The official Nintendo NX rumours and wild speculation thread

[Lil Frier]

Yeah, I've gotta go with cmdrdrredd heavily on the voice chat thing. I play CoD and Halo online without my headset. Heck, the major reasoning for that is it's the typical route taken by people--there's very little communication in those games, same for Titanfall. I'd use my headset if that weren't the case, but there's no disadvantage to be had when the vast majority of people don't bother to talk.

Also, Nintendo's lack of voice chat is also a major reason as to why I don't play my Wii U more. If it had voice chat, I'd bother to bring the thing home from my sister's and play online. It's boring playing online without a bit of smack talk in MK8 or SSB. Shoot, the only way I see myself bringing it home is if I have a friend pick up a Wii U. In that case, I'll run it through HDMI pass-through on my Xbox One and party chat with a friend over LIVE while we play the Wii U, as that seems to be the only way to solve the problem right now.

If you don't want your kids to experience foul-mouthed kids on the Internet, there are parental locks. Mute the chat. Take the headset away from the kid. It's not that hard.

 

[JD50]

The disadvantage he's trying to articulate is that you are muted while the other team has the advantage of voice chat. I personally don't take video games serious enough to ever wear a headset, so my team is always at a disadvantage because they have a member who isn't receiving or transmitting voice commands. All other things being equal, if my team doesn't use voice chat and the other team does, the team using voice chat is going to win.

Exactly.

 

[JD50]

Yeah, I've gotta go with cmdrdrredd heavily on the voice chat thing. I play CoD and Halo online without my headset. Heck, the major reasoning for that is it's the typical route taken by people--there's very little communication in those games, same for Titanfall. I'd use my headset if that weren't the case, but there's no disadvantage to be had when the vast majority of people don't bother to talk.

Also, Nintendo's lack of voice chat is also a major reason as to why I don't play my Wii U more. If it had voice chat, I'd bother to bring the thing home from my sister's and play online. It's boring playing online without a bit of smack talk in MK8 or SSB. Shoot, the only way I see myself bringing it home is if I have a friend pick up a Wii U. In that case, I'll run it through HDMI pass-through on my Xbox One and party chat with a friend over LIVE while we play the Wii U, as that seems to be the only way to solve the problem right now.

If you don't want your kids to experience foul-mouthed kids on the Internet, there are parental locks. Mute the chat. Take the headset away from the kid. It's not that hard.

Ok so between you and cmdrdredd we can conclude that no one actually talks about the games they're playing, most people don't talk at all, and there's absolutely no gameplay advantage with voice chat. If you just want to talk to random people about whatever it is you talk about in voice chat there's plenty of options out there for you. https://www.google.com/search?q=random+voice+chat... not trying to be snarky here, if that's really all that you use voice chat for then I really don't understand why it's such a big deal.

I certainly do understand why other people want voice chat in games and there's already 3 platforms that do that really well. I have no problem with people that don't like what Nintendo offers, just go with your other options and stop complaining about Nintendo not being like everyone else. It's good to have different options.

 

[Graze]

You have your reasoning entirely wrong for the death of the Dreamcast. It wasn't that third party developers were pissed because of lack of tools, or easy ports, or insane custom in-house-only constraints of a powerful system. The problem was publishers would not release games for a console that was completely and utterly hacked due to horrible security. There was not a single Dreamcast game that could not be ripped, run through a quick program, and burned to a standard blank DVD and played just like the original disk. Even if you didn't want to "rent" a game to rip it yourself,rips were posted all over the internet for every game released...

That is completely wrong. You need to read up more on SEGA. They were hemorrhaging money they didnt have long before the Dreamcast.

Third parties had their reservations against publishing games for a console they felt was destined to fail. Out the gate EA said they would never support the Dreamcast. This had nothing to do with piracy was said had some major politics involve.
Other third parties released small budget games and never block busters.

Speaking of ripping games. Bleemcast was unrippable up until like probably 5 years ago when they figured out how to do it.

I could right a book on SEGA's history. I know what I am talking about.

