Nintendo about to announce Wii successor

[sureLoss]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2011-04-25-nintendo.htm

No details about the as-yet-unnamed video game system were announced, but a working model will be shown at the upcoming Electronic Entertainment Expo in June in Los Angeles. The system arrives for sale at stores in 2012.
The video game company announced plans for the new game console Monday, along with the financial results for its fiscal year that ended March 31. The Wii remains the top-selling video game system; Nintendo has sold 86 million Wiis since 2006. But recently, sales have declined, resulting in the firm’s second year of disappointing financial results.


This might be a make it or break it point for Nintendo. The Wii saved the company, but now the PS3 and Xbox360 offer similar ways to interact with games.

Any ideas as to what they might come up with?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Wii 3D?

[3 Justin 3]

Nintendo is a little late to the party here, well 5 years late really.

The processor is similar to the 360's (3 core), the GPU is a bit better than the PS3 (I think the 360's is better though). The console will be similar size to the old 360's not the new slim ones.

The only really different thing than the PS3 and 360 is that the controller will have a touch screen in it. That will also push the price of the controller up to $100 rather than $60 (rumors suggest anyway, unless Nintendo wants to take a hit on costs).

[The Yen Man]

That'd be nuts if they made the controller $100. Imagine buying 3 extra controllers. That's $300 bucks right there. Too rich for my blood.

[kirant]

I'm curious if Nintendo will go to quality systems. The Wii was a great novelty, but surrendered lots of graphics. Now that the 360 and PS have decided to follow the leader per se, does that mean the Wii will try to use that time to make up for lost time?

[SebC]

The first Wii missed the HD bandwagon, will this one be missing 3D?

[Sr. Mints]

I'm still not convinced 3D in your home is going to take off anytime soon. Unless a way to incorporate it into people's already-existing setup is found.

[SebC]

I'm still not convinced 3D in your home is going to take off anytime soon. Unless a way to incorporate it into people's already-existing setup is found.That will happen. A frame-sequential 3DTV has virtually no cost to producers over 2D 120 Hz TV. The only reason 3DTVs cost more is because of the novelty factor - it's a price discrimination feature on premium models. However, the premium has already dropped considerably. As it nears zero, you'll see less and less TVs sold that don't support 3D.

[Sr. Mints]

That will happen. A frame-sequential 3DTV has virtually no cost to producers over 2D 120 Hz TV. The only reason 3DTVs cost more is because of the novelty factor - it's a price discrimination feature on premium models. However, the premium has already dropped considerably. As it nears zero, you'll see less and less TVs sold that don't support 3D.


I've heard that, but how often do people replace their TVs, I wonder.

[corporatejay]

I've heard that, but how often do people replace their TVs, I wonder.


Now? Probably every 5 years.

[JayP]

There's a ton of leaked info on all the gaming sites.

The big thing is that the controller is basically a tablet. It has the standard dual-analog, triggers, etc, but there's a 6" touch screen in the middle that can be used away from the system as well (to stream movies, etc.)

And it's way to early to be talking about the specs. There's some sources saying it's slightly better than the PS3/360, but some (namely IGN) are saying that it's significantly better. Until the sources start to all start saying the same thing it's all just here-say at this point.

[TurnedTheCorner]

So not interested in Nintendo anymore. I was a loyal fan for almost 13 years, but I've moved on. They'll do well, they always do.

[SebC]

I've heard that, but how often do people replace their TVs, I wonder.And I've head what you said before, about HD. HD started slow too... but you can't buy a TV today that doesn't have it. A top end TV today costs less than a top end TV 5 years ago. The obstacles to turnover are lower. In 2008, you could get a nice 42" for $1500. If, in 2012, that $1500 gets you a 60" that happens to also have 3D... you don't think people might upgrade?

[Sr. Mints]

Regardless if the new Nintendo has 3D capability, I highly look forward to hearing more about it.

The main reason I love Nintendo is their games. When they pull out their big guns (which is not often enough), they rarely disappoint me.

They've totally dropped the ball with online gaming, though. To play Mario Kart against other people without split screen would be one of the greatest things ever.

