise of 0% piracy.

 

[HeXen]

Very interesting concept but I'm dead opposed to the idea. I want to be able to game without an internet connection, or be able to download something while gaming and not have to deal with ping spikes, or game when my net connection drops suddenly, etc. Plus people who deal with bandwidth caps are going to have concerns.

I hope Nintendo doesn't go this route or this will be a console of theirs I will not buy.

people are always apposed to something different, but look how well Steam is no doing, look how well the ipad is doing, yet the idea was heavily debated at first. Marketing and design strategy is key. Give people something they don't even realize they want yet.

however some of the most played games and most popular are what?....online games. Also price points sell, IF you could sell a console for $99-$199 that had graphics of the best $5000 PC rigs at 60fps, maybe play the game on your cell phone or 3d DS...would you consider it then?
not that its likely to outdo PC's initially, but the idea of investing in one particular hardware without having to upgrade yet still see graphics get better and better from server upgrades would certainly be a major thing that many average folks would want. it gives developers a huge amount of freedom and they could basically make any game as graphically powerful or as simple as they wanted. i don't know exactly how Onlive does their server or hardware configs, but if something like that is popular enough, the sky could be the limit.

its all about the marketing and a big company like Nintendo could market it and make its own niche at the very least. problem with Onlive is most people never hear about them, they don't really market it much at all and its basically just PC games, so there is no incentive for PC gamers and they don't have any major exclusive titles like Nintendo,Sony, MS would have.

 

[reallyscrued]

people are always apposed to something different, but look how well Steam is no doing, look how well the ipad is doing, yet the idea was heavily debated at first. Marketing and design strategy is key. Give people something they don't even realize they want yet.

however some of the most played games and most popular are what?....online games. Also price points sell, IF you could sell a console for $99-$199 that had graphics of the best $5000 PC rigs at 60fps, maybe play the game on your cell phone or 3d DS...would you consider it then?
not that its likely to outdo PC's initially, but the idea of investing in one particular hardware without having to upgrade yet still see graphics get better and better from server upgrades would certainly be a major thing that many average folks would want. it gives developers a huge amount of freedom and they could basically make any game as graphically powerful or as simple as they wanted. i don't know exactly how Onlive does their server or hardware configs, but if something like that is popular enough, the sky could be the limit.

its all about the marketing and a big company like Nintendo could market it and make its own niche at the very least. problem with Onlive is most people never hear about them, they don't really market it much at all and its basically just PC games, so there is no incentive for PC gamers and they don't have any major exclusive titles like Nintendo,Sony, MS would have.

I think you missed my point. I very much appreciate and acknowledge that the business model exists and has room to grow, but I personally don't like the idea of gaming over the internet for every single game when it otherwise wouldn't be a requirement. Ping times during downloading, internet outages, bandwidth caps, you haven't addressed any of those points.

Steam is a digital delivery system, and it works in offline mode. I would be all for digital downloads for the next gen. (Or current gen, or whatever everyone is classifying the new Nintendo system as)

 

[BD2003]

people are always apposed to something different, but look how well Steam is no doing, look how well the ipad is doing, yet the idea was heavily debated at first. Marketing and design strategy is key. Give people something they don't even realize they want yet.

however some of the most played games and most popular are what?....online games. Also price points sell, IF you could sell a console for $99-$199 that had graphics of the best $5000 PC rigs at 60fps, maybe play the game on your cell phone or 3d DS...would you consider it then?
not that its likely to outdo PC's initially, but the idea of investing in one particular hardware without having to upgrade yet still see graphics get better and better from server upgrades would certainly be a major thing that many average folks would want. it gives developers a huge amount of freedom and they could basically make any game as graphically powerful or as simple as they wanted. i don't know exactly how Onlive does their server or hardware configs, but if something like that is popular enough, the sky could be the limit.

its all about the marketing and a big company like Nintendo could market it and make its own niche at the very least. problem with Onlive is most people never hear about them, they don't really market it much at all and its basically just PC games, so there is no incentive for PC gamers and they don't have any major exclusive titles like Nintendo,Sony, MS would have.

This is the great fallacy of onlive - that you'll actually get high quality, comparable to a high end gaming rig. Just because the rig isnt in your house doesnt mean it doesnt need to exist in order for you to play. The cloud isnt a mythical realm of unlimited cpu resources. There is the possibility of more optimal use of those resources since not everyone is playing all the time, but the last thing I want is that in someone else's hands.

Look at nearly every mmo launch ever - they're always painful and never work on day one because there's never enough resources to go around, and everyone is trying to play at once. They'll never be able to maintain the equivalent of super high end rigs for everyone, not at a reasonable cost. The current onlive version doesn't even run current PC games at full settings.

In the end you'll still get a subpar experience in exchange for the low price people want to pay. Maybe there will be an upsell for higher quality. But just how the manufacturers didn't give back the savings on optical media vs cartridges, and don't give back the savings on digital distribution, they won't on the cloud either. It might be convenient, but its not going to magically solve all the problems and make super high end gaming super cheap. Absurd.

 

[Tom]

yea, if the world goes that way it'll be to combat piracy, not to make better games.

And then the pirates will bring down the cloud, ala PSN.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

CD-ROM was the stated reason why Squaresoft jumped to PSX and didn't release a single game on N64 (prior to PSX they had supported Nintendo systems exclusively).

That alone is probably the SINGLE biggest mistake Nintendo has ever made. If N64 used CD-ROMs, they likely would've crushed the competition easily.

There's a ton of "what if"s from that generation though. I think the 4kb texture cache was the biggest technical shortcoming of the system, not the storage media (which comes in at a close 2nd). But look back over the specs on the N64, it was a fillrate monster (at a time when fillrate was king). Given a reasonable sized texture cache (maybe some slightly spiffed up T&L performance, which off memory seemed to be quite low) and hell, even if it went with the 64DD discs at launch instead of carts it would have been a real winner. At the same time, had the saturn gone with a triangle based rendering setup it might have been a beast as well.

 

[lamedude]

The Nintendo required Z buffer killed the fillrate though.
Back on topic, IGN built their own Wii2.
Remember, you can't spell ignorant without IGN.