Nintendo DX GPU?

[sxr7171]

Because that is a huge risk for a company that has tried to minimize risks since the Nintendo Wii. If Nintendo puts out a $200 ARM console and it's not a huge success then they probably still made money per unit and they are set to move to a Sega role with easy ports of all that console's games to mobile devices. That path has a clear future. If Nintendo tries to push a top of the line console- aka the kind where they lost a little money per unit the first year or so- if it flops they are FORCED to move to a Sega role without billions left in the bank. That path is unclear.

I mean, the Japanese market is pretty much gone so Nintendo can't rely on that. To compete with the PS4 or Xbone straight on means Westernizing everything to appeal to the largest market that is left. To beat either company at their own game would require some cash spent on the hardware, online play and marketing. You pretty much need Nintendo to be bought by someone like Apple for them to have those kinds of resources. Moving forward with a top tier console is a huge risk without that sort of backing because they probably will have to cut a leg off of that stool (no decent marketing, or decent online play for example).

Plus there is the fact that in order for a console to succeed Nintendo needs help from the third party developers that it has pissed off since the 1980's. They can barely get out simpler Wii U games on schedule now, there is no guarantee that their first party games can carry a more powerful console when each game has an even LARGER budget and resource commitment. And they need more than ports to make their console a real value proposition, they need exclusives made either by them or a third party. That is asking a lot out of 2015's Nintendo.

Honestly I will almost be sad if Nintendo does make a PS4 killer. It will be the company's Dreamcast almost certainly. Give us the $200 ARM box Nintendo and stay alive another decade.

What I don't understand is what will this new ARM console have that the WiiU doesn't have? It's going to be some stupid new gimmick. They need to focus on just making good games. The Wii was successful because it was a good gimmick for the time. I played it for the first year and it mostly collected dust after that. But it sold amazingly well. I think you can play the gimmick card only once. People get wise to it very fast.

 

[Techhog]

Of course better specs will help them sell consoles. I bought a PS4 over an Xbox One for this reason (among other reasons, but this was a major factor). I don't think I'm alone here.

Nintendo still has a very large stockpile of money to pull from. This quote is a little old but still relevant.

"Buried in reams of financial data is the revelation that Nintendo have 812.8 billion Yen (£6.7/$10.5 billion) in the bank - enough for it to take a 20 billion Yen loss (£163/$257 million) every year until 2052.Feb 13, 2012"

They made a profit last quarter, they're not bleeding money. They're not going anywhere, they've been around for 150 years!

Nintendo's challenge is to win back third party developers to make games for their console(s). That's really it. It's a big challenge sure but If they can do that on a game console that outperforms the PS4 and do it at competitive pricing they will sell like crazy.

Remember they have the best first party games and developers in the business. Imagine what they could do with a game console even twice as powerful as a PS4 (this should be easily achieved with a HBM/APU at 14/16nm).

They can't really go ARM (unless mobile) or PPC, they have to go X86 to be on even playing field with Sony and Microsoft. Backward compatibility will probably be thrown out unless they can shoehorn a PPC chip into their design but this would add to cost and is really unnecessary given PPC emulation.

Sure someone could buy them but they would probably cost as much as Disney so good luck with that.

PS4 is the only example of the most powerful console winning in several generations, and even then it's due to a strong brand, undercutting the XBox One at launch and Sony's better first-party output. Unless they can undercut PS4, strengthen their dying brand, and have a very strong launch lineup with heavy advertising, a powerful console will fail. Even if they do all of that, it'll be too late into the generation for them to get new customers on board and they'll be bleeding billions (USD) per year due to being a loss-leader and the spending to get third-party deals and advertising. I'm just being realistic here. This isn't the graphics card market; games sell consoles, not power.

 

[poofyhairguy]

What I don't understand is what will this new ARM console have that the WiiU doesn't have?

Cost one would assume.

The Wii U obviously can't be made cheap enough. Too much of the experience (aka you would break games without it) is tied to an expensive controller no one really wants, and the hardware in the console has a CPU that really only Nintendo still uses. There really isn't the economy of scale needed to make the Wii U the $150 price it SHOULD be in this market to be competitive.