And I've head what you said before, about HD. HD started slow too... but you can't buy a TV today that doesn't have it. A top end TV today costs less than a top end TV 5 years ago. The obstacles to turnover are lower. In 2008, you could get a nice 42" for $1500. If, in 2012, that $1500 gets you a 60" that happens to also have 3D... you don't think people might upgrade?

I don't know. I was thinking more in terms of the next generation of video games--specifically Nintendo--and whether 3D would be a selling point. Seems to me new consoles are put out every 4-7 years; are enough people going to have a 3D TV for it to really matter?

But if the cost to include 3D abilities in the next Nintendo is as cheap as it is for TVs now, then it isn't such a big gamble to include it, I suppose.

[Madman]

New name - the Wiinis.

7VXg65OYhG8

[Russic]

Nintendo is a little late to the party here, well 5 years late really.

The processor is similar to the 360's (3 core), the GPU is a bit better than the PS3 (I think the 360's is better though). The console will be similar size to the old 360's not the new slim ones.

The only really different thing than the PS3 and 360 is that the controller will have a touch screen in it. That will also push the price of the controller up to $100 rather than $60 (rumors suggest anyway, unless Nintendo wants to take a hit on costs).

86 million wii's disagree with you. I'm on your side, the wii isn't for me and frankly I find touch/motion games obnoxious. Nintendo has learned an interesting lesson though that if they focus on a different demographic (one that doesn't consider their gaming a serious hobby) they can make a lot of money.

The problem with this thinking is obvious though. My mom might buy your system, but she's a fickle game fan. You can't expect her to re-up and show you brand loyalty.

IMO Nintendo needs to REALLY focus on what made the wii so successful, and in my mind that is the illusion that it was ultra affordable. Make your system cheap to purchase and make it very group friendly. I know many people that spent more on their wii than they did their ps3 or 360 just because they wanted 4 controllers out the gate and they wanted all the stupid little accessories. It doesn't take much to turn a $225 game system into a $1000 purchase. The wii was very good at giving consumers the "oh ya I can afford that" feeling.

If they decide to jazz this thing up and make it HD, 3D and all the other D's it still needs that ultra-low price point. If they try to go for too much money here they could miss out on a lot of it. I think a lot of people feel burned by the wii. They spent money on it and it ended up getting dusty on a shelf somewhere. Nintendo is going to need a way to win those people back.

[The Yen Man]

I dunno, it should be a given that it's better than the 360 or the PS3, I mean, they're 5+ year old technology. It better be significantly better. How much better though, I'm not quite sure. And if it's not that much better, I might wait until the PS4 or the next 360 console.

Knowing me though, I'll probably eventually get all 3 consoles again once prices fall from their initial offering.

[mykalberta]

The first Wii missed the HD bandwagon, will this one be missing 3D?

Or you could say now that HD is at saturation it is the right time to come out with the console when its more affordable to produce it.

Nintendo has never been one to cater to the new video card every 6 months crowd.

My prediction is it will be slightly better than the PS3 but have another innovative technology that allows smart phone/ipad users to connect up and use their devices as controllers with an app produced by Nintendo.

[Flaming Choy]

Or you could say now that HD is at saturation it is the right time to come out with the console when its more affordable to produce it.

Nintendo has never been one to cater to the new video card every 6 months crowd.

My prediction is it will be slightly better than the PS3 but have another innovative technology that allows smart phone/ipad users to connect up and use their devices as controllers with an app produced by Nintendo.

I agree with what you're saying also. Nintendo argued that when Wii came out, HDTVs were not common enough for mass market (especially since Wii was catered to that market). I think now, they'll need to go after the traditional market (run with the wii in unison, Wii for casual, new console for traditional gamers). It also needs to be better than the PS3 or Xbox (but just barely, nothing groundbreaking to keep costs down, but also have a new hook), or else there is no reason to get it. New PS and Xbox apparently isn't out till 2014 so Nintendo will have 2 years of exclusive "next gen" time, so they can get new unique stuff while also getting ports of what PS3 and Xbox360 will be getting. Then in 2014 the big leap will come from Sony and Microsoft and the Nintendo console will fade.

