Nintendo president hints at exploring smartphone gaming support

[+InsaneNutter MVC]

nintendo needs to start making a serious console, that is competive to the xbone and ps4.  Yes, it will be more expensive than their standard.. but players are looking for the high-def, action, etc. I am sure 99% of xbone or ps4 players would buy a pokemon game on one of those console if nintendo were to also release games for those.

 

Pokemon, Mario Kart and Smash Bothers on my Xbox would be amazing, then again Sega went multi platform and the only game i ever remember enjoying since is Sonic Generations...

[firey]

Pokemon, Mario Kart and Smash Bothers on my Xbox would be amazing, then again Sega went multi platform and the only game i ever remember enjoying since is Sonic Generations...

 

It has to be done right though.  Can't just half ass it because it's a known series.

[technord]

They will most likely become another Sega

 

making games for PS4 / XBone / mobiles etc etc

[LaP]

Hello,

I disagree with those saying that the Nintendo phone is a bad idea.

Nintendo's first console (I believe, someone correct me if Im wrong) has a handheld. Why not revisit this?

 

 

 

Cause part of its profit will go to Apple or Microsoft since Nintendo wont control the store.

 

Going 3rd party would be the biggest mistake Nintendo could ever do. There's no money to be made there unless you are a big publisher like EA, Ubisoft or Activision. And Nintendo has never been a big publisher and probably never will. If it goes 3rd party it will suffer the same fate as Sega.

 

Nintendo should focus on core gaming like they used to and stop trying to reinvent the wheel.

[Lord Method Man]

 

 

Going 3rd party would be the biggest mistake Nintendo could ever do. There's no money to be made there unless you are a big publisher like EA, Ubisoft or Activision. And Nintendo has never been a big publisher and probably never will. If it goes 3rd party it will suffer the same fate as Sega.

 

 

 

Absolutely. People keep droning about Sega as though its the precedent Nintendo should follow. Really? Copy a strategy that essentially killed Sega and left them as a bottom-tier crapware developer releasing just like Sonic 06?

[LaP]

Absolutely. People keep droning about Sega as though its the precedent Nintendo should follow. Really? Copy a strategy that essentially killed Sega and left them as a bottom-tier crapware developer releasing just like Sonic 06?

 

And Nintendo right now is in a good spot. A good spot that will probably never going to happen again.

 

The PS4 and Xbox One aint that powerful and lot of money is wasted on media techs the core gaming crowd (i.e. not neowin) don't care all that much about. Features that are covered in many countries by cable set-top box. Features that will probably be covered by Smart TV soon enough. Even the best looking next gen games fail to impress all that much graphically. Nintendo could wait 3 years and cut the grass under Sony and MS foots with a more powerful console targeting the core gaming crowd with gaming only features to cut the price down (i.e. no kinect, no tv, etc). A partnership with AMD to  push Mantle would be a really good move.

 

Yes it would be a risky move as a failure would kill the company but better die trying that ... die anyway not trying at all.

 

BTW Sega IS dead for all intents and purposes ;)

[LimeMaster]

Cause part of its profit will go to Apple or Microsoft since Nintendo wont control the store.

 

Going 3rd party would be the biggest mistake Nintendo could ever do. There's no money to be made there unless you are a big publisher like EA, Ubisoft or Activision. And Nintendo has never been a big publisher and probably never will. If it goes 3rd party it will suffer the same fate as Sega.

 

Nintendo should focus on core gaming like they used to and stop trying to reinvent the wheel.

Well, considering Nintendo are considering targeting the smartphone means that they will probably eventually go multi-platform whether you like it or not. Also, since Sega became a third party developer their profits increased quite a bit, so it might not be a bad thing for Nintendo to do.  Perhaps Nintendo will go multi-platform, but will still support the 3DS. :)

[LaP]

Well, considering Nintendo are considering targeting the smartphone means that they will probably eventually go multi-platform whether you like it or not. Also, since Sega became a third party developer their profits increased dramatically, so it might not be a bad thing for Nintendo to do.  Perhaps Nintendo will go multi-platform, but will still support the 3DS. :)

 

Who cares if Sega's profits increased? (the answer is investors).