You know how I know you dont know what you are talking about? A Dreamcast cant read DVD's. It can only read CD's and GD Roms

 

[Lil Frier]

Ok so between you and cmdrdredd we can conclude that no one actually talks about the games they're playing, most people don't talk at all, and there's absolutely no gameplay advantage with voice chat. If you just want to talk to random people about whatever it is you talk about in voice chat there's plenty of options out there for you. https://www.google.com/search?q=random+voice+chat... not trying to be snarky here, if that's really all that you use voice chat for then I really don't understand why it's such a big deal.

I certainly do understand why other people want voice chat in games and there's already 3 platforms that do that really well. I have no problem with people that don't like what Nintendo offers, just go with your other options and stop complaining about Nintendo not being like everyone else. It's good to have different options.

You missed what I was saying, I think. I'm not saying there isn't a strategic advantage to chat in any scenario. I'm saying that when I go play CoD or Halo or Titanfall, the games have very little communication. It's not to say voice chat is without benefit, it's that the vast majority of people online don't seem to make use of it, so my plugging in my mic doesn't offer an advantage. This particularly applies to Slayer in Halo (what I play over the other games and playlists), as there's much less coordination needed in shooting people, vs. setting up attackers vs. defenders in games like CtF.

The problem with your logic at the end is you assume all consoles hit all points for all people. If the Wii U experiences were similar to the Xbox One, I wouldn't bother with them (the reason I never got into Sony consoles much is that they're quite similar in library to the Xbox One, in many respects). Many of us would get a Wii U as a secondary console (which I did), as it offers top-notch platforming with Super Mario Bros., great arcade racing in Mario Kart, and the rare party game built on violence in Super Smash Bros. I got my Wii U for those unique experiences. Nintendo put online play into those latter two, and I'd play the heck out of them if I could talk to people. Instead, playing online is barely different from playing against A.I. The difficulty is usually higher, but it's otherwise an antisocial experience online.

Giving the Wii U (or the NX) voice chat allows for options. People who want to talk with their friends (either for strategy in something like a SMB platformer or Splatoon, or just to trash talk in things like MK8 or SSB) can do it. Those who don't aren't required. Those who don't want their kids (or themselves) to experience foul-mouthed, immature comments can mute chat or unplug the mic (or both). The difference is that our suggestion doesn't take away your ability to avoid voice chat. you're still able to not engage in it. Your idea limits the choices simply because you're not interested. It's like saying I don't like The Evil Within, so the game shouldn't be sold.

 

[cmdrdredd]

You missed what I was saying, I think. I'm not saying there isn't a strategic advantage to chat in any scenario. I'm saying that when I go play CoD or Halo or Titanfall, the games have very little communication. It's not to say voice chat is without benefit, it's that the vast majority of people online don't seem to make use of it, so my plugging in my mic doesn't offer an advantage. This particularly applies to Slayer in Halo (what I play over the other games and playlists), as there's much less coordination needed in shooting people, vs. setting up attackers vs. defenders in games like CtF.

The problem with your logic at the end is you assume all consoles hit all points for all people. If the Wii U experiences were similar to the Xbox One, I wouldn't bother with them (the reason I never got into Sony consoles much is that they're quite similar in library to the Xbox One, in many respects). Many of us would get a Wii U as a secondary console (which I did), as it offers top-notch platforming with Super Mario Bros., great arcade racing in Mario Kart, and the rare party game built on violence in Super Smash Bros. I got my Wii U for those unique experiences. Nintendo put online play into those latter two, and I'd play the heck out of them if I could talk to people. Instead, playing online is barely different from playing against A.I. The difficulty is usually higher, but it's otherwise an antisocial experience online.

Giving the Wii U (or the NX) voice chat allows for options. People who want to talk with their friends (either for strategy in something like a SMB platformer or Splatoon, or just to trash talk in things like MK8 or SSB) can do it. Those who don't aren't required. Those who don't want their kids (or themselves) to experience foul-mouthed, immature comments can mute chat or unplug the mic (or both). The difference is that our suggestion doesn't take away your ability to avoid voice chat. you're still able to not engage in it. Your idea limits the choices simply because you're not interested. It's like saying I don't like The Evil Within, so the game shouldn't be sold.