The big things Nintendo's console would need if it is going after the traditional market is a real online system, and some storage system. Either in the conventional sense with harddrives or cloud based and to really support 3rd party exclusives. Nintendo has pretty much succeeded strictly on 1st party exclusive content, but they discourages 3rd party developers for allocating resources for Nintendo stuff since it won't sell.

[Mazrim]

I don't see why Nintendo needs to have super amazing graphics that blow everything out of the water. If the games are fun I'm not terribly concerned with them looking amazing. The best selling Wii games are the ones with cartoony graphics anyway (aside from stuff like Metroid Prime 3). Mario Galaxy 2 for example looks awesome, and it doesn't need a PS3 system to do that.

[JayP]

I dunno, it should be a given that it's better than the 360 or the PS3, I mean, they're 5+ year old technology. It better be significantly better. How much better though, I'm not quite sure. And if it's not that much better, I might wait until the PS4 or the next 360 console.

Knowing me though, I'll probably eventually get all 3 consoles again once prices fall from their initial offering.

It would be very surprising if it wasn't better, but I wouldn't expect a Xbox->360 or PS2->PS3 level jump.

And you'll be waiting years for the next Sony or Microsoft console if you do decide to wait. Both companies have stated many times they wanted a 10-year lifecycle from the consoles and that's still 4 years away. They clearly want to break the cycle of a new console every 5 or so years.

[Hack&Lube]

Nintendo is a little late to the party here, well 5 years late really.

The processor is similar to the 360's (3 core), the GPU is a bit better than the PS3 (I think the 360's is better though).


I'm not sure where you are getting this. You cannot compare processor architectures this way and the new Wii's GPU is based on the ATI R700 (ie: ATI 4000 series). That does baffle me as R700 is pretty much computing ancient history as it came out in 2008. I'm not sure why they didn't perhaps consider building something on AMD Fusion.

R700 however, is still newer and much more powerful than than the PS3's RSX (a weaker NVIDIA G70, 7800 series GPU) which is from 2005 and the Xbox 360's Xenos, (R500 derivative, similar to the ATI 1900 series) also from 2005.

If you bought the Alienware with the i7 2620QM and ATI 6970M, your laptop is on a magnitude of 5-10 faster than any console depending on if you are looking at CPU or GPU power.

Given that historically, Nintendo has been the only company that really profits on their consoles at a decent rate, I'm assuming they are going for a major budget build that will be extremely overpriced like the Wii is. Their margins on hardware for consoles and handhelds are very high. It's almost the opposite of the situation with Microsoft and Sony which lose money on their systems and focus on making money off games.

[3 Justin 3]

I'm not sure where you are getting this. You cannot compare processor architectures this way and the new Wii's GPU is based on the ATI R700. That does baffle me as R700 is pretty much computing ancient history as it came out in 2008. I'm not sure why they didn't perhaps consider building something on AMD Fusion.

R700 however, is still newer and much more powerful than than the PS3's RSX (a weaker NVIDIA G70, 7800 series GPU) which is from 2005 and the Xbox 360's Xenos, (R500 derivative, similar to the ATI 1900 series) also from 2005.

If you bought the Alienware with the i7 2620QM and ATI 6970M, your laptop is on a magnitude of 5-10 faster than any console depending on if you are looking at CPU or GPU power.

Given that historically, Nintendo has been the only company that really profits on their consoles at a decent rate, I'm assuming they are going for a major budget build that will be extremely overpriced like the Wii is. Their margins on hardware for consoles and handhelds are very high. It's almost the opposite of the situation with Microsoft and Sony which lose money on their systems and focus on making money off games.

I know I can't compare as they aren't similar at all really, just in "processing power". Really, it is only speculation any way.

The biggest thing I think is that they are pricing it at $300-400.

[GreenLantern]

I haven't bought a gaming console since Playstation 1... I bought a PS2 but it was years after the release.. played it a few times and haven't touched it since, not even sure where it is right now to be honest I think in a buddies garage somewhere..