 

When is the last time you played a game made or published by Sega? I can't recall the last time i've seen the logo personally.

 

Anyway Sega is not a company anymore. It is a subsidiary of the merge between Sega and Sammy. From what i know (could be wrong) most of the money is made outside of the console market.

 

 

In late 1999, Sega Enterprises Chairman Isao Okawa spoke at an Okawa Foundation meeting, saying that Sega's focus in the future would shift from hardware to software, but adding that they were still fully behind the Dreamcast. On January 23, 2001, a story ran in Nihon Keizai Shimbun that said Sega was going to cease production of the Dreamcast and develop software for other platforms. After the initial denial, Sega Japan then put out a press release confirming they were considering producing software for PlayStation 2 and Game Boy Advance as part of their "New Management Policy". Then on January 31, 2001, Sega of America officially announced they were becoming a third-party software publisher.

 

By March 31, 2002, Sega had five consecutive fiscal years of net losses. To help with Sega's debt, CSK founder Isao Okawa, before his death in 2001, gave the company a $695.7 million private donation, and also talked to Microsoft about a sale or a merger with their Xbox division, but those talks failed. On February 13, 2003, Sega announced plans to merge with Sammy, but plans fell through. Discussions also took place with Namco, Bandai, Electronic Arts and again with Microsoft.

 

In August 2003, Sammy bought the outstanding 22% of shares that CSK had, and Sammy chairman Hajime Satomi became CEO of Sega. With the Sammy chairman at the helm of Sega, it has been stated that Sega's activity will focus on its profit-making arcade business rather than its loss-making home software development. In late December, Sega released Sonic Heroes selling over 2 million copies. It was the first multi-platform Sonic game, with identical versions on the Xbox, the PlayStation 2, and the GameCube.

 

During mid-2004, Sammy bought a controlling share in Sega Corporation at a cost of $1.1 billion, creating the new company Sega Sammy Holdings, one of the biggest game manufacturing companies in the world.

[LimeMaster]

Who cares if Sega's profits increased.

 

When is the last time you played a game made or published by Sega? I can't recall the last time i've seen the logo personally.

 

Anyway Sega is not a company anymore. It is a subsidiary of the merge between Sega and Sammy. From what i know (could be wrong) most of the money is made outside of the console market.

Whether that is the case, businesses have always been about profit, so it's unlikely that Nintendo will stick to their usual ways if their sales continue to drop.

[Bertch]

I would love to see them port DS / 3DS games over to smartphones.

[riahc3]

Hello,

Cause part of its profit will go to Apple or Microsoft since Nintendo wont control the store.

Im sorry if I missed something but what does Apple or Microsoft have to do with Nintendo's handheld console-phone and why wouldnt Nintendo control the store?

[CUBBYJR2005]

cant wait to see if they show anything of this at E3 2014

[theyarecomingforyou]

Nintendo's arrogance has finally come back to bite it. The Wii U was a console that nobody wanted or needed - hardware-wise it is at best on par with the X360 and PS3, while at the same time considerably more expensive and with a very limited catalogue of games. The inclusion of a half-baked tablet controller did nothing to improve the gaming experience and I don't see how Nintendo thought it was going to remain relevant for the next six years, especially given the rapid progress in the smartphone / tablet market.

 

It will take years for Nintendo to be able to reposition itself and release compelling titles on smartphones / tablets, time in which it will continue to lose money on the Wii U and face increasing competition in the handheld gaming market. Nintendo's games have always been its strength?its console offerings have been weak since the N64?and so it needs to dramatically expand the reach of its core brands. If the company hopes to remain relevant it will need to put out quality titles on the XB1 and PS4, even if that means acknowledging that the Wii U was a failure - sometimes you have to take a loss to avoid a bigger loss.

[gameboy1977]

I played Nintendo Wii U is best thing for me. It does remind me of old Nintendo gamecube that I played it. I will buy new Wii U in few months later...

[Blackhearted]

Nintendo's arrogance has finally come back to bite it. The Wii U was a console that nobody wanted or needed - hardware-wise it is at best on par with the X360 and PS3, while at the same time considerably more expensive and with a very limited catalogue of games. The inclusion of a half-baked tablet controller did nothing to improve the gaming experience and I don't see how Nintendo thought it was going to remain relevant for the next six years, especially given the rapid progress in the smartphone / tablet market.