Precisely. My problem is that when I play online with randoms people assume that it will be smack talk. I don't think I've ever had that "issue" outside of CoD which I only played casually for a week or so before. Mostly it's people asking if I know such and such hiding spot/secret area/combo/move/location whatever. Then I either show them or they show me and we talk about other strategies to use while we play. "Hey come check this out, you can hide here and they can't shoot you but you can peek out of this crack". Or in the case of Killer Instinct, when the game was new I ended up with a random who was new to fighting games and I was helping him learn combos and combo breakers with Jago(which was the free character at the time)as well as how to use meter. Even I wasn't that good, still aren't and really haven't played that in a while but anyway it wasn't smack talk. When I was playing Destiny daily, I would always use voice chat with fireteams. I had a group of people on my friend list who were on about the same time and we would team up to do the daily missions and bounties and just talk about whatever. Stuff about the game, stuff not about the game but usually gaming related.

Whole point is, it is useful and isn't all people cursing at you like a drunken sailor. Without voice chat some of these games would be much less enjoyable for me. This doesn't even include RL friends who I use voice chat with quite often. Yeah we could use our phones or whatever, but it's much more fun IMO for it to be part of the game or party chat. Especially with an open party chat and our friends join in on occasion to see what's up.

 

[JD50]

It's interesting watching you guys downplay the usefulness and advantages of voice chat while simultaneously saying it's a deal breaker for you when it comes to the Wii U. If people don't talk in voice chat and you don't use it for strategy then who cares? If people do use it for strategy then you are at an obvious disadvantage if you're not on voice chat. The vast majority of people don't use voice chat right? So it really shouldn't be a big deal. I doubt Nintendo lost many MK8 or SSB sales due to lack of voice chat.

If you refuse to buy a game or a system because you can't chat with random people or talk smack... sorry but you're missing out on some great games.

I do agree that voice chat can be fun, but if I want that experience then I'll play games with voice chat. I originally took issue with the notion that Nintendo either doesn't realize that some people want voice chat or that people are too stupid to mute/report players that abuse the chat system. It is clearly something that Nintendo doesn't want in their games right now and I'm perfectly fine with that, there are plenty of other options.

I'm not sure why people are so adamant that Nintendo should compete with Xbox or Playstation, the Wii U is a great complimentary console offering things that the other two consoles don't.

 

[JD50]

It's like saying I don't like The Evil Within, so the game shouldn't be sold.

No it is nothing like that. Am I complaining about games that offer voice chat saying that it should be removed or not sold at all in the first place? I'm saying that I'm perfectly fine with the decision to not include voice chat in certain games.

 

[Lil Frier]

It's interesting watching you guys downplay the usefulness and advantages of voice chat while simultaneously saying it's a deal breaker for you when it comes to the Wii U. If people don't talk in voice chat and you don't use it for strategy then who cares? If people do use it for strategy then you are at an obvious disadvantage if you're not on voice chat. The vast majority of people don't use voice chat right? So it really shouldn't be a big deal. I doubt Nintendo lost many MK8 or SSB sales due to lack of voice chat.

If you refuse to buy a game or a system because you can't chat with random people or talk smack... sorry but you're missing out on some great games.

I do agree that voice chat can be fun, but if I want that experience then I'll play games with voice chat. I originally took issue with the notion that Nintendo either doesn't realize that some people want voice chat or that people are too stupid to mute/report players that abuse the chat system. It is clearly something that Nintendo doesn't want in their games right now and I'm perfectly fine with that, there are plenty of other options.

I'm not sure why people are so adamant that Nintendo should compete with Xbox or Playstation, the Wii U is a great complimentary console offering things that the other two consoles don't.

See, now I can't take you seriously. You're just making things up now. I JUST said that it offers strategic advantage, but the fact many people don't use it in games (especially for strategy) lessens the likelihood that not chatting will hurt your team, from a strategic standpoint, as the rest of the team is rarely talking. It's not a statement that communication is useless. It's a statement that if I plug my headset in, I'm often talking to no one because no one's got a headset in to listen.