I have tried all the latest console games I can't get on my computer and haven't been impressed. The only real plus for consoles is that I can sit there and play it with friends on the couch, where as Computer the only multi gaming I will get is via the internet.

But still I haven't seen a console in years that was worth my money, I am hoping this new gen of 3d gaming will change my mind.

[SebC]

But if the cost to include 3D abilities in the next Nintendo is as cheap as it is for TVs now, then it isn't such a big gamble to include it, I suppose.It isn't. Stereo 3D, whilst fairly simple to implement, requires a lot of extra computational power (essentially double, for a given resolution and framerate).

But still I haven't seen a console in years that was worth my money, I am hoping this new gen of 3d gaming will change my mind.3D on PC is many miles ahead of 3D on console, simply because many existing games work in 3D by default.

[Hack&Lube]

I too have never bought a console in about 10 years. The Dreamcast is the last one I've paid money for and I still own and dust it off from time to time. I have a PS1, PS2, and PS3 but they are ones I've rescued from people or from the trash (yep, PS3 was found in the trash). I did buy a few Wiis but that was for making money and they were sold off right away during the Christmas season craze.

You couldn't pay me to play games on a modern console, especially a shooter with a gamepad. I've actually feigned injury before to avoid playing Gears of War when the controller was passed to me. My laptop can plug into any HD TV and it's basically the same thing (except much more powerful) if I want couch gaming. I gotta pick up another wireless Xbox 360 controller for some games though (racing). I'm getting tired of my USB one and it sucks that we need analog sticks in so many games now, otherwise I'd still be using my USB Sega Saturn pad (kicks ass in Street Fighter IV).

[Blaster86]

You couldn't pay me to play games on a modern console,


I am shocked.

[3 Justin 3]

Why is everyone so fixated on 3D gaming or 3D movies?

Honest question.

For the next gen this is what you guys want? Laptops already do it for most games.

[SebC]

Why is everyone so fixated on 3D gaming or 3D movies?

Honest question.

For the next gen this is what you guys want? Laptops already do it for most games.Not sure what you're talking about. Virtually all laptops do not already do 3D, but I'm not even sure that's what you meant.

And 3D is sweet. It's a huge graphical leap, similar to colour. The immersion, especially for first person games, is so much greater. Haven't you previously said that they don't work for you? As in you don't see the depth? If that's correct, then how would you explain to someone who only sees in black and white why everyone is so fixated on colour?

[3 Justin 3]

I can get the 3D effect (like in Avatar and in most IMAX movies) but I just don't find it more engaging at all.

I think the 3DS has terrible 3D for most of the games (I'll wait and see if any proper games can utilize it though).

My main gripe is the glasses though, until they can develop tech that can make a 50" tv display 3D without wearing glasses, then I'll be fine with it. Until then, it is silly (my opinion any way, bash away).

[HeartsOfFire]

And not a single fata was given.

[SebC]

My main gripe is the glasses though, until they can develop tech that can make a 50" tv display 3D without wearing glasses, then I'll be fine with it. Until then, it is silly (my opinion any way, bash away).Phillips had a 42" commercially available a few years ago, but there was no content for it and it cost 20,000 pounds.

[bradster57]

I don't see why Nintendo needs to have super amazing graphics that blow everything out of the water. If the games are fun I'm not terribly concerned with them looking amazing. The best selling Wii games are the ones with cartoony graphics anyway (aside from stuff like Metroid Prime 3). Mario Galaxy 2 for example looks awesome, and it doesn't need a PS3 system to do that.

Well that goes back to the point that Nintendo isn't marketing to the hardcore gamer they are marketing to casual gamers. Casual gamers don't care about graphics, they care more about ease of use and how fun the game is.

[3 Justin 3]

Casual gamers only buy a game or two a year as well.

Most hardcore gamers buy way more than that. I have 50+ myself but I am by no means the average (maybe?).

Most $ is made by software sales, not hardware. Maybe Nintendo wants a share of that finally.