 

It will take years for Nintendo to be able to reposition itself and release compelling titles on smartphones / tablets, time in which it will continue to lose money on the Wii U and face increasing competition in the handheld gaming market. Nintendo's games have always been its strength?its console offerings have been weak since the N64?and so it needs to dramatically expand the reach of its core brands. If the company hopes to remain relevant it will need to put out quality titles on the XB1 and PS4, even if that means acknowledging that the Wii U was a failure - sometimes you have to take a loss to avoid a bigger loss.

 

The wii u wasn't significantly more expensive than the 360/ps3. iirc, they(ps360) were still sitting at the same $300 you could pick a wii u up at launch and my ps3 wasn't any cheaper than a wii u when i picked it up last summer.

 

Also, i could be wrong but i get the feeling you've never used a wii u. As most peoples opinions on the console(and gamepad) change from how yours is once they actually try it.

[theyarecomingforyou]

The wii u wasn't significantly more expensive than the 360/ps3. iirc, they(ps360) were still sitting at the same $300 you could pick a wii u up at launch and my ps3 wasn't any cheaper than a wii u when i picked it up last summer.

The Wii U is currently ?229.99 on Amazon, while the Xbox 360 is ?129.99 and the PS3 is ?165. The price difference is significant considering that the Wii U offers no better visuals, no better performance and a drastically more limited games catalogue.

 

As for using it, no I haven't but then that's the same for most video games and hardware I purchase. Did you personally use the washing machine, fridge or dishwasher you currently have before purchasing them or did you read reviews and user feedback? The vast majority of those who pre-ordered the XB1 and PS4 never played them either yet they formed an opinion of the device through previews, reviews and forums. People simply aren't buying the Wii U.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

The Wii U is currently ?229.99 on Amazon, while the Xbox 360 is ?129.99 and the PS3 is ?165. The price difference is significant considering that the Wii U offers no better visuals, no better performance and a drastically more limited games catalogue.

 

If you're going to do a comparison, you need to be fair. You've picked the price of the Wii U Premium and compared it to the cheapest models of the 360 and PS3. On top of that, the Wii U Premium comes with a game included, has more storage and includes an HDMI cable in the box compared to the equivalent models. Plus, the Wii U is little over a year old while the other 2 are 8 and 7yo. Of course they're going to be cheaper, not just to produce, but to sell.

 

The Wii U's specs on paper is actually more powerful than the 360/PS3, so for all intents and purposes, there is nothing stopping developers from producing something better graphically on it. A limited catalogue is definitely the biggest issue, but that will soon begin to be remedied with first party support starting next month.

 

[theyarecomingforyou]

If you're going to do a comparison, you need to be fair. You've picked the price of the Wii U Premium and compared it to the cheapest models of the 360 and PS3. On top of that, the Wii U Premium comes with a game included, has more storage and includes an HDMI cable in the box compared to the equivalent models.

My comparison was more than fair. The Wii U Premium 32GB is ?229.99 on Amazon without any games; the Wii U 8GB Basic version actually costs more at ?259.99 and isn't available directly from Amazon. If you want to claim that a 99p HDMI cable adds more value to the Wii U then... well, I don't know what to say. As for storage, you can buy a Xbox 360 250GB for less than ?200 making that a much better purchase. For some the Wii U controller will make it a more attractive purchase, of course, but for many others it won't - personally I consider it a gimmick and would much prefer a standard controller.

 

Plus, the Wii U is little over a year old while the other 2 are 8 and 7yo. Of course they're going to be cheaper, not just to produce, but to sell.

That doesn't make any difference to the consumer - they just see the price.

 

The Wii U's specs on paper is actually more powerful than the 360/PS3, so for all intents and purposes, there is nothing stopping developers from producing something better graphically on it.

That's not true, as the improved GPU performance is held back by a much slower processor. Developers have widely criticised the Wii U. In fact many crossplatform titles perform worse on the Wii U, like Batman: Arkham City and Call Of Duty: Ghosts.