Then you change the subject to something that's not even related to the topic. Nintendo should compete with those companies because they're in the same market. That doesn't necessarily mean point-for-point copying them, but it DOES mean that if people are buying game consoles, and you sell game consoles, you should make an effort to draw the attention of as many console buyers as you can. It's basic economics, to a point (losing money on the venture for the sake of quantity isn't smart, for example).

This isn't even about Nintendo vs. the competition, though. This is about fundamental gaming in 2015. Communicating with friends over the Internet is common, and it's desirable. We're not asking for voice chat because our Xboxes do it. We're asking for it because it makes gaming more enjoyable when you can communicate, whether that's to talk game strategy or to do like a couple of my online friends did recently, where 3 of us got in Xbox party chat and talked baseball while two of us played Halo (with strategic communication in-between).

It's not a good thing when I can say that Facebook gaming offers technological advances Nintendo doesn't within gaming.

No it is nothing like that. Am I complaining about games that offer voice chat saying that it should be removed or not sold at all in the first place? I'm saying that I'm perfectly fine with the decision to not include voice chat in certain games.

But you're saying you're fine with not doing what you don't like. I'd be fine with having TEW never come out. The difference is that I'm not bothered by the idea that it DID come out (and I tried it, but didn't like it). You're basically arguing that it shouldn't happen.

 

[Fulle]

On the Voicechat thing...

3rd party devs are able to patch it into their games if they want, but it just creates more work and expenses for them vs competing consoles. Some games have implemented it, though, like Monster Hunter.... BUT, it's just another thing that makes developing for Nintendo platforms more difficult vs MS or Sony.

 

[ImpulsE69]

You have your reasoning entirely wrong for the death of the Dreamcast. It wasn't that third party developers were pissed because of lack of tools, or easy ports, or insane custom in-house-only constraints of a powerful system. The problem was publishers would not release games for a console that was completely and utterly hacked due to horrible security. There was not a single Dreamcast game that could not be ripped, run through a quick program, and burned to a standard blank DVD and played just like the original disk. Even if you didn't want to "rent" a game to rip it yourself, rips were posted all over the internet for every game released...

But in those 2 years there were many more quality games, and more so midrange games than in the longer time these new consoles have been out.

 

[cmdrdredd]

But in those 2 years there were many more quality games, and more so midrange games than in the longer time these new consoles have been out.

I completely disagree. I haven't played as many good games than I have in the past 2-3 years. The dreamcast had more crap than standout titles IMO.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I completely disagree. I haven't played as many good games than I have in the past 2-3 years. The dreamcast had more crap than standout titles IMO.

Just a difference of opinion. But I think there were defining games, which doesn't exist now. I have almost zero reason to get an Xbox one if I have a PC. People keep pointing at Forza...but that is 1 game, and a racing game at that. Probably even less so on PS4 simply because it is lacking in games overall. I'm not saying these consoles don't have good games, I'm saying the # of them is extremely low given the life in comparison. In general those that do exist exist on multiple platforms.

DC had original/interesting and took chances games, whereas everything coming to consoles now is rehash and remakes of the same tired things but watered down even more. If you like the same old same old over and over, then I can understand thinking this generation is great.

 

[Graze]

DC had original/interesting and took chances games, whereas everything coming to consoles now is rehash and remakes of the same tired things but watered down even more. If you like the same old same old over and over, then I can understand thinking this generation is great.

Thanks you!!
With the last generation of consoles I was getting tire of hearing(...not even hearing) about another version of Battlefield or Call of Duty.
Talk about lacking imagination!

 

[Lil Frier]

I completely disagree. I haven't played as many good games than I have in the past 2-3 years. The dreamcast had more crap than standout titles IMO.