With an ARM console that value proposition flips upside down. Everything in mobile pretty much uses ARM, so as long as they don't get cute with fixed function stuff they can take advantage of the mobile market's economy of scale. That also gives them more opportunities down the road to make the console ever CHEAPER as more than one company can crank out an ARM box.

No Nintendo console should ever be $300+ new ever again. Their target market should be semi casual gamers wanting a primary console and Netflix streamer for their kids, or to be a secondary console for traditional hardcore gamers. Hell just a Roku box with Virtual Console on it would make more money for Nintendo then the Wii U ever did. Retro gaming is huge, time for them to start milking that old IP since they obviously can't make anything new that anyone cares about.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Remember they have the best first party games and developers in the business. Imagine what they could do with a game console even twice as powerful as a PS4 (this should be easily achieved with a HBM/APU at 14/16nm).

That is the REAL problem- Nintendo has made it clear that they are having trouble making the more sophisticated games in-house that modern consoles demand. Hovering over each big Wii U release has been the fear of delays, and here we are talking about a Wii U replacement before the Wii U ever got a single real Zelda or Metroid game. Heck we didn't even get a Mario Galaxy 3 like we should have. Their best developer ever has admitted that they underestimated how hard it would be to make Wii U games:

“When it comes to the scale of software development, Wii U with HD graphics requires about twice the human resources than before.”

“We may have underestimated the scale of this change and as a result, the overall software development took more time than originally anticipated just as we tried to polish the software at the completion phase of development… “

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc...its-nintendo-underestimated-the-switch-to-hd/

And somehow this modern Nintendo that can barely make Wii U games is going to rip off a library of PS4 level games that we can't live without within a timespan that would be relevant? Not happening.

Time to give up the dream, if Nintendo is foolish enough to make a PS4 competitor it will be the last piece of hardware they make. They need to move to ARM ASAP and prepare for the future AFTER the DX when they will at best be a top seller on the iTunes store.

 

[NTMBK]

Cost one would assume.

The Wii U obviously can't be made cheap enough. Too much of the experience (aka you would break games without it) is tied to an expensive controller no one really wants, and the hardware in the console has a CPU that really only Nintendo still uses. There really isn't the economy of scale needed to make the Wii U the $150 price it SHOULD be in this market to be competitive.

With an ARM console that value proposition flips upside down. Everything in mobile pretty much uses ARM, so as long as they don't get cute with fixed function stuff they can take advantage of the mobile market's economy of scale. That also gives them more opportunities down the road to make the console ever CHEAPER as more than one company can crank out an ARM box.

No Nintendo console should ever be $300+ new ever again. Their target market should be semi casual gamers wanting a primary console and Netflix streamer for their kids, or to be a secondary console for traditional hardcore gamers. Hell just a Roku box with Virtual Console on it would make more money for Nintendo then the Wii U ever did. Retro gaming is huge, time for them to start milking that old IP since they obviously can't make anything new that anyone cares about.

Rubbish. As soon as the chip is taped out, ARM "economies of scale" stop making any difference. It's a custom chip, built for a single purpose. Do you think it helps XBox One costs that the PS4 is fabbed alongside it? No! It's a different part, run on different wafers for a different customer. Might as well be a wafer full of MIPS refrigerator microcontrollers, for all the difference it makes.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Nintendo can make more money selling its valuable franchise to all the different platforms. The reason Nintendo even sells HW is because of its franchise of games.

They need to let go of trying to lock people into HW, cash in on the games and you will make 3 times more selling for PS4, Xbox,apple devices.

 

[Techhog]

Nintendo can make more money selling its valuable franchise to all the different platforms. The reason Nintendo even sells HW is because of its franchise of games.

They need to let go of trying to lock people into HW, cash in on the games and you will make 3 times more selling for PS4, Xbox,apple devices.