[Blackhearted]

That's not true, as the improved GPU performance is held back by a much slower processor. Developers have widely criticised the Wii U. In fact many crossplatform titles perform worse on the Wii U, like Batman: Arkham City and Call Of Duty: Ghosts.

 

Many of the wii u versions of the multiplatform titles also didn't have anywhere near the same amount of effort put into them as the ps3/360 versions did. For an example of what can happen when a dev does more than just get it running and ship it, look at NFS:MW U. It met and even somewhat exceeded its console competition.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

My comparison was more than fair. The Wii U Premium 32GB is ?229.99 on Amazon without any games; the Wii U 8GB Basic version actually costs more at ?259.99 and isn't available directly from Amazon. If you want to claim that a 99p HDMI cable adds more value to the Wii U then... well, I don't know what to say. As for storage, you can buy a Xbox 360 250GB for less than ?200 making that a much better purchase. For some the Wii U controller will make it a more attractive purchase, of course, but for many others it won't - personally I consider it a gimmick and would much prefer a standard controller.

 

You are completely ignoring facts which I've already pointed out. The Wii U Premium does come with a game: NintendoLand. On top of that, many of the new Premium bundles have replaced NintendoLand with NSMB Wii U + Luigi U or Zelda WW HD at the same price.

 

In your first post, you quoted the price of the cheapest 360 and PS3 models:

 

 

The Wii U is currently ?229.99 on Amazon, while the Xbox 360 is ?129.99 and the PS3 is ?165.

 

 

My point is, you cannot argue the basic versions of one and then blemish facts by using the most expensive Premium version of the competitor. Either like for like, or don't compare at all.

 

As for the Basic bundle, although denied by Nintendo, it has pretty much been removed from market. Meaning any stock that does exist on the internet will have outdated prices/listings if they have stock. The RRP of the Premium has fallen to the point where it replaces the Basic for most retailers.

 

And yes I am claiming that including an HDMI cable in the box is adding value. Doesn't matter if it costs 99p or ?99, at least it is included. If only they'd done the same with the 3DS charger in EU, but that's another topic.

 

 

That doesn't make any difference to the consumer - they just see the price.

 

Of course it matters, because by the end of this year the releases are going to dry up for both. You have an existing library and anything from here on is going to be released on new consoles only. Whether the consumer wants to look at it that way or not is completely up to them. The point is that hardware which is almost 10 years old is going to be cheaper to produce. There is just no getting around that. Retailers can offer larger cuts on both the PS3/360 due to their refund margins and because the costs of the new consoles eat it up.

 

 

That's not true, as the improved GPU performance is held back by a much slower processor. Developers have widely criticised the Wii U. In fact many crossplatform titles perform worse on the Wii U, like Batman: Arkham City and Call Of Duty: Ghosts.

 

It may not be true for some developers when they don't put the effort in. Using Activision / IW / Treyarch is not helping your case. Neither is EA who will port games with an updated front cover and call it new. The specs are on paper more powerful.

 

I'm not saying that the 360 250 GB or PS3 500 GB is bad value. Of course it is, and it's only going to get cheaper over the next 2 years. But if you're going to compare then don't try swindle facts to suit your argument.

[Veiva]

My comparison was more than fair. The Wii U Premium 32GB is ?229.99 on Amazon without any games; the Wii U 8GB Basic version actually costs more at ?259.99 and isn't available directly from Amazon. If you want to claim that a 99p HDMI cable adds more value to the Wii U then... well, I don't know what to say. As for storage, you can buy a Xbox 360 250GB for less than ?200 making that a much better purchase. For some the Wii U controller will make it a more attractive purchase, of course, but for many others it won't - personally I consider it a gimmick and would much prefer a standard controller.

That doesn't make any difference to the consumer - they just see the price.

 

 

That's not true, as the improved GPU performance is held back by a much slower processor. Developers have widely criticised the Wii U. In fact many crossplatform titles perform worse on the Wii U, like Batman: Arkham City and Call Of Duty: Ghosts.

 

To be fair, most people, especially those interested in purchasing a Wii U, buy them from brick and mortar stores (e.g., in the US: GameStop, Wal-Mart, etc), not Amazon. Those stores still have the Wii U basic package (something like $240 USD).