I agree here. Near the end of the 360's life, basically from Christmas 2012 until mid-2014, I barely played anything on my 360. It was stints of Halo 4 and Black Ops II, with small bits of BL2 GotY mixed in (mostly because the person I played co-op with was flaky). After getting my Xbox One and Wii U last year, I've played loads of good games exclusive to those systems, or at least this generation. That includes (but isn't limited to) Kart and Smash on the Wii U, and Dying Light, Sunset Overdrive, Shadow of Mordor (the last-gen versions were so bad we won't count them as part of the game, haha), Titanfall, and Halo: TMCC (despite the connection issues for multiplayer, doing co-op campaigns with a friend online was still great).

I mean, I'd go so far as to say Mordor, Sunset, and Dying Light are three of the best games I've played in some time, and for Dying Light, maybe ever. They all had a bit of an issue with the RPG elements, but the gameplay was fluid and fun in all of them, but all were awesome games.

Just a difference of opinion. But I think there were defining games, which doesn't exist now. I have almost zero reason to get an Xbox one if I have a PC. People keep pointing at Forza...but that is 1 game, and a racing game at that. Probably even less so on PS4 simply because it is lacking in games overall. I'm not saying these consoles don't have good games, I'm saying the # of them is extremely low given the life in comparison. In general those that do exist exist on multiple platforms.

I think it's a big matter of perspective. Like, you say Forza is one game, but there are two iterations with very different experiences (plus the Fast and Furious iteration, which was a few hours of stupid fun). Halo is still a quality FPS, but if you don't like it, you just don't, it's whatever. Sunset Overdrive might make a PC appearance, but I'm glad to have played it last year, rather than try to shoehorn it in later.

To me, I think going with a console is great. I don't have to worry about upgrading my PC for new titles if I have an Xbox One. They might not look as good as on PC, but I use a 720p TV right now, so I don't care that much. If I went with PC as my primary platform, I'd need to get a new GPU, and until I start my internship in a couple of months (meaning the 18-month gap from graduation to that internship), I'd have been playing games that ran poorly on my PC. Instead, I make the console the lead platform (where I also have friends to play games with), and the PC handles the exclusives I can't get on Xbox, which mostly means games with low GPU requirements (mostly WoW, C-S:GO, and older titles I didn't get on 360), so I don't have to worry about upgrading hardware to miss out on social experiences.

That's what I experience, though. If your friends are on PC, then definitely make PC the primary platform for you. Still, I think that any of the 3 consoles has enough going for it on the exclusives front to warrant its existence as a complementary platform, if you like what it offers.

 

[Lil Frier]

Thanks you!!
With the last generation of consoles I was getting tire of hearing(...not even hearing) about another version of Battlefield or Call of Duty.
Talk about lacking imagination!

Original/interesting doesn't mean good, though. I didn't have a Dreamcast, but you're also comparing things from 1999 to something released in 2005. Gaming changed a lot from the Dreamcast's release to the 360's end. What might have been original and clunky on Dreamcast might have been redundant and polished on the 360. Simply saying "everything is CoD and BF!" is also selling the VAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAST majority of gaming short, and it's almost insulting to think people would accept that as a real point of contention in these discussions.

I mean, we've had phenomenally polished games on those consoles, and some not-so-much. We've seen iterative shooters to no end, and plenty of things outside of that genre. I mean, look at how the Wii and Kinect tried to make motion gaming mainstream. The former somewhat did, but it mostly mediocre execution, and the hardware limitations of the latter took solid concepts (Kinect Disneyland Adventures, for example) and botched it with bad tracking.

Acting as if there was nothing new or exciting last generation is just blindly making up stuff, and it's dumb.

 

[Graze]

Original/interesting doesn't mean good, though. I didn't have a Dreamcast, but you're also comparing things from 1999 to something released in 2005. Gaming changed a lot from the Dreamcast's release to the 360's end. What might have been original and clunky on Dreamcast might have been redundant and polished on the 360. Simply saying "everything is CoD and BF!" is also selling the VAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAST majority of gaming short, and it's almost insulting to think people would accept that as a real point of contention in these discussions.

I mean, we've had phenomenally polished games on those consoles, and some not-so-much. We've seen iterative shooters to no end, and plenty of things outside of that genre. I mean, look at how the Wii and Kinect tried to make motion gaming mainstream. The former somewhat did, but it mostly mediocre execution, and the hardware limitations of the latter took solid concepts (Kinect Disneyland Adventures, for example) and botched it with bad tracking.