In theory they would make more money, but in practice you're oversimplifying it. Revenue goes way down no matter what, and they'd require a pretty big restructuring. On top of that, it's actually easier to recover from failed hardware than it is to recover from being a failed third-party, since there's no turning back after that. It could end them if it turns out that their games just don't sell well on other platforms. They'd also likely lose some key relationships like Game Freak (and thus no Pokemon on mobile devices even though that was almost certainly a big thing that you were considering). If it really were as simple and obvious as you think it is, it would have been done already.

 

[sxr7171]

Cost one would assume.

The Wii U obviously can't be made cheap enough. Too much of the experience (aka you would break games without it) is tied to an expensive controller no one really wants, and the hardware in the console has a CPU that really only Nintendo still uses. There really isn't the economy of scale needed to make the Wii U the $150 price it SHOULD be in this market to be competitive.

With an ARM console that value proposition flips upside down. Everything in mobile pretty much uses ARM, so as long as they don't get cute with fixed function stuff they can take advantage of the mobile market's economy of scale. That also gives them more opportunities down the road to make the console ever CHEAPER as more than one company can crank out an ARM box.

No Nintendo console should ever be $300+ new ever again. Their target market should be semi casual gamers wanting a primary console and Netflix streamer for their kids, or to be a secondary console for traditional hardcore gamers. Hell just a Roku box with Virtual Console on it would make more money for Nintendo then the Wii U ever did. Retro gaming is huge, time for them to start milking that old IP since they obviously can't make anything new that anyone cares about.

I agree with $150 as the proper price for a WiiU. But the easy thing to have done is to release the WiiU without that stupid controller. I never use it. I don't even launch games with it because if you do and it dies it's the biggest hassle in the world to get most games to switch out the controller.

This proposition of building a new console will cost them millions. The fact that they abandoned their core consumers by killing the WiiU will cost them even more millions in goodwill and reputation. The fact that a new console has to be marketed and a new fanbase developed will costs millions. Most of the old fanbase is done with them.

Yes I agree a Roku Nintendo Virtual Console would be great. Why not just use an existing ARM box? This hardware business is not for them anymore as they will soon learn.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Do you think it helps XBox One costs that the PS4 is fabbed alongside it? No!

Sure it does. Without the Xbone business AMD needs more profit from the PS4 business to make it worth saying in the console world. By having both allows AMD to take a little less margin on either, and I am sure some process efficiencies that are used for one console make it to the other since they are so similar. This is very different from the Power PC in the Wii U that only Nintendo still uses.

Even if the SoC is custom the console will have other parts that aren't custom. The GPU will be based on some arch that is already out there like GCN. Therefore as general GCN development improves (for example) so does the development for the Nintendo console. We have already seen MS leverage Xbone development resources on the PC. Or as RAM gets cheaper part costs will drop.

 

[sxr7171]

Of course better specs will help them sell consoles. I bought a PS4 over an Xbox One for this reason (among other reasons, but this was a major factor). I don't think I'm alone here.

Nintendo still has a very large stockpile of money to pull from. This quote is a little old but still relevant.

"Buried in reams of financial data is the revelation that Nintendo have 812.8 billion Yen (£6.7/$10.5 billion) in the bank - enough for it to take a 20 billion Yen loss (£163/$257 million) every year until 2052.Feb 13, 2012"

They made a profit last quarter, they're not bleeding money. They're not going anywhere, they've been around for 150 years!

Nintendo's challenge is to win back third party developers to make games for their console(s). That's really it. It's a big challenge sure but If they can do that on a game console that outperforms the PS4 and do it at competitive pricing they will sell like crazy.

Remember they have the best first party games and developers in the business. Imagine what they could do with a game console even twice as powerful as a PS4 (this should be easily achieved with a HBM/APU at 14/16nm).

They can't really go ARM (unless mobile) or PPC, they have to go X86 to be on even playing field with Sony and Microsoft. Backward compatibility will probably be thrown out unless they can shoehorn a PPC chip into their design but this would add to cost and is really unnecessary given PPC emulation.