As well, I understand the point about the price, but Nintendo is not a company that can absorb the costs of hardware with their other products because they have none. The Wii U was losing Nintendo money before, with the cost of one game bringing them into the green.

And as far as the Wii U's processor is concerned, yes it may be slightly weaker than the prior generation, but that's an unfair point considering Nintendo has not been the market leader in performance recently. The Wii's processor was terrible, and it was a success.

I would like to point out that the Wii U may be (much) weaker than the competition (Xbox One, PS4), but this does not mean it can't produce gorgeous games. Wind Waker HD is beautiful, albeit it's a port. Just because it has a heaping of artistic stylization doesn't mean it's a crappy looking piece of work. Then there's games like Super Mario 3D World, which although are by no means pushing the boundaries, still have their charm.

And as far as the devs are concerned, they're unwilling to make changes to their engines, which are optimized for the prior generation and the competition. All it'll take is for Nintendo to release a blockbuster game (graphically speaking) to show off the Wii U's power. Something along the lines of the Legend of Zelda tech demo at E3.

Nintendo has screwed up with the development of the Wii U, but it's not because of the console itself. No, rather, it's the lack of marketing, perhaps even the naming, and the lack of first-party titles (and the lack of push for third-party ones, especially exclusives). The console is a great piece of hardware. It's just not being utilized/marketed properly.

[theyarecomingforyou]

You are completely ignoring facts which I've already pointed out. The Wii U Premium does come with a game: NintendoLand.

Fine, but that's irrelevant given that there is no cheaper option that exists without it.

 

On top of that, many of the new Premium bundles have replaced NintendoLand with NSMB Wii U + Luigi U or Zelda WW HD at the same price.

Not on Amazon, while other places, like Asda, charge more for the bundle (?249).

 

In your first post, you quoted the price of the cheapest 360 and PS3 models

 

My point is, you cannot argue the basic versions of one and then blemish facts by using the most expensive Premium version of the competitor. Either like for like, or don't compare at all.

I was comparing like-for-like: I was comparing the cheapest SKU of each available console, the entry level model. The 8GB version of the Wii U isn't available anymore or is more expensive so it is irrelevant to the discussion. So let's pick the 250GB version of the Xbox 360 with 6 games thrown in - that's less than the Wii U and includes way more games and way more storage. Pick whatever arbitrary rules you want but the X360 still works out cheaper, which was the point I was making.

 

As for the Basic bundle, although denied by Nintendo, it has pretty much been removed from market. Meaning any stock that does exist on the internet will have outdated prices/listings if they have stock. The RRP of the Premium has fallen to the point where it replaces the Basic for most retailers.

Exactly, hence why I used it in the comparison.  :huh:

 

And yes I am claiming that including an HDMI cable in the box is adding value. Doesn't matter if it costs 99p or ?99, at least it is included.

And my point was that it's irrelevant if it's cheaper to buy a X360 or PS3 and buy a HDMI cable separately. Including a HDMI cable doesn't make up for the price difference.

 

Of course it matters, because by the end of this year the releases are going to dry up for both. You have an existing library and anything from here on is going to be released on new consoles only. Whether the consumer wants to look at it that way or not is completely up to them. The point is that hardware which is almost 10 years old is going to be cheaper to produce. There is just no getting around that.

At this rate the Wii U won't have any better shelf-life of games, nor will it ever have the selection available on the X360 or PS3. Many high profile publishers have already abandoned the platform. And again, it doesn't matter how much it costs Nintendo to manufacture or advertise the Wii U - what matters is the price that consumers have to pay. Clearly consumers have decided the Wii U isn't worth buying.

 

It may not be true for some developers when they don't put the effort in. Using Activision / IW / Treyarch is not helping your case. Neither is EA who will port games with an updated front cover and call it new. The specs are on paper more powerful.

The specs aren't more powerful, as I stated. Developers have stated that the CPU is a major bottleneck and many have openly criticised the platform. And it really doesn't matter how powerful a console is theoretically if games perform no better or worse, whether that's because of hardware bottlenecks or poor quality ports.

 

I'm not saying that the 360 250 GB or PS3 500 GB is bad value. Of course it is, and it's only going to get cheaper over the next 2 years. But if you're going to compare then don't try swindle facts to suit your argument.