Acting as if there was nothing new or exciting last generation is just blindly making up stuff, and it's dumb.

I am not saying someone should just revamp a Dreamcast title from 1999 for today's consoles. So much has changed that a title that might have appealed to people then might not hold the same appeal now(even if it wasn't done 100 times afterwards).
I didn't say the these console didn't have original titles either.

Yes the Wii did do great things I think in the gaming industry no doubt.I nearly forgot it existed though

 

[ImpulsE69]

Anyone seen this? Interestingly would be a good way for them to go, maybe they should start listening to the people rather than telling the people what they want.

http://www.businessinsider.com/fake...silicon_alley_insider+(Silicon+Alley+Insider)

 

[cmdrdredd]

Streaming? Streaming can be pretty laggy.

Anyway nothing can help them at this point except to change how they do business. New gimmicks and streaming boxes won't help.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Local streaming isn't that laggy. Unless you are playing twitch fighting games it would not be noticeable.

 

[Lil Frier]

I maintain that the NX needs to be a hybrid home/mobile release. Basically, a new home console with a GamePad-like handheld that's actually more like a Vita, meaning it can run the home console's game's natively. There needs to be platform unification. It's what might make Microsoft relevant in the mobile space, and it's what could make Nintendo highly relevant in the home console space. Their games take too long to develop, and splitting their franchises and games across 2 platforms is hurting both libraries.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The absolute drought of games is what hurts most I think. You are right, their games take too long to develop.

 

[darkswordsman17]

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/07/nintendo-execs-talk-vr-downloadable-games-letting-down-fans/

Ugh, this is a new low for Nintendo. Wii U is definitely a failure, and I have a hunch that's why we're seeing a dearth of games for it. Althought that might be good news for the launch of their next system if they have them ready at or near it's launch or space it out so that it has consistent games worth being interested in.

They do confirm the NX is going to be successor for both Wii U and 3DS, although what that means exactly will have to be seen. Are they going to focus on the portable and have a dock or HDMI output (maybe an HDMI stick and then wireless output between the system and TV) to play games on TV, or is it going to be more like the Wii U with the portable just taking the place of the tablet controller. Sounds like it'll be shown off next E3 and I'm guessing it'll be launched later in the year since they say it'll have a "major detailed reveal".

Have to just roll my eyes about their response to E3. Yeah Miyamoto, people find the Wii U really compelling that's why they're still asking "where are the games?" and even you admit it's a failure. And then them acting like VR sucks (it's like they don't realize that having VR doesn't mean it has to be shoehorned onto all games at all times), let alone criticize anyone else at E3.

And definitely sounds like they're planning on selling out and making typical mobile games, and actually maybe even worse since they made a point to say free to start and not free to play (which seems to really indicate they expect everyone to be ponying up money) and even hint that they expect more premium payment because they're Nintendo!

 

[ImpulsE69]

Games. It's about games. Until companies realize this, they will fail. MS finally figured this out somewhat. Nintendo used to know this. Now they rely on their name too much. Sure people love their 1st party IPs, but not everyone loves ALL of their 1st party IPs. At this point there simply is so little compelling reason to buy one unless you love everything they put out.

Even if you did, they always took a long time for new games. They need 3rd party support to fill in those gaps.

 

[mmntech]

The absolute drought of games is what hurts most I think. You are right, their games take too long to develop.

It's a trip back to the N64 days.

The third parties that jumped on the Wii bandwagon bailed hard the second the Wii U started to tank. Most of those games were shovelware anyway, so it's no big loss. However, the drought of games is painful. Nintendo really has too few first and second party studios working for them. Development is slow because they can only work on a handful of games at a time.

Focusing on smaller releases with quick turnovers would help. Like what Sony did with the indie games. Not system sellers, but enough to tie gamers over until the next big release. They've been toying around with that a little bit, but it's a little bit too late. Even VC releases have been painfully slow.