Sure someone could buy them but they would probably cost as much as Disney so good luck with that.

Let's argue that PS4 and Xbox one are basically the same console. They both have all the same games with literally one or two exclusives each. Not a huge deal. Not different enough for most to care. So naturally picking the most powerful one makes sense. Pretty much all 3rd party games run better on PS4. So it's a logical choice.

With Nintendo it's not a generic console. It is the only console to run Nintendo first party games. The lack of power did not hinder the Wii from being the best selling console of its generation. Nobody bought a Wii or a WiiU thinking the graphics were going to be good enough to melt their face. That was one smart thing Nintendo did 2 generations ago - to drop out of the graphics race. The Gamecube was the last one to hold its own graphically and it was cool and all but did it really matter while playing Pikmin or Animal Crossing? Fzero GX on the other hand was just wow.

As for being around 150 years that might be just it for them. How would they convince 3rd parties to develop for them? Eschew the licensing fee? Meaning no money coming from software. The way console builders do it is by showing them how many installed units they have on the market. 3rd parties have enough to deal with these days. They can release a game on Xbox, PS and PC and be done with it. Nintendo hardware is not worth targeting anymore and short of a miracle that won't change. They might be around doing what they do best - playing cards.

 

[sxr7171]

In theory they would make more money, but in practice you're oversimplifying it. Revenue goes way down no matter what, and they'd require a pretty big restructuring. On top of that, it's actually easier to recover from failed hardware than it is to recover from being a failed third-party, since there's no turning back after that. It could end them if it turns out that their games just don't sell well on other platforms. They'd also likely lose some key relationships like Game Freak (and thus no Pokemon on mobile devices even though that was almost certainly a big thing that you were considering). If it really were as simple and obvious as you think it is, it would have been done already.

Tell that to Sega. They had amazing games for the Dreamcast. Their development was firing on all cylinders. But the hardware business failed and what are they now? A publisher? IP licensor? A symbol? Dead?

Right now Nintendo is turning out to be good for nothing. Can't make decent hardware. Can't apparently make games because 1920x1080 is that much harder to deal with than 854x480?

Their games may not have all the latest graphical features but the Nintendo I remember at least made sure its first party games did not have strong aliasing. They always took care to filter or blur or do what it takes to not show jaggies all over the place.

With the WiiU, when I loaded Wii Sports resort I saw a literal jagfest. It was upsetting enough that I wrote to them about it. Wii Sports resort is such a simple game that a phone from 3 years ago could run it. The fact that they couldn't be bothered to apply any filtering to diagonal lines is telling of how little they care anymore. If you upscaled the original Wii sports to 1080p it would look better than Wii Sports Resort.

Looks like they just can't handle development either anymore. Like a professional athlete is advised to retire while they still have recognition, it looks like Nintendo should just quit while it has a decent reputation. Then they can put out every 3 years: A mario game, a zelda game, a metroid game and a bunch of SSB/MK8 rehashes at will on systems that actually sell.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I agree with $150 as the proper price for a WiiU. But the easy thing to have done is to release the WiiU without that stupid controller. I never use it. I don't even launch games with it because if you do and it dies it's the biggest hassle in the world to get most games to switch out the controller.

That is what MS did to the Kinect, but MS is less stubborn than Nintendo. From what I understand some Wii U games depend on the controller for at least some token things. That makes getting rid of it harder than just starting over without it.

Most of the old fanbase is done with them.

Actually I don't think that is correct. I mean sure Wii U owners will feel burned but they aren't a large group. I see young children wearing Mario shirts all the time, their IP still has INCREDIBLE value. The problem is that their "old fanbase" has grown up and they don't have the time/money to spend big bucks on a console just for some NEStalgia gaming. If they would lower the barrier of entry to get at that old library they could connect with a whole group of people who haven't touch a controller ever since Wii Sports lost its appeal.

Yes I agree a Roku Nintendo Virtual Console would be great. Why not just use an existing ARM box? This hardware business is not for them anymore as they will soon learn.