I strongly reject the assertion I was trying to "swindle" anyone. I was simply comparing the cheapest SKU of each console, which proves that the Wii U is more expensive than the X360 and PS3; it also has a more limited games catalogue. Both are observable facts. What exactly is it that you find contentious about what I'm saying?  :huh:

[0sit0]

I wouldn't mind playing Mario on my iPhone or Xbox. Do it Nintento!

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Fine, but that's irrelevant given that there is no cheaper option that exists without it.

It's not irrelevant. The console costs more because it includes extras, which is what I've been trying to explain to you.

Not on Amazon, while other places, like Asda, charge more for the bundle (?249).

Yup, the Zelda bundle includes a LE console as well as the game so it will cost a little extra, but there are various options available and have been since the launch. Again, my point is the premium bundle includes a game. Always has done.

I was comparing like-for-like: I was comparing the cheapest SKU of each available console, the entry level model. The 8GB version of the Wii U isn't available anymore or is more expensive so it is irrelevant to the discussion. So let's pick the 250GB version of the Xbox 360 with 6 games thrown in - that's less than the Wii U and includes way more games and way more storage. Pick whatever arbitrary rules you want but the X360 still works out cheaper, which was the point I was making.

If that's how you want to justify it then fine. You're comparing like for like price tags, not contents of the box which is what I'm stating. The Premium Wii U's counter part would be the "premium" version of the 360/PS3. As for the 6 game bundle, that is a retailer specific bundle, not an official bundle so largely irrelevant to the discussion. I've been describing to you a bundle with extras included in the box by Nintendo. That is why the price tag is higher than the 360/PS3 as well as it being newer hardware. It has more storage, a game and charging dock included.

Exactly, hence why I used it in the comparison. :huh:

Well until they officially announce anything the Wii U Basic is still in production. Some retailers have chosen not to restock the console and instead picked the Premium version only. It's still available, but in a limited quantity.

And my point was that it's irrelevant if it's cheaper to buy a X360 or PS3 and buy a HDMI cable separately. Including a HDMI cable doesn't make up for the price difference.

We're clearly not going to see eye to eye on this, but if it's so cheap to include one you'd think both MS and Sony would do so...GG Nintendo for being first to do so :)

At this rate the Wii U won't have any better shelf-life of games, nor will it ever have the selection available on the X360 or PS3. Many high profile publishers have already abandoned the platform. And again, it doesn't matter how much it costs Nintendo to manufacture or advertise the Wii U - what matters is the price that consumers have to pay. Clearly consumers have decided the Wii U isn't worth buying.

Now you're just venturing into trolling territory. There is a lot of games on the horizon for the Wii U from Nintendo and more to be announced. They may not be what you're interested in but that doesn't make them any less important. Yes a lot of third parties have limited support. That's nothing new and has been an issue for them since the N64. A lot of work needs to be done to strengthen their partner support, nobody is denying it. As for price/worth it, I suggest you take a look at the recent Japanese hardware numbers.

The specs aren't more powerful, as I stated. Developers have stated that the CPU is a major bottleneck and many have openly criticised the platform. And it really doesn't matter how powerful a console is theoretically if games perform no better or worse, whether that's because of hardware bottlenecks or poor quality ports.

Again, we're not going to agree it seems. I've already stated developers have said the console is more powerful than 360/PS3. Are all of them going to agree? Probably not. Does it really matter? No. The console is HD and displaying 1080p. That's more than the 360/PS3 AAA games could do.

I strongly reject the assertion I was trying to "swindle" anyone. I was simply comparing the cheapest SKU of each console, which proves that the Wii U is more expensive than the X360 and PS3; it also has a more limited games catalogue. Both are observable facts. What exactly is it that you find contentious about what I'm saying? :huh:

Because you said one thing then back tracked when I pointed out you were uninformed about what you were saying (games included in box etc). I've never argued that the Wii U is cheaper. I said its more expensive than what you're comparing it to because you're strangely comparing products almost 10 years old which don't have like for like contents in the box.

[Nashy]

Just make a console to compete with those two, and make it worth buying.  The name alone can sell.