If I was Tim Cook I would take that billions they are sitting on and I would buy Nintendo. Their software plus an Apple TV would not only demolish the rest of the set top market, but it would probably be one of the fastest selling "consoles" of all time. With those kind of sales you can force the TV companies to play ball (something Apple CANNOT do right now) then they own the video content market like iTunes owns buying songs digitally.

 

[sxr7171]

That is what MS did to the Kinect, but MS is less stubborn than Nintendo. From what I understand some Wii U games depend on the controller for at least some token things. That makes getting rid of it harder than just starting over without it.



Actually I don't think that is correct. I mean sure Wii U owners will feel burned but they aren't a large group. I see young children wearing Mario shirts all the time, their IP still has INCREDIBLE value. The problem is that their "old fanbase" has grown up and they don't have the time/money to spend big bucks on a console just for some NEStalgia gaming. If they would lower the barrier of entry to get at that old library they could connect with a whole group of people who haven't touch a controller ever since Wii Sports lost its appeal.



If I was Tim Cook I would take that billions they are sitting on and I would buy Nintendo. Their software plus an Apple TV would not only demolish the rest of the set top market, but it would probably be one of the fastest selling "consoles" of all time. With those kind of sales you can force the TV companies to play ball (something Apple CANNOT do right now) then they own the video content market like iTunes owns buying songs digitally.

I think the need for the controller can be patched out. Many games won't even start without some online update.

You're right that the IP has value with younger people. But most of them I see are watching the cartoons or playing on handhelds. The console proposition is mostly for older gamers most which are using their console for watching TV or media or playing COD. They would have to cultivate a whole new generation to console based gaming which is very hard when most kids have easy access to games on phones these days. I'd say that even in the 80s kids got consoles because the dads were fascinated by them. You still have to appeal to the older generation for them buy their kids consoles. Parents today can just give their kids a phone or a DS and be done with it.

As for Apple and Nintendo that would be a win-win scenario for both companies. Pretty much any household with an iPhone is a target for Apple TV. In fact I don't see the point of owning one and not the other. Nintendo can still charge $50 for their AAA games even on Apple TV. The Nintendo name has that power. However the new Apple TV (preorders started this morning) will sell with or without Nintendo. But the case for a household having multiple Apple TVs will be strengthened. Nintendo can stay in hardware by making bluetooth accesories for Apple TV. So they can still profit from controllers (the only profitable part of the gaming hardware business) and still keep their IP alive and profitable.

Nintendo would never agree to this without a buyout. They are so stubborn. As it stands I think they are working on a handheld that streams to a TV.

 

[Techhog]

Tell that to Sega. They had amazing games for the Dreamcast. Their development was firing on all cylinders. But the hardware business failed and what are they now? A publisher? IP licensor? A symbol? Dead?

Are you trying to prove my point?

 

[swilli89]

Man it could be so simple. Source the same exact APU as the PS4 with a possible process improvement to reduce size/power consumption. (For some reason since the GameCube Nintendo has been obsessed with small physical footprint).

Design a back to basics "traditional" style controller that would work for FPS as well as platformers.

Strike a deal with Sony to buy or license a version of the PS4 development tools for their in-house developed games. If not.. since its X86 then just go out and tweak one of the many available development tools.

At this point since its pretty much the exact same hardware it doesn't matter if the NX's installed base is smaller compared to the other guys..

Nintendo can sell a few million with their new Zelda on deck and why would EA and the like NOT want to just port over their already developed big hitters? That's why I am really against ARM. Nintendo should perfectly emulate the others in design choices then sweep them with their massively superior first party content.

It just seems so simple to me. PS4 and X1 are going to be here to around 2020 so I see no reason why Nintendo can't just hope on board and finish strong until then.

 

[EarthwormJim]

Nintendo never uses the newest technology. I'll be surprised if they even go for GCN 1.0.

So you didn't even bother to read the article from the first post I take it...

 

[Madpacket]

Man it could be so simple. Source the same exact APU as the PS4 with a possible process improvement to reduce size/power consumption. (For some reason since the GameCube Nintendo has been obsessed with small physical footprint).

Design a back to basics "traditional" style controller that would work for FPS as well as platformers.

Strike a deal with Sony to buy or license a version of the PS4 development tools for their in-house developed games. If not.. since its X86 then just go out and tweak one of the many available development tools.

At this point since its pretty much the exact same hardware it doesn't matter if the NX's installed base is smaller compared to the other guys..

Nintendo can sell a few million with their new Zelda on deck and why would EA and the like NOT want to just port over their already developed big hitters? That's why I am really against ARM. Nintendo should perfectly emulate the others in design choices then sweep them with their massively superior first party content.

It just seems so simple to me. PS4 and X1 are going to be here to around 2020 so I see no reason why Nintendo can't just hope on board and finish strong until then.

+1

As long as you can compile and run the code with very little effort the big players will get on board as it'll cost them very little to do so. ARM or PPC is just silly at this point for a gaming console.

Oh and the Zelda shown at E3 is coming out for the Wii-U next year.

 

[monstercameron]

Man it could be so simple. Source the same exact APU as the PS4 with a possible process improvement to reduce size/power consumption. (For some reason since the GameCube Nintendo has been obsessed with small physical footprint).

Design a back to basics "traditional" style controller that would work for FPS as well as platformers.

Strike a deal with Sony to buy or license a version of the PS4 development tools for their in-house developed games. If not.. since its X86 then just go out and tweak one of the many available development tools.

At this point since its pretty much the exact same hardware it doesn't matter if the NX's installed base is smaller compared to the other guys..

Nintendo can sell a few million with their new Zelda on deck and why would EA and the like NOT want to just port over their already developed big hitters? That's why I am really against ARM. Nintendo should perfectly emulate the others in design choices then sweep them with their massively superior first party content.

It just seems so simple to me. PS4 and X1 are going to be here to around 2020 so I see no reason why Nintendo can't just hope on board and finish strong until then.

Arm cores would probably be better for the NX, lower power consumption and higher ipc (a57 to a72). As for the devs costs, sure low level assembly would have to be rewritten but a lot of higher level code can be easily cross compiled with out much modification. Arm is a very viable option especially in the companion mobile device alleged to be in development.

 

[swilli89]

Arm cores would probably be better for the NX, lower power consumption and higher ipc (a57 to a72). As for the devs costs, sure low level assembly would have to be rewritten but a lot of higher level code can be easily cross compiled with out much modification. Arm is a very viable option especially in the companion mobile device alleged to be in development.

Someone made a great point earlier about the fact that it doesn't benefit Nintendo to have a faster CPU or graphics chip. If the installed base is over tens of millions, there's no way to get devs to make more advanced features for your games.

Add on top of that Nintendo already struggling with high res stuff (a fact I believe is in large part due to their outdated tools, not the higher resolution itself) and you really don't need more compute units/IPC/clockspeed.

Stick with X86 and play the conservative smart win.

 

[Spjut]

Someone made a great point earlier about the fact that it doesn't benefit Nintendo to have a faster CPU or graphics chip. If the installed base is over tens of millions, there's no way to get devs to make more advanced features for your games.

Add on top of that Nintendo already struggling with high res stuff (a fact I believe is in large part due to their outdated tools, not the higher resolution itself) and you really don't need more compute units/IPC/clockspeed.

Stick with X86 and play the conservative smart win.

A more powerful console would still give Nintendo the better multiplats. There already resolution differences between the Xbox One and PS4 versions, there's no reason the NX versions wouldn't always run at 1080p and possibly all on "high" compared to the PS4's mix of medium and high

Increasing the resolution wouldn't require much effort.
For 3rd party studios, more powerful hardware than the PS4 would also supposedly let them port their games quickly and easily, reducing the investment and risk

As long as Nintendo sticks to a GCN-based GPU and x86 CPU, securing 3rd party support should be easy

 

[Techhog]

Someone made a great point earlier about the fact that it doesn't benefit Nintendo to have a faster CPU or graphics chip. If the installed base is over tens of millions, there's no way to get devs to make more advanced features for your games.

Add on top of that Nintendo already struggling with high res stuff (a fact I believe is in large part due to their outdated tools, not the higher resolution itself) and you really don't need more compute units/IPC/clockspeed.

Stick with X86 and play the conservative smart win.

But if the go ARM, they can share development resources and games between the console and handheld. Given everything we know, it's extremely unlikely that NX is just a console. It's most likely a platform consisting of two separate but architecturally similar devices (a handheld and a console). ARM is the only viable option.

 

[Techhog]

Arm cores would probably be better for the NX, lower power consumption and higher ipc (a57 to a72). As for the devs costs, sure low level assembly would have to be rewritten but a lot of higher level code can be easily cross compiled with out much modification. Arm is a very viable option especially in the companion mobile device alleged to be in development.

It's not a "companion" device; it's a handheld that serves as the successor to the 3DS.

 

[sxr7171]

Are you trying to prove my point?

As much as it pains me to say if they made all those great games for PS2 they would still be a developer. Their last hardware foray killed them even though the hardware and software were top notch. The loss of goodwill thanks to abandoning Saturn just put them in a bad position. Even Sega fans waited for the PS2 instead of buying a Dreamcast - they were bitter. This despite the fact that Dreamcast games were better even up to 2 years into the PS2's life.

There really isn't room in the market for a 3rd console anymore. If they even sold $30 iOS/Android games with custom controllers they'd be raking in the dough right now. What's the installed base for iOS and Android? In the billion range. Both platforms seem to have enough DRM to stop piracy. Both systems can "airplay" to cheap little sticks and boxes.

So if they could sell $50 custom controllers and make games they would make money hand over fist with ZERO RISK. Let's face it all those WiiU games would run fine on an iPhone.

 

[sxr7171]

Man it could be so simple. Source the same exact APU as the PS4 with a possible process improvement to reduce size/power consumption. (For some reason since the GameCube Nintendo has been obsessed with small physical footprint).

Design a back to basics "traditional" style controller that would work for FPS as well as platformers.

Strike a deal with Sony to buy or license a version of the PS4 development tools for their in-house developed games. If not.. since its X86 then just go out and tweak one of the many available development tools.

At this point since its pretty much the exact same hardware it doesn't matter if the NX's installed base is smaller compared to the other guys..

Nintendo can sell a few million with their new Zelda on deck and why would EA and the like NOT want to just port over their already developed big hitters? That's why I am really against ARM. Nintendo should perfectly emulate the others in design choices then sweep them with their massively superior first party content.

It just seems so simple to me. PS4 and X1 are going to be here to around 2020 so I see no reason why Nintendo can't just hope on board and finish strong until then.

Adding a SKU costs money. Making and shipping discs to stores costs money. The kind of people who own only a WiiU are typically families with kids.

Let's make just say you can buy Battlefront on Xbox or PS4 or NX. Why buy it on NX? There is no proper online service? Your friends are buying it for one of the "grownup" systems.

What you are saying works in theory, but in practice its too little too late. As it stands I think porting to WiiU is not that hard which is why many games were announced for it and then cancelled. The reasons for cancellation revolved more around the demographic and online issues with the WiiU.

If anything I don't understand why they abandoned a perfectly good console. They will suffer for it. I think they will have burned so many adult fans that they will steer their kids away from any Nintendo console. Maybe buy them a handheld at most. This NX will be like Dreamcast but probably not as good as the Dreamcast was. It will be some stupid gimmick they give up on again in 2 years.

 

[sxr7171]

Arm cores would probably be better for the NX, lower power consumption and higher ipc (a57 to a72). As for the devs costs, sure low level assembly would have to be rewritten but a lot of higher level code can be easily cross compiled with out much modification. Arm is a very viable option especially in the companion mobile device alleged to be in development.

They have so much experience with ARM since every handheld except the first one was ARM based. Coding for ARM cores is not new to them